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)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2801 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Heart surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Harcourt –– 2802

Suicide of mental health patients. Mr. Harcourt –– 2803

Funding for ministers of state. Mr. Williams –– 2803

Privatization of textbook branch. Mr. Jones –– 2803

Ms. Edwards

Ministerial Statements

Mental health consultation report. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 2804

Mrs. Boone

Commissioner Douglas McKay. Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2805

Mr. Lovick

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 63). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 2806

Mr. Lovick –– 2808

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2810

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2811

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 62). Second reading

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2812

Mr. Skelly –– 2813

Mr. Sihota –– 2815

Mr. Lovick –– 2815

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 2816

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

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2817

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Jones

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Dirks

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is indeed a great honour and a

pleasure for me to welcome Rick Hansen, his lovely wife Amanda and his

sister Christine to the Legislature this afternoon. Rick Hansen is an

inspiration to us all. Through his Man in Motion tour, Rick showed us

what determination and hard work can accomplish.

Rick left Vancouver on March 19, 1985 with two objectives: to raise

public awareness of the needs and potential of disabled people, and to

raise funds for spinal cord research and rehabilitation. Forty thousand

kilometres and 34 countries later, he achieved those objectives, and in

the process became a living symbol of what individuals can accomplish

when they are determined and prepared to make sacrifices. He made us

all think about what it means to give our best, to reach for the stars,

to stretch ourselves both physically and mentally. With him we shared

the dream — a dream that has come true. To date, I understand that the

Man in Motion tour has raised over $20 million — a phenomenal

accomplishment.

I would like to take this opportunity to note two recent events that

have taken place in Rick's life and to extend hearty congratulations:

first and most important, his recent marriage to Amanda Reid; and

second, his appointment as commissioner general of the Canadian

pavilion at Expo 88 in Brisbane, Australia. I know that Rick will do an

outstanding job of representing both British Columbia and Canada, and

he is a most appropriate choice. Rick is known worldwide for his

accomplishments and will be an excellent ambassador for us all. I would

ask all members of the House to extend a very warm greeting to Rick

Hansen, his wife Amanda and his sister Christine.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to reiterate the words of the

Premier in welcoming Rick, Amanda and Christine. As the mayor of

Vancouver it was a great honour, Rick, to help the slow, modest start

that built into, indeed, a miracle. We're all very proud, and on behalf

of the New Democrats I'd like to express that. I'd also like to say to

Rick and Amanda that I hope you enjoy that gorgeous wooden bowl carved

by Beau Dick that I presented to the two of you from the New Democrat

caucus at your recent wedding. Congratulations to the two of you; and

in your new assignment, g'day.

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

the House to give a warm welcome this afternoon to Mr. John Catchpole.

John is a business acquaintance of our Speaker and comes from West

Vancouver. Would you all welcome him, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You'll all notice in the rotunda a very large new

addition. It's nine metres, or 30 feet, tall. It's a new Christmas tree,

and it comes from the East Kootenays, from the land of Len Lancaster, who has

a place — and if you'll forgive the pronunciation — near Lake Koocanusa

in the East Kootenays. The presenter of the tree is Mr. Michael Fleming of Woodstock

Evergreens Inc. He's here in the gallery today, and I would ask you to give

a great welcome on behalf of British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: I know the House will join me in congratulating

Notre Dame high school in my constituency for winning the B.C. high

school football championship last night. I know the Premier will be

especially interested in congratulating them, because the team they

beat was Richmond.

MR. MICHAEL: I would ask the House to make welcome a special guest from my constituency, Mrs. Oona McKinstry from Revelstoke.

MR. SIHOTA: We have just heard about two high schools in this

province, but I want to say to all members of the House that the only

high school that rates is Esquimalt secondary school, and joining us in

the gallery today are a number of Grade 11 students along with their

teacher, Mr. Kowlyk. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[2:15]

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today I have three

friends, one of them being my wife. The others are two of our very

close friends, Miguelle and Luke Raffin. Luke is an artist in Powell

River. In the art gallery in Victoria there is a show opening on B.C.

wildlife. His exhibit is on display there, if anybody gets a chance to

see it. I think we'll all make him welcome here in Victoria.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome two dear

friends of mine from the constituency of Nanaimo. The first is my

constituency assistant, Miss Susan Vanlerberg; the other is the

secretary of the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, in

Nanaimo, Mr. Bob Chow. Please join me in welcoming them, if you will.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery above me today is

Alderman Gary Begin. I'd ask the House to make him welcome. He's the

former chairman of the B.C. School Trustees' Association and was

recently elected for his second term as alderman in the municipality of

Burnaby.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome Alderman

Begin to the House today. Gary and I served for a number of years on

the Burnaby School Board and he certainly earned distinction in his

leadership role as president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association,

as I'm sure the Premier will well remember. Welcome, Gary.

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

special welcome today to Mr. Stan Pukesh from Port Coquitlam. chairman

of the library task force on new approaches that has just completed

meetings around the province. I'd ask the House to give him a special

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) rose on a matter of privilege

relating to statements made in this House by the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck) during question period on Tuesday last concerning a

letter from Dr. T.S. Wong, chief of staff of Surrey Memorial Hospital.

First, I wish to thank the hon. member for her courtesy in advising

the Chair of her intention to raise this matter. The hon. member has

raised this matter at the earliest opportunity and has filed a letter

dated November 24, 1987 addressed to

[ Page 2802 ]

Mr. Brian Copley and signed by Dr. T.S. Wong. Page

3 of the said letter indicates that a copy of the letter was sent to

the hon. Minister of Health.

I have examined the official report of the debates of this assembly

for Tuesday, December 1, 1987 at page 2780, which makes it abundantly

clear that during oral question period the hon. member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley raised a question concerning this same letter

to which the hon. Minister of Health replied, in part: "I have not had

a letter from that particular doctor."

Hon. members might well speculate as to whether or not a copy was

ever mailed to the hon. minister, as page 3 of the letter purports to

indicate. We might speculate as to whether or not after it was mailed

the Canada postal system carried it with its usual dispatch to the

addressee. We might also speculate as to whether or not the letter,

having been received at the minister's office, has been brought forward

for his consideration on the date in question, to wit December 1, 1987.

All of this speculation is quite unnecessary in the face of the

minister's clear statement as recorded in the official record of the

debates: "I have not had a letter from that particular doctor." In this

House, as in all parliamentary democracies, one hon. member's statement

is accepted by all other hon. members in the absence of

incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There is no such evidence in

possession of the Chair today. Accordingly, the matter raised by the

member falls squarely into the category of a case where there is a

simple dispute as to the facts. There are numerous decisions on similar

facts contained in our Journal s, and I refer the hon. member to the Journals of this House, 1982, pages 12, 34, 55 and 132, to Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 12, and to Parliamentarv Practice in British Columbia , second edition, page 244.

Let me make one further observation for the guidance of all members.

It is inevitable by the very nature of the debates in this House that

countless disputes as to the facts will arise from time to time. It

would be unfortunate if, in each of these instances, an attempt was

made to routinely convert those disagreements into a charge of

misleading the House. Matters of privilege which involve a charge of a

member misleading this House are not to be embarked upon lightly, and I

would ask all hon. members to consider the seriousness of such a charge

before bringing it forward as a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

HEART SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier.

In his speech to the House on Monday, the Premier made mention of it

taking 11 to 15 minutes to dispatch an ambulance for a young child in

this province.

Ted Vanderberg has been waiting 18 months for heart surgery. He's

now clinging to life in Surrey Memorial Hospital. Today there are 400

British Columbians awaiting heart surgery, and 40 of them will die

before they get to surgery. Will the Premier tell the House why Ted

Vanderberg and hundreds of other British Columbians cannot get the

vital health care they need?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't argue with the

time it takes an ambulance to travel from the dispatch centre to

wherever it's been called. I think my statements then were more taking

exception to the response given by the dispatcher, and that has since

been explained. Certainly I hope that may be the end of it.

As for the balance of the question, which is certainly the meat of it, I will defer to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this by the report in the Province .

I phoned the doctor in question this morning because I was concerned.

When someone is waiting in hospital for an operation, or when anyone is

ill, it is of concern to everyone in this House and certainly to me. I

spoke with the doctor this morning, Mr. Speaker, and he told me that

there would be no guarantee that this person would not have had the

stroke had he had an operation; no guarantee that he would live any

longer. As a matter of fact, he says heart surgery does not prolong a

person's life, but it certainly gives him a better life. I believe

there are cases, and many doctors have said the same thing, where

people in fact have lived longer. There are cases that have died on the

operating table.

I've got another report from another doctor, and the headline is:

"Bypass Operations 'Status Symbol' — Doctor." It says: "Bypass heart

surgery, which is unnecessary in some cases, has become a trendy status

symbol, thus artificially swelled waiting-lists for heart operations, a

Kamloops physician said Monday." He goes on to say that he recently

talked to doctors in the lower mainland, and the situation is not as

serious as reported. He goes on to say: "'There are 5,000 other

diseases. We can't utilize all resources for heart patients at the

expense of people who can't see because they need cataract surgery, or

people who can't walk because they need an artificial hip."'

He goes on to say: "'Bypass surgery was originally for people who

couldn't be treated with medication. The procedure is not there for

everyone that has heart disease. You can't convince some people that a

bypass is not going to be the start of a new life."'

What I'm trying to say is that I am concerned about the situation of

people waiting for heart surgery. There are many people in need of

serious consideration because of their health, and we're doing the best

we can under the circumstances.

I want to also mention that moneys were allocated for 2,200

open-heart surgery cases. The hospitals have done exactly 1,700 in a

12-month period; that's 500 short. Mind you, they used that money in

other areas that were very necessary, I'm sure. At the beginning of the

year, in my estimates, it was pointed out that we would probably have

2,200 heart conditions that needed open-heart surgery, and the moneys

were allocated for that purpose –– I am not blaming the hospitals; I'm

just saying that was the forecast in the estimates, and we did do that.

I'd like to tell the members opposite that we are doing everything

possible under the circumstances with the resources available.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't think that Mr. Vanderberg and his wife

think it's a trendy operation or cosmetic surgery. We don't expect the

minister to phone every time there's a newspaper report. Open up some

more operating rooms and let those people live, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 2803 ]

SUICIDE OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Minister, I have another question for you.

If you won't deal with people who are critically ill, how about two

deaths? Is that good enough? We've had two psychiatric patients....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, I am fearful of this government. You're right. And so are the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in the last two weeks in Victoria we've had two

psychiatric patients turned away from the emergency wards of the

hospitals, and they've committed suicide. Is the minister going to

finally admit that there's a crisis in the mental health care system in

this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the question was

asked whether I had a concern, or whether the Vanderbergs had a concern

because they did not get open-heart surgery. Of course. I cannot deny

that people in that situation would not have a concern. However, it is

not I who makes the decision whether that person should have open-heart

surgery, but in fact the cardiac surgeon in charge. When he feels that

it is not an emergent case, he may take others instead. They also make

a judgment call; many times they make an error.

About these two psychiatric patients who committed suicide, in

retrospect, yes, I can believe that perhaps another action should have

been taken. I am not the physician. I do not make those judgment calls;

the physician does. If he says medication would do the job and sends

the individual home, that is the physician's responsibility, not mine.

Had he thought it was an emergent case, he would have admitted him to

the hospital.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, that surgeon had

five minutes to make that assessment. Your emergency wards are

overcrowded. They don't have the ability to make that judgment; that's

part of the crisis. You're the minister. Don't put it on the backs of a

surgeon who's overworked, who has to make a judgment call in five

minutes.

I'll repeat my question; the minister didn't hear it. Are you

finally going to acknowledge that we have a crisis in mental health

care in this province, Mr. Minister? Yes or no.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate what I said

before: that any emergent cases are looked after. That we perhaps have

a shortage of space in emergency departments is true. I should also say

that since we were forced to eliminate the user fee, the emergency

department went up 25 percent. That is part of the cause; that's part

of the reason we have such a shortage of beds or such a shortage of

space in emergency departments. This is absolutely a fact. I would like

more money. I can tell you right now, I could have a billion dollars

extra and could use it all, because it's an endless pit that you can

put money into, because it's used up as fast as you can get it. We must

remember that I consume one-third of the total budget, and when you see

the delivery of health service we're giving in British Columbia, you

cannot sit on that side of the House and tell me we're not delivering a

good health care service. You're absolutely wrong.

FUNDING FOR MINISTERS OF STATE

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to one of the eight new

millionaires here in the Legislature, the minister of state for the

southwest region: by what authority do you call yourself a minister of

state?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know the hon. member hasn't spent much

time in this House and is not really acquainted with parliamentary

matters, but if he would care to do a little research, he would find

that it's a common term used for policy ministers throughout the

Commonwealth, certainly in the Mother of Parliaments in Britain. That's

just for his edification. He may want to check that out — he may not

care.

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the question because we've had no legislation. Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister of state for the southwest region of British

Columbia advise us how much he has already spent on the Grey Cup party,

on staff, on travel and on loans?

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to be fair, I think that's more a

question for the order paper. I think the member could probably

rephrase the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Under what guidelines, Mr. Minister of State, do you operate for spending?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member would check — and he's

been around here for a long time.... I don't use the same guidelines he

operated under when he was a minister, I can assure you of that. This

government — each and every ministry, each and every expenditure —

operates under Treasury Board guidelines, the same as for everything

else that's done in this House. If the hon. member wishes to take the

time to check the appropriate authorities, he'll find that that is in

fact being done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister confirm that matters under

$50,000 do not get referred; that they are within his own discretion:

that indeed, these are eight new millionaires? It looks better than

Lotto 6/49.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would confirm what the hon. member ought —

I underscore "ought" — to already know: contracts under $50,000 are not

normally referred; nor were they referred during the time he was a

minister at the Treasury Board.

PRIVATIZATION OF TEXTBOOK BRANCH

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Education,

regarding the privatization of the publication services branch. This

textbook branch of his ministry was told over a month ago that they

were to be targeted for privatization or decentralization. The minister

knows that bulk purchase in the textbook branch saves the taxpayers of

this province between 10 and 40 percent of the budget of that branch.

Can the minister tell us what studies have been undertaken to show that

privatization or decentralization of this branch is going to save

taxpayers money9

[ Page 2804 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we have looked at the Ontario system,

which operates through a decentralized ordering system, and at their

average cost per pupil for supplied textbooks in the province as well

as the cost of the textbooks to those people. I might point out that

the rest of it is an ongoing study, despite the conclusion by some

people as to just what the benefits and costs might well be.

MR. JONES: I think the minister knows that there is no cost

benefit analysis done for this province, and if he has such a study I

would like to ask the minister to either table such a study that shows

that it will be economical to decentralize that program or back off

this wild scheme that is not in the best interests of the taxpayers of

this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would be of some help if the member

would listen. I said that there is an ongoing study — right now — in

discussions with the school boards, with the school districts....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, there are discussions going on between

my staff members and secretary-treasurers, district superintendents,

boards. A lot more looking has to be done. I did not say there was a

cost benefit analysis done. I'm saying that it's in the process and

that we are looking at it and at seeing if it can be done.

We know that there has been a fairly good response from the school

districts in terms of the flexibility they feel they might have, but

they raise some of the concerns that the member has and that have been

raised in the press. They raised those concerns; we're looking at them;

we're studying; we're analyzing them to see whether they are legitimate

or not.

Just because a proposal is made and concerns are raised and we are

dealing with the matter in trying to come up with the information, I

have some difficulty with the member jumping to conclusions that are

fed to him by certain media people and assuming that he has some

knowledge already that doesn't exist.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the Minister of Education.

Decentralization of textbook purchasing in Ontario in the sixties led

to a practical impossibility of getting Canadian textbooks into schools

because of the flight of educational publishing to the United States.

Does the minister consider access to Canadian and B.C. materials for

the children in our schools to be important enough to justify retaining

the textbook branch even if it means continuing a public service to our

families?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know where the member gets the

information. In all provinces there are some textbooks that are

received from United States publishers. There are quite a few textbooks

that are received from Canadian publishers as well. And there is quite

a bit of material in the schools from British Columbia publishers. I

don't know why the member jumps to the conclusion that if there is some

change in how you distribute textbooks, that suddenly prevents any of

the existing Canadian or British Columbia publishers from being part of

that. To say "Are you prepared to abandon this?" on the say-so of that

member, rather than waiting for the information that I'm looking

for.... The answer is no.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH CONSULTATION REPORT

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a

ministerial statement. There has been much controversy about the mental

health consultation report, and I felt it was only proper that I make a

statement in that regard.

The mental health consultation report prepared by my ministry

represents two years of intensive consultation and thousands of

submissions. This was a consultative planning process. It is known as

the "Mental Health Consultation Report," and it is a draft plan to

replace Riverview Hospital.

The document that resulted from this lengthy and costly process

known as the "Mental Health Consultation Report" also represents the

views of several organizations and institutions. It should be

emphasized in no uncertain terms that the contents of the report are

not reflective of the private thinking of ministry officials, nor are

they coloured or tainted by political considerations or narrow

interests.

The report is a valuable compilation of strongly held and supported

views and opinions of those most qualified to provide them. These

include the service providers such as the B.C. Medical Association;

advocacy agencies such as the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental

Health Association; consumers themselves — that is, former patients;

the Registered Psychiatric Nurses' Association; families and friends;

and, most importantly in any democratic society, an informed and

concerned public. I could go on with the many others who provided

valuable input: the B.C. Health Association, Friends of Schizophrenics

of British Columbia and so on.

In the past week our report has drawn 87 letters in response. I

should point out that all these binders here are from the first report.

Then we sent it back to the ones who responded with submissions, and we

got 87 letters back from those respondents saying that we were on the

right track. They agree practically 100 percent with what the plan

recommends. I should point out that we have not yet reviewed it nor

have I taken it to cabinet. They expressed their approval and support —

some of them with valid concerns and reservations, but overall an

overwhelming vote of support for a more decentralized mental health

care system.

Therefore it seems conflicting that the B.C. Government Employees'

Union, in aligning themselves with the opposition in the House, at

first prefaced their official response with a statement supporting the

concept of community living for most psychiatric patients, then

publicly attacked this concept.

If the House would allow me, I would like to read some excerpts of

some of these responses. The B.C. Health Association said: "The

association supports the concepts of decentralizing mental health

services as closely as possible to the client's family and home

community and generally agrees with the overall thrust of the report."

Vancouver Interagency Mental Health Council: "The overwhelming

consensus is that the plan offers a vision of mental health services in

this province that will leave us second to none in the treatment and

care of the psychiatrically disabled."

[ Page 2805 ]

A letter signed by 60 individual consumers — i.e., former patients

of Riverview and elsewhere — said: "The trend of decentralizing

treatment facilities and therefore moving from highly segregated

hospitalization into one's own community and into locally provided

treatment, residential and social-vocational programs is exciting.

Being near family and friends is an essential source of support and

encouragement for us and one that for many is unavailable when

hospitalized at Riverview. It is often too far for relatives and

friends to travel for a visit."

A group of six psychiatrists from the interior of B.C. said: "We

look forward to working with all parties involved toward the eventual

replacement of Riverview and the regionalization of mental health

services in our ongoing pursuit of excellence in psychiatric care."

BCGEU said in their written submission: "We agree that community

residential facilities are appropriate for most psychiatric patients,

with some reservations and some provisions to be taken into

consideration," and we will do that.

The Canadian Mental Health Association said: "We have agreed to support you in this initiative in any way we can."

CMHA, B.C. division, Kelowna chapter, said: "It would be a great

achievement to accomplish this change from institution to well-designed

community living without the mentally ill being shortchanged."

Other responses indicate to us that there was considerable debate

over certain details. That is, while accepting the principle of

decentralization, along with our recommendations as to implementation,

there is understandable concern as to the mechanics of implementation.

Here it should be emphasized that the ultimate replacement of Riverview

should not in any way be regarded as a vehicle for addressing other

community service delivery systems. These remain separate to the

decentralization process. However, the replacement services will allow

us to strengthen our commitment to community demands.

Our report outlines a draft plan to replace Riverview Hospital over

the next five years with a comprehensive range of in-patient and

out-patient residential care and community support services

decentralized throughout the province and closer to the homes of

patients, their families and friends. It is unfortunate that the large

effort and investment of time and human talent in reaching what is

nothing more or less than a broad public consensus has resulted in such

misrepresentation and distortion of the facts.

In conclusion, I state that the final phase of the mental health

consultation process is now complete. The responses to the report have

been broadly supported, with many helpful opinions and ideas having

come from all areas of the province. Ministry staff have now commenced

a detailed analysis of these responses and will prepare a final plan

for approval by me, as minister, and cabinet as soon as possible. Thank

you very much.

MRS. BOONE: I regret that the minister didn't give me advance

notice of this or provide me with a copy of this ministerial statement,

as it is rather a lengthy one, but I'll do my best to respond to it.

You talk about misrepresentation. We on the New Democratic side

believe, in addition to everybody else out there, that the report that

has been developed is a good report. It has many recommendations that

are sound and valuable. However — and this is the point that we're

making — the services that are out there right now are sadly lacking.

We do not have the support systems in any of our communities. We do not

have the support systems in our mental health services. We do not have

the personnel out there. We do not have the transportation out there.

We do not have the housing out there. We do not have trained and

qualified personnel to deal with the problems that we have right now.

What we are saying, Mr. Minister, is that before any part of this

report is implemented, before any more doors are closed on the people

that we have, we want to see this province clean up its act with regard

to the problems that we have. And we do have problems out there. We

have problems in Prince George, in Vernon, in any part of this area

that you want. We have problems in the downtown east side. We have

problems in the mental health services in this province.

[2:45]

Before you start to implement any type of decentralization process,

any type at all, we are saying we want to see our communities up to

scruff. We want to see everything available there. We want to see in

place services for the people that we have, not for what we're going to

have. And we don't see that happening out there right now.

Once those are in place, then by all means, we will fully support

the implementation of this report. Until such time, Mr. Minister, we

believe you must adamantly oppose any decentralization. any closure of

those beds, any move to get things out. You've lot to clean up the act

that you've got out there and you're not doing it right now.

Ministerial Statement

COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS McKAY

HON. MR. ROGERS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. This

statement is in response to an editorial comment that suggested I have

attempted to improperly influence the Coquihalla Highway commissioner,

Mr. Douglas McKay.

I did not ask the commissioner what his recommendations would be. I

don't know what his recommendations will be, and the commissioner did

not offer me any of his recommendations. However, shortly after taking

over the Highways portfolio, I met with the commissioner, Doug McKay,

as I thought it would be prudent to advise him orally of the changes

that I believe were urgently needed to fill vacant positions and

provide the ministry with adequate leadership. I sought his views, as I

did not wish to make changes that would later be found contrary to his

recommendations.

The commissioner agreed to reply in writing to specific requests.

The wording of the request and the reply were agreed to by my deputy

minister and the commission secretary. The commission secretary was

advised by the commission counsel that it was proper to reply to this

request. This is quite a normal situation. On November 24 I signed a

formal request: however, since the draft correspondence has already

been agreed to, the staffing changes were announced at the beginning of

this week.

Mr. Rogers tabled his letter to Commissioner Douglas McKay.

MR. LOVICK: A very brief response. Certainly we on this side

of the House are delighted that the minister has stood up and clarified

for the record precisely what happened regarding the McKay commission

and his own role.

[ Page 2806 ]

We think, however, that what is at issue has perhaps been neglected

somewhat and that the minister's response begs another more important

question. The other question really concerns what the Premier said

about this issue, because what the Premier did, you recall, Mr.

Speaker, was to suggest that something had to be done in terms of

cleaning up the Highways ministry, and that people who spoke out

against the Coquihalla excesses were perhaps well gotten rid of.

The suggestion we're making is that that is entirely inappropriate,

because what the Premier is in effect doing is blaming the civil

servants for the sins of their political masters. What we want to

emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is simply that it is a sorry, sorry day indeed

for the affairs of this province when politicians allow that procedure

to unfold so that the hired people, the civil servants, who do not have

the power to speak up in their own defence, are attacked, rather than

the politicians who caused the problem in the first place.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset — this is a tad

late, but I'll do it anyway — I would ask leave for the special

committee to appoint an auditor-general to sit today while the House is

sitting.

Leave granted.

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

Bill 63, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987. As government

House Leader, I adjourned debate, but will now defer to members

opposite for second reading debate continuation.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: I'm going to be leading off debate on this

matter. However, as most members of the House are aware, the second

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is our critic in this area. He has been

good enough to allow me to proceed ahead of him, although he will be

our designated speaker on the matter of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act

(No. 2).

Having said that, I want to go back first of all to the introduction

of this piece of legislation in the House, when the minister who

introduced it described it as being an innocuous piece of legislation.

In fact, if one takes a look at pages 3 and 4 of the legislation, which

deal with the

section that I want to focus on particularly, the

explanatory note says that those sections, although lengthy, are

self-explanatory. I believe, frankly, that the minister was quite

straightforward when he described the legislation as being innocuous. I

don't think there was any intent on his part to suggest — despite some

of the cries that came up from this side of the House — that there was

anything more to the legislation than simply that which was included in

it. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe the good minister

when he says that the provisions of the legislation are essentially

innocuous and, to some extent, are housekeeping.

The

section that gave me a fair bit of concern was the

section

that.... And I wouldn't say that "concern" is the perhaps right word.

It provided a fair bit of intrigue in my mind. It was the

section that

dealt with the possible reintroduction of motor vehicle testing in the

province. It's really about that

section that I wish to talk. That's

section 7, which enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make

regulations with respect to safety.

I'm told that yesterday around noon the superintendent of motor

vehicles indicated that he felt those changes were brought forward in

legislation primarily to deal with fleet vehicles and taxis. That's

applaudable, in the sense that all of us recognize the need to make

sure those vehicles are kept in a proper state of repair. Not only is

that important to the public; it's also important to the self-interest

of those who drive taxis, because many of them have seen their

insurance rates skyrocket over the past couple of years. Whatever can

be done to make sure those vehicles are in proper condition will

certainly assist somewhat to reduce the cost of taxation.

So that comment by the superintendent of motor vehicles was not of

particular concern to me either, Mr. Speaker, and it was certainly kept

well within the tone of the minister's opening comments that the piece

of legislation that we're debating now was "innocuous."

What did intrigue me, however, was when, around 5 o'clock yesterday,

I heard the Premier of the province announce the fact that the province

was moving back towards mandatory motor vehicle inspection. That is a

move that is worthy of applause. I don't think there's anyone on this

side of the House who would take issue with the need to have ongoing

motor vehicle inspection on a continual basis in this province. To the

extent that the legislation allows for that, we applaud it. In fact,

let me say this: the comment that the Premier made caused me to take a

second look at the legislation, and certainly at the wording.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If the Minister wants to correct me, I'll wait for him to correct me.

As I read the legislation — and I'm quite prepared to debate it —

the legislation does not restrict itself to motor carriers, but deals

with promoting and securing road safety. Throughout subsection (4)(

a) to (

j) it talks about motor vehicles, with the exception, I believe, of

subsection (4)(a), which talks about motor carriers. So my reading of

the regulations is such that it would allow for the reintroduction, if

we want to, of broad-scale mandatory motor vehicle inspections in the

province.

So it struck me as somewhat unusual that on one hand we've got the

comment that the legislation is innocuous, and on the other hand we

have the Premier saying that it is the government's intent now to

return us to 1983, when we had motor vehicle inspection stations in the

province.

I think the thing that I find most disturbing in a general way about

the Premier's statement yesterday is that it ties in in a very nice way

with what's going on in this province right now with respect to

privatization. I know I was cautioned earlier on, Mr. Speaker, about

moving too far into that debate. I don't intend to get into

privatization in a heavy way, except to say that I think that there is

a corresponding and somewhat interesting argument with respect to

ideology and approach that needs to be raised at this time.

We saw in 1983 — and witnessed in this Legislature, although I

wasn't here at the time — a rather heated debate with respect to the

elimination of motor vehicle testing stations in this province. There

were indeed several concerns expressed by the opposition that this was

a regressive move, and it was felt that it was in fact a move that

would in the long

[ Page 2807 ]

run cost the province more. I did some quick

research this morning and took a look at the actual costs; I'll get

into them a little bit later on.

Nonetheless, in 1983 the discussion focused again on the government

making an ideological commitment to the elimination of this type of

service. On the basis of pure ideology alone it was felt that motor

vehicle inspection stations ought to be removed and certainly that, if

they were to return, they should come back in the private sector later

on. I'll touch on that matter in a few minutes as well, with respect to

the private sector.

In any event, we saw the government sort of bent on its position

with respect to ideology, and saying that for reasons of pure dogma it

wanted to eliminate the motor vehicle inspection stations. We see now,

some four years later, the potential reintroduction of those

facilities, if one reads the legislation and listens to the minister,

and their certain reintroduction if one listens to the Premier.

It makes you wonder about privatization as we see it today. Again,

as we pointed out in this House on several occasions, there is an

ideological, dogmatic, philosophical, single-planed insistence and

stubbomess on the part of the provincial government to proceed with its

privatization program. Given the history that we see being played out

in front of us right now with respect to motor vehicle inspection

stations, one must wonder where we will be in 1990, when three years

hence the chicken sort of comes home to roost with respect to the

government's privatization plans. Do we have to wait three years to

have a thing boomerang back at us and to come to the conclusion that

yes, that ideological fervour that created the decision in 1983 was

wrong, and in today's terms the ideological fervour which is behind the

privatization efforts of the government will again prove to be wrong in

1990, and all the things the opposition was saying — accused of

fear-mongering, as we were then — will indeed be proven to be true?

It emphasizes in my mind the need to move with caution when

government proceeds with radical and ambitious plans based on ideology

alone. In 1983 there were no studies. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm not

going to go into any depth on privatization, but we haven't seen any

studies in 1987 with respect to highways maintenance. We've seen the

contradiction of studies with respect to B.C. Hydro. We've seen the

contradiction of studies with respect to liquor control in this

province. The situation that is boomeranging back to us now in 1987,

through the provision of the legislation that we're debating now, sets

us up for the same type of argument in 1990,

[3:00]

I can only implore the government at this stage of the game to try

to learn from the experiences of 1983, to recognize the need for study,

to recognize the costs, to take a look at the economics of the

decision, to ask why it is that we have activities in the public sector

in the first place, to ask what has happened as a consequence that

would allow for the removal of those services. Can the private sector

now provide those services? If it can't, things ought to remain in the

public sector. That's what we're asking with respect to the

privatization debate going on right now. That's what we were asking in

1983, when motor vehicle testing stations were disbanded in this

province. Now we're finding that we need to provide those services

again.

I want again to sort of focus on — as opposed to making a

philosophical argument as to whether these things should be privatized,

cut back, eliminated or whatever — the economics of it. I happen to be

the critic for the Insurance Corporation of B.C. for our political

party. We know from the statistics of the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

that last year 3 percent of all motor vehicle accidents in this

province were as a result of vehicle defects. Three percent doesn't

sound like a lot, but it is a portion of the incidents. And it doesn't

account for all the incidents; quite often a rear-end accident or an

accident in running a red light is attributed to a violation of the

Motor Vehicle Act as opposed to a problem with vehicles. But 45 percent

of that 3 percent of accidents are attributable to defective brakes.

The next highest category is defective headlights. So it's clear to me

that a considerable number of accidents are attributable, according to

the statistics, to motor vehicle defects.

During the course of my time as a lawyer I happened to practise a

lot of personal injury law. We know that the cost of the motor vehicle

testing stations back in 1983 was approximately $2.6 million. That

sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, take a look at the cost

of a motor vehicle accident. If one of those 3 percent this year and

one of those 3 percent in each of the other years had resulted in

serious injuries to an innocent passenger or an innocent driver of

another vehicle, and if those injuries were so severe, let's say, as to

render one a quadraplegic — and I don't think that's out of the realm

of possibility when one takes into account the nature of accidents that

can happen if there are defective brakes — then the payout from the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia would inevitably be in excess

of a million dollars. It would take only two of those accidents a year

to make up the cost of the motor vehicle inspection stations. I think

it's fairly safe — although ICBC doesn't break down its statistics in

this way — to say that at least the payments out on two accidents of

the 3 percent that have occurred in this province will have resulted in

that type of cost impact.

The fact then is that the money all of us are paying out in ICBC

premiums was being put out in terms of motor vehicle inspection

stations. Certainly the public good would have been served, and

certainly one could argue — and, of course, there is no way of proving

this — that those accidents could have been prevented. The money that

it was costing the taxpayer in motor vehicle inspection stations is

being paid out now through ICBC premiums.

It makes a lot of sense, and we're pleased to see, under the

provisions of this legislation, the reintroduction of motor vehicle

inspection facilities. Whether they will be for carriers or for

vehicles remains, I guess, to be seen, although I suspect they will

deal with motor vehicles in the future. As I say, I think it's a good

move. I think that in the long run it will prove cost-effective. It's

good for fleet vehicles, if it's the intent of government to stagger

those changes in. At the same time, if the Premier is to be held to his

word, if one reads the regulations here, given the use of the words

"motor vehicle" as opposed to "motor carrier" throughout the

legislation before us, the regulations contemplated here under

section

7 are regulations that will suffice to allow us to go back to where we

were.

Whether we do it in the public sector or the private sector, of

course, is another debate, and I guess we will have that at some other

time. I certainly don't intend to get into it in any depth at this

stage.

The final point on this is to go back to one of the other points

that I made, that you are saving money by moving in this direction, and

that is laudable. Secondly, on top of that, it

[ Page 2808 ]

demonstrates the triumph of sensible, pragmatic

public sector activity over ideology, and the fact that what the

government is trying to do now with respect to its privatization

program is allow ideology to triumph over sensible, rational public

sector involvement in society. It just demonstrates that we will be

dealing with it in the future, much as we are now with respect to

things that occurred in 1983. If there is a message that flows from the

introduction of this legislation back to government, it is to proceed,

not with caution, but to just shelve its privatization plans, to pay

heed to the studies it has and to the former ministers and deputy

ministers and all those other people, including Socred committees that

toured around the province, who are saying: "Look, don't privatize this

stuff."

MR. LOVICK: I almost feel as if I ought to begin my remarks

by making a declaration, namely that despite the fact of being

designated speaker, it is not my intention to take up two hours. I

almost expect to hear applause or at least a sigh of relief at that

point.

I want to begin by offering, for the record, thanks to the Minister

of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for being kind enough

to share with me some background information on this bill. That is a

good modus operandi for this House, and we should do it more often. In

fact, I suspect we would probably have less acrimonious debates and

less heat and hostility around here if we were more willing to share.

So I commend the minister for doing that.

You will recall that the minister began by saying that Bill 63, the

amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, was relatively innocuous. Let me

start by saying that I think the minister is being too modest. It seems

to me that there are some good things in this bill, and I wouldn't for

a moment want to suggest that "innocuous" describes all of that.

Rather, I think the ministry is to be credited for some of the steps

it's taking. For example, clearly the minister's intention in the bill

is to accommodate new technology, new kinds of tow trucks. Obviously

that's good and desirable. Similarly, the intention to ensure that

vehicles are properly insured is well and good. No problem. We

certainly support and endorse that idea. Thirdly, the ever-general,

animating force of the bill, I think, is to ensure that vehicles on the

road are fit to be on the road, which opens the door to the whole issue

of motor vehicle testing. Of course, I have questions. That is my duty,

obviously: to have questions. I am in search of clarification. Most of

that, however, can be deferred to committee stage.

For a few moments, at least, I would like to refer to three specific

parts of the bill, all of which can fairly be called legitimately

dealing with the principle of the bill. The first one is — surprise,

surprise; I'm sure the minister will be able to tell in a word what I'm

about to talk about — privatization. Once again, in this particular

bill we see something that looks very clearly to us on this side of the

House as a door-opener to privatization — a means to facilitate the

process.

Without being cantankerous or testy about it, I might say that one of the things

that does frustrate us on this side of the House — and I'm not about to

blame the minister for this — is that we have really not yet had an opportunity

to grapple precisely with the philosophy, the arguments and the pros and cons

of privatization in its various manifestations. To be sure, we've had some

token debates, and I have spoken now for well in excess of two hours using a

number of different vehicles to address the issue. But I'm a little concerned

and perplexed that we always seem to be coming at the problem — dare I say —

in a kind of circuitous or even back-door route. It would be nice if we could

have the debate up front, open and clear, so we knew precisely what we were

doing.

I do not wish to be inflammatory, but it seems to me entirely fair

to argue the case that part of this bill, whether the minister intended

it or not, because I know he is relatively new to that portfolio,

clearly is designed — again I emphasize from my perspective and reading

of the bill — to facilitate the privatization process. Let me give you

the chapter-and-verse citation for that.

Part of the privatization program announced by this government,

which we all know about, is the plan to sell the government-owned tow

vehicles that serve the Annacis Island crossing and the

first-member-for-Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) bridge. Is that an appropriate

way to describe that, Mr. Speaker, or can I actually use his name?

That's clearly part of the exercise; it has been stated. The concern we

have is whether the provisions of this act, in

section 6 specifically,

will impact on the provision of those particular towing services. We

know that the government plans to sell the trucks and to contract out

with the private sector. Again, that's a given.

Section 6, however — and again I recognize, Mr. Speaker, this will

appear to the casual observer to be perhaps in the realm of paranoia,

or fear-mongering, but as I have said on a number of occasions, you

leave us no choice. We must take advantage of these opportunities to

raise questions, and again, I think legitimately within the rules. What

I'm suggesting is that when you look at

section 6, it's an entirely

fair and reasonable conclusion to say that

section 6 enables the

superintendent to exempt certain vehicles, certain operations,

unconditionally, or for prescribed purposes, from the requirements of

the act.

Let me show you the line of logic, Mr. Speaker, that leads me to the

conclusion I enunciated a few moments ago: namely, that since

privatization is indeed a prescribed purpose of government these days,

presumably the superintendent can expect an instruction to facilitate

the process by doing a favour to whomever happens to want to bid on

those contracts. I'm not suggesting that that is the intention; I

wouldn't do that for a moment. I'm saying, however, that the way this

particular bill is drafted, that kind of possibility is indeed entirely

legitimate, and certainly within the realm of possibility. So of course

I'm hoping that the minister will respond to that concern, as I'm sure

he will.

The second broad area I want to touch on also once more — surprise,

surprise! — comes under the large and general heading of privatization.

This one refers specifically to

section 7 of the bill.

Section 7 of the

bill, as is made very clear — I see you have the document before you,

Mr. Speaker, so you're aware of what I'm referring to — enables the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting safety.

Laudable, good; nobody would ever for a moment question such

initiatives. The issue, however, is whether indeed

section 7(

b) opens

the door to something other; whether in fact it heralds the return of

motor vehicle testing and, given what this government did in 1983-84,

whether it heralds the return of motor vehicle testing done by the

private sector, i.e. a privatized system of motor vehicle testing.

That, of course, is what my colleague the hon. member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was touching on briefly, and let me

offer just a few observations about that too.

First, what we need to note is that yes, indeed, if one has any sense of history at all, it is clear that this agenda is simply

[ Page 2809 ]

appearing once again. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker,

that the former Transportation minister, the current first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), said at the end of September 1983, to quote

him: "The Social Credit policy regarding motor vehicle testing is to

turn it over to the private sector, not another level of government."

Clearly that is the policy that was enunciated then. I believe it is

the policy that still obtains.

The issue, then, is whether the privatization of motor vehicle

testing is in itself desirable. I'm not about to belabour that point at

great length here, Mr. Speaker, but certainly for the record I would

like to offer a few brief observations.

[3:15]

First of all, it's clear that once again we are dealing with what I

referred to before as a classic, paradigm case — conflict of interest.

Not conflict of interest as we often are used to using that term, but

rather conflict of interest in a different and indeed perhaps more

serious way. I'm referring to two interests working on a kind of

collision course: conflict of interest, insofar as one set of interests

leads one to a particular aim, to a particular conclusion, and urges

one to expend one's energies to achieve that aim; but another interest

is, if you like, in direct conflict with the first one. Is indeed

incompatible with it.

I want to suggest that privatized vehicle testing stations are also

inherently in a conflict-of-interest situation, in the same way as I

suggested a few days ago that things like privatized highway

maintenance operations are in that kind of conflict situation. The

reason is not esoteric or difficult to discover. The reason is just

that the end of the person providing the service is not compatible with

the service being provided. More specifically put, if my job is to

protect you the consumer, your safety and that of your vehicle, what I

want to do is look out for your interest and no other. If, however, I

stand to profit or benefit from the degree to which I can show you that

you need service and assistance, clearly my advice to you will be

coloured by my own self-interest. That's the predicament, Mr. Speaker.

That's the basic problem with privatized services of such things as

vehicle testing stations and highways maintenance. It has nothing to do

with the venality or greed or lack of moral fibre of those performing

the service. When I say these things I am not attacking the private

sector or anybody else who may provide the service. I am merely

pointing out a systemic problem of conflict of interest: the fact that

the public interest is in direct, irreconcilable conflict with the

private interest — the interest of the person who provides the service.

That's the point I'm making.

MR. PETERSON: That's not the opinion of your colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. LOVICK: I hear a comment, Mr. Speaker. I believe it's the

second member for Langley. He suggests that there is a difference of

opinion in our caucus with regard to that issue. I would point out to

him that that is not the case; rather, what has happened is we have

been victimized by the 15-second news clip. If the second member for

Langley wishes to watch a little more carefully and perhaps do

something he is not necessarily too accustomed to doing — namely, read

what we have said — the problem will be solved for him rather quickly.

I say that, I hope, humorously: I don't mean to be offensive — well,

just a little, perhaps.

Just a bit of evidence. Mr. Speaker, on the predicaments beyond the

broad one, beyond what I will loosely call the philosophical one of

conflict of interest. Let me see if I can be a little more specific and

provide some empirical evidence from various studies and examinations

of privatized inspection services in other jurisdictions. I want to

share with the minister the courtesy he extended me and tell him my

source. The source is the debate that took place in 1983-84. I think

the record there is rather clear; most of these issues were probably

raised at that time. Sadly, they didn't have the desired effect; I hope

they may have the desired effect this time.

The predicament with privatized vehicle inspection systems is

essentially fourfold; there are four main areas of problem. The first,

predictably, is the reliability of inspections. Just one study to make

the point. Mr. Speaker: a study conducted, I believe, in the United

States describes an experiment where defects were implanted in a

vehicle. This was a test to find out whether these inspection stations

were doing the job. Fewer than half of those defects were detected, but

at least one non-existent defect was found in all the tests. The

question is whether that is simply the result of somebody having two

motives: one, his or her own self-interest in getting sufficient work

out of the inspection; the other, serving the public interest. I

suggest again that those two are not reconcilable.

The second result of those empirical studies is that there is indeed

a correlation or connection between the level of inspection fees and

the relationship to the vehicle failure rate. It’s an elaborate

argument that looks suspiciously like sliding scale, but we can clearly

see cause-and-effect relationships between raising and lowering fees

and the kind of service performed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that

that is sufficient grounds to, at the very least, make us suspicious

about privatized testing stations.

Another area is the business of competition between testing stations

— unless we are talking about giving some kind of monopoly control to a

particular entity, which I am sure is not the intention of the ministry

or the motor vehicle branch. I'm not going to belabour that point, Mr.

Speaker; I simply say it for the record.

The other large problem, again from the literature dealing with

vehicle testing station experiments primarily in American

jurisdictions, is the qualifications of the inspectors and the

licensing methods. Again, to clarify it for the record, Mr. Speaker,

let me offer you a little bit of information — a quick

summary of the

practices in 32 states of the United States of America. In 22 of the

32, the inspectors must pass a written exam. Notice that fully

one-third don't have to do that. In 23 states the inspectors must pass

a performance exam; again roughly only two-thirds. What about the other

third? In 19 states the inspectors must be qualified mechanics; only 19

of 32. In the matter of training, only 24 of the 32 states require

specific training.

You can see the case that comes from this: namely, that unless we

are very careful to provide rather strict control, we are creating

something that has the potential to be a time-bomb, frankly, by

producing unsafe vehicles, thereby increasing the likelihood of

accidents on the road. There are other bits of information coming from

the same database, but I think I have given sufficient to make the

point, Mr. Speaker.

The third broad area I want to talk about — I'm sure that members

opposite will be happy to know this — does not have to do with

privatization. Rather, Mr. Speaker, it has to do

[ Page 2810 ]

with what can fairly be regarded as too much power

being vested in the inspection operation. I'm not going to brandish the

flag or the sword and suggest that we should all rally to the

barricades or some such thing, but I do want to suggest apropos of

this.... I'm talking now about

section 7. Under the aegis of providing

regulations for safety purposes, I'm afraid that we may have gone too

far. I'm concerned about

section 7, particularly the provision that

would seem to make it possible for the government to install what is

called in the trade "a black box."

The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the language is not

precise or clear enough, and perhaps the government, if this bill is to

become legislation, will have much more power than is required. As we

all know, that kind of power — however benevolent we might be, however

well-meaning we might be — ought not to be given. We should never have

more power than is absolutely required. I'm sure we all agree on that.

The predicament is that black boxes can record what the vehicle

does: the amount of time it has been operated, any external jolts to

it, and so forth. I understand full well that in the trucking industry,

for example, people appreciate this. They find it useful and they don't

look at it with any hostility or suspicion.

I'm concerned, however, as I read the bill, particularly

section 7,

that perhaps what is possible in this

section is discriminatory power

on the part of the regulators to insist in effect that black boxes will

be inserted in all motorists' cars. I think that's conceivable. I don't

think it's intended, but I think it's conceivable. The question is: who

pays for that? As near as I can make out, that would be at the

motorists' expense, either directly, through taxation or, I suppose,

through some other mechanism that I won't dare speculate on.

The predicament is that what we're looking at is something that

looks a little like Big Brother, because a black box will of course

effectively tell the authorities everything about you. I realize this

is just a scenario, Mr. Speaker, just a speculation, but I think it's a

legitimate conclusion to draw. A car could be pulled over by a police

officer, and a policeman or policewoman could effectively push a button

and find out whether the motorist has committed an offence. We may well

want to say that perhaps that's not a bad idea, because after all we

want tight law and order and so forth. But I think that most of us in

this House recognize that there are limits on authority, and we're a

little suspicious of having that kind of incredible power vested in

authority.

I would just like to say that I hope that the minister will look

kindly on making some amendments to this particular

section so that we

can circumscribe and limit the jurisdiction of a

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations. I hope we can have

that kind of discussion in committee stage.

In short, I don't think that my colleagues and I are going to stand

up and declaim against this bill and say that this must not pass or any

such thing. Indeed, we applaud the government on certain parts of the

bill, with reservations duly noted.

[3:30]

MR. D'ARCY: I have only a few remarks to add to those of my

colleagues from Nanaimo and Esquimalt. Regarding the general attitude

of the government building towards motor vehicle testing, I know that

some people may have a concern about the compulsory aspect of this. I

have to note, though, that some inspections are and always have been

compulsory, as anyone who has ever been pulled over in a roadside test

by the RCMP or city police regarding safety equipment knows. I also

would like to make the note that there are a number of accredited

testing facilities in the province right now and most of them are

drastically underutilized. Certainly that which was put in place for

members and the public by the B.C. Automobile Association was

drastically underutilized.

The other concern I have, and I don't believe it's been raised, is

the question of user fees for motor vehicle testing, mechanical

strengths and so on, should the government go that route. Those of us

who recall the debates around the closure of the government-operated

testing stations back in 1983 recall that the user fee very nearly

defrayed the cost of operation. In other words, a very small increase —

in fact I think it was less than $1 in the $5 user fee — would have

meant that there were no funds to be saved to the government by the

closure of these stations. As a restraint move — and "restraint" was

the buzzword then — the closure of the testing station certainly was

not one. In fact, as I say, the most modest increase in the user fee

would have had these stations meeting their own costs.

Even if we allow for inflation and a modest increase, I would hope

that should the government get back into this business and mandate

inspections through the private sector — because I can't imagine the

government wanting to reopen government-operated testing stations, no

matter how desirable that may be — I would hope that a clearer control

is made on the level of user fees. Certainly we have the experience of

a few accredited testing operations in the province of British Columbia

now who don't even have a user fee for their safety testing service

providing it's a regular customer who comes in and uses the service.

To underscore what my colleague for Nanaimo had to say about the

question of conflict of interest regarding private sector testing of

motor vehicles, I might point out that when you're dealing with the

consumer, which is the population — me and thee — I think it's fair to

say that it's the perception or possibility of conflict of interest

that is the factor and not whether it might be there that is really the

controlling bottom line on this.

The final point I would like to make — and it has been pointed out

by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — is that as much

as 3 percent of the accidents in British Columbia are directly related

either to mechanical failure or inadequate equipment, such as bald

tires or possibly a motorist who.... This is particularly true in areas

such as mine where plowing and sanding of roads is frequent in the

winter. You find a number of vehicles with headlights that are

absolutely encrusted with dirt, and very often drivers who are quite

religious about cleaning their windshields and the back lights in their

cars will drive around virtually blind in terms of illumination. It's

not only whether they can see but whether people can see them. I would

very much like to see some enforcement of that obvious requirement for

safety.

Generally the bill is a good one. If the government does get back

into mandating motor vehicle testing, I hope that it is done not only

in a very effective way, but in a comprehensive way around the province

— unlike when it was in place before. I hope that the user fees, which

should be in effect, will be modest, reflecting the actual costs of the

service. Since the automobile owners of British Columbia, through the

Insurance Corporation of B.C., have a direct financial interest — as

well as a personal safety interest — in properly inspected and operated

vehicles which are mechanically

[ Page 2811 ]

safe, I hope that the government would consider

establishing vehicle testing, possibly through ICBC, especially in my

constituency where you have a greatly underutilized ICBC claims centre

operation. Perhaps when the corporation built their temple in the

Glenmerry district of Trail in 1973. they anticipated that drivers in

the West Kootenay were going to be a lot more dangerous and have a lot

more accidents than we have had. But there is space in that building to

operate a testing station. I suspect that if that's true in Trail, it's

true in other parts of the province as well.

With those remarks, I'll conclude, and perhaps we can get on with the second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I did describe this bill in the first

instance as being relatively innocuous, and the bill is, in fact,

relatively innocuous in that it has received more press coverage than

it normally would have had they actually looked at the principle of the

bill, which was to incorporate the recent changes to the National

Safety Code into the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia. It really

deals with commercial transport and commercial vehicles.

There have been some very kind remarks made by the members opposite

about the objectives that we're trying to accomplish. This ministry,

like all others. has legislation which becomes dated over time. With

technology changing in the automotive world, we have to continue to

change our regulations. I was amused when we talked about things that

were out of order. One has to wonder whether if someone invented a

motorcycle today, anybody in the safety business would ever approve its

design and use for carriage on the road. I suspect not. I suspect the

same thing would be done about cigarettes if the Health minister were

allowed to do that.

Miscellaneous statutes by their very nature are bills that are

discussed in committee and seldom discussed in second reading in this

kind of detail. However, having done that, I thought I would comment on

one of the things that the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick)

mentioned about the powers of the superintendent to vary the

regulations. The one that comes to mind is that our Motor Vehicle Act

requires that all vehicles be fitted with a lock. He has actually used

his awesome, sweeping powers to exempt transit buses from the

requirement of the Motor Vehicle Act so that transit buses don't all

have to be fitted with a lock. You can imagine how difficult it would

be when the drivers change buses. Who looks after the key, and who

locks it where? That's the example that is given.

I got a few kicks out of the black box thing. In Europe,

incidentally, any commercial vehicle has to have a device fitted behind

the speedometer which is like a laboratory testing card where, when you

submit it at the end of a trip, you can automatically monitor any

excess speeds. Since most of the speed limits in Europe are unlimited,

it's only a technical thing to do. As someone who used to operate heavy

equipment which was equipped with a black box and a voice recorder, I'm

not sure that it's such a bad thing if, in the final analysis, it helps

to prevent future accidents — which was among the things that our black

boxes were used for; then it's worthwhile. This is to allow us to fit

those particular devices on commercial vehicles, and it's not intended

in any way — nor would the act permit it — to be fitted on a private

vehicle. Although I shall inquire into that in case that possibility

exists; perhaps we'll move an amendment to it.

On the subject of testing and how testing can be done, there's a

pretty wide range of discussion going on both in my ministry and by

members of the public. The real difficulty in vehicle safety is not the

vehicle; it's usually the person behind the vehicle. When we attack the

commercial vehicle, we have to consider that a commercial operator has

a different set of priorities and values when it comes to the vehicle.

Most people who own a vehicle are proud of it, and it's something that

they personally have a lot of investment in, or at least some

investment in. Most people would like to have a nicer car or a fancier

truck if they could, and if money would allow them to do so. In view of

the fact that it's their family and others who travel in them, I think

most people make the effort to ensure that the vehicle is safe.

My observations from looking at vehicles which are missing a

headlight or missing a taillight or are not in the best of repair are

that the people inside them don't appear to be dressed in mink coats or

wearing diamonds. Sometimes the condition of the vehicle is in direct

relation to the ability of the person to pay. So when you want to set

up a standard of tightening up on vehicles that are unsafe, you really

don't want to have it so strict that people who are at the borderline,

where this vehicle and all its attendant costs are an expensive part of

their disposable income, have to drop off the list. In some cases they

use that vehicle to go to and from university or college or to work. I

certainly don't want to necessarily crack down on those people. because

that's not where the problem is. The problem is the people who are

driving vehicles at excessive speeds or driving while impaired or in

other conditions.

Commercial people, however, are a little different. They'll tend to

run that vehicle just a little longer, the tires a little longer. There

seems to be a need for a little more discipline of the people in the

commercial sector — someone who underbids a job, someone who has

cash-flow problems for other reasons.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, it can happen. How many times have you

been behind a cement truck or dump truck, or some other vehicle, which

hasn't really got a very clearly illuminated licence plate? And the

list goes on. This particular bill is designed to allow for that

particular inspection.

When it comes to testing and what's done in other jurisdictions, and

how it's done, this incredible conflict that you perceive and which has

become such a major concern of yours is realistically addressed in

other jurisdictions. Of course, there are several choices. You can have

government inspectors. You can have inspectors through ICBC or through

other accredited organizations. You can have inspections which take

place, interestingly enough, where inspectors have to pass a written

and a mechanical test, and then if a vehicle they sign out is

subsequently found to be defective, they lose their right to test —

that's one of the ways you can do it. You can have people bid on

whether it's done on a community basis. You can make regulations to say

that people who test vehicles can't also be the ones responsible for

doing the service on the vehicle. And we could go back to the kind of

system we had before, but the system we had before was one that I lived

through, as a student, and of course everybody registered their

vehicles just far enough outside of the

[ Page 2812 ]

zone so that if they knew they couldn't get the car

through.... I had a 1929 Ford at that time; I still have that car.

Nowadays it's exempt because of its age, but in those days it wasn't

considered that old. It comes from my Scottish blood, I think.

MR. LOVICK: You were younger then.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, well, that's right.

But I still know how to fix it. I'm not sure that if I took it to a

service centre I could find anybody else who was competent to fix it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm getting, comments from all around me.

When you think about cars.... I remember that one of your

colleagues, who sat just about where you used to sit, drove a

Mercedes-Benz. Oh, how he got ridiculed by people on this side of the

House for driving a Mercedes-Benz. His pride wanted him to drive a

Mercedes, but the Mercedes was so old that I'm sure if we had had a

strict motor vehicle inspection, he would have been relieved of his

political embarrassment a lot sooner, because the vehicle certainly

wouldn't have passed. But now that he's back practising law, he's

certainly able to....

Mr. Speaker, debate on this bill has been almost totally out of

order. We have gone over a very wide range of things well outside of

the bill. I anticipate some more detailed questions during the

committee stage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a

second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 63, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading debate on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

MR. D'ARCY: I'm glad to see that the representation on the government side is not quite as slim as it was a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the opposition is going to support

this legislation; however, I have some points to make about it.

First of all, I think it should be made quite clear that it is

not.... The government maintains that their intention is to contract

out essential public services, which is making necessary this

particular piece of legislation. I would like to submit that this piece

of legislation has been needed ever since 1982-83, when the government

began deliberately to cut back on the services which it was offering to

the public, hence making redundant a number of loyal civil servants in

the province of British Columbia.

I also want to note that over the past four to five years other employers in the public sector in British Columbia — those

covered by various provisions or various parts of the superannuation

acts in British Columbia — in fact have been following, as much as they

have been allowed to do under legislation, these sorts of policies.

Certainly school boards and municipal governments, hospitals,

universities, Crown corporations, etc., as much as has been possible,

have been allowing, encouraging even in many cases, employees to get

into early retirement with either no loss of benefits or fewer losses

than they would have had without special provision being made for them.

I have spoken briefly to the minister about this before, but I would

like to make the point in this debate that the provisions of this

legislation, while specifically stating a starting date and a

completion date for the early retirement option here, also allow the

minister — specifically the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — discretion

to vary those dates; and since the desire to contract out essential

government services is not just a policy of the government today but in

fact has been a policy ever since they received the endorsement of 49

percent of the people of British Columbia on October 22, 1986, I would

like to suggest to the minister that the government consider making

provision in the bill, using powers in the act, to make the entry date

retroactive to October 22, 1986.

I have no idea how many employees, perhaps only a handful, this

would encompass. I don't think it's going to break the superannuation

fund, but for those employees who in fact did what the government wants

them to do, voluntarily without being pushed, and since the government

received its last endorsation by, as I said, 49 percent of the public,

I believe those employees should not be penalized, however few or many

they are. I quite frankly think that there are very few who would fall

into that category. But those employees who took voluntary early

retirement between October 22 of '86 and October 20 of this year, quite

frankly, should be included under this umbrella.

I would also like to note that the legislation only makes provision

for those employees that the government deems to be affected by the

contracting-out scheme. I quite frankly think that if some employees of

the government, or some employees who are covered under all the other

superannuation acts — I note in particular that obviously B.C. Hydro

gas employees would come under this — are going to be considered

eligible or potentially eligible for the increased retirement benefits

covered by this act, I fail to see why the government cannot simply

designate all provincial government employees for the period that this

legislation is going to cover — not just provincial government

employees but all Crown corporate employees and those covered under the

municipal, school, hospital, university and so on superannuation

sections.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is, shall we say, a retrenchment

throughout all of these jurisdictions, and while this early retirement

provision is going to assist those long-term employees, it does very

little — well, it does nothing really — for the younger employees, and

it's the younger employees that our society needs the most. I'm not

taking anything away from those employees in their fifties, but as any

employer or business person can tell you, it is the younger, more

innovative employees, the ones who are going to show leadership over

the next decades, who are most important to the smooth operation of

public services in British Columbia. I feel quite strongly that

provision should be made for these to in fact move, if their particular

ministry or

[ Page 2813 ]

particular operation is going to be contracted out,

to give them the opportunity to bid into other parts of the civil

service or into positions in Crown corporations. Making this provision

available across the board would open up some positions, that wouldn't

otherwise be opened up, for younger employees who are already trained;

they already have good work records and they're already within the

system.

I note that part of this legislation allows the government to relax

the ten-year rule regarding retirement. I welcome that change; again,

it should have been in for some time. But I would like to see the

government take into consideration relaxing the ten-year rule for those

employees who were not hired soon enough to ever put in their ten

years. I would note to this House that many employees in that situation

who were not hired until they were in their mid-fifties have never had

the option of putting in ten years. They are faced with compulsory

retirement, regardless of this act or any other, when they hit 65. I

don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not compulsory

retirement at 65 is desirable or constitutional; I simply note that it

does exist within the jurisdictions that we're discussing here.

Provided a person has made his superannuation payments, and provided

a defensible and reasonable percentage-per-year formula is put into

effect, I believe short-term employees.... When I say short-term, I

mean those who by law will have less than ten years and do not have a

choice of ever putting in ten years under any of these jurisdictions.

They should be given the opportunity to at least take advantage of a

modest pension on their compulsory retirement. I would like to point

out that most of the employees who would fall into this situation are

likely to be women. The reason they didn't get back into the labour

force or weren't in the labour force before the age of 55 was in most

cases because they were involved with the domestic duties of raising a

family. In many cases they only went into the labour force — or the

management force, as the case may be — in government out of economic

necessity, yet they have performed a very valuable service on behalf of

the province of British Columbia. Again, I think it is a very small

cost item and one that should be looked at.

With those remarks I want to reiterate my opening statement that

while this legislation is welcomed, it doesn't quite go far enough.

Also, I notice that the government really is the last to act in these

matters, when the other public sector employers, whether Crown

corporations or local jurisdictions, have acted years ago on these

provisions, as much as they were enabled to by their empowering

legislation.

I know the government is going to want people to believe that they

are taking these actions in this case out of the goodness of their

hearts; the government would want people to think that they're not

being callous and heartless. But we know that the reason the government

at long last is finally acting on these things which should have been

done several years ago really is that they know that without these

provisions the public is going to view a rather callous treatment of

loyal and long-standing employees as being heartless.

I would like to see more provisions for more people in the public

sector in British Columbia in recognition of the loyalty, dedication

and financial contributions which they have made into the

superannuation funds over the years.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to rise also in support of this proposed

legislation and to echo some of the concerns expressed by my colleague

the member for Rossland-Trail.

Quite apart from the problems that we have in this Legislature with

the ideological ramifications of privatization and decentralization, a

lot of people out there feel that they are the pawns in the game. They

are not connected with the ideological battles, but they would like to

have some assurance that their lives and their contributions aren't

going to be affected by what we do here in terms of the ideological

battle. For that reason, it's very important that legislation like this

is brought into the House to give them that kind of assurance that

they're not going to suffer as a result of what we're doing here. So I

think the legislation is important from that point of view.

A few months ago the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) stood

up and announced in the House that he was going to bring in provisions

that would allow teachers in this province to retire early, so that

senior teachers who had been in the system for many, many years would

be allowed to retire early without penalty as a voluntary option. They

could then leave the system to which they had made a great contribution

over the years. and some of the younger teachers — just out of teacher

training. Just out of university, just out of their practice teaching —

could come into the bottom end of the system and make a contribution to

education in the province. These are teachers who are young,

enthusiastic, excited, and who want to get into the system and make a

contribution. Yet because there were employment problems within the

system, they were unable to get involved and make their talents

available to the government. By changing that legislation, the Minister

of Education was allowing these people to come into the system and make

their contribution.

I think it's an indicator to the government that they have a

tremendous mechanism here, in the form of the funded pension plans

under the administration of the government, to not only influence

employment and unemployment in British Columbia. but also allow

employees of the government in its various instrumentalities — whether

it's the school system, Crown corporations or municipalities — who feel

they are caught up or used as pawns in the ideological debate some

security for their future. They know that if they lose their jobs, or

if their jobs are threatened as a result of, say, privatization or some

other change in government policy, at least their future income is

going to be assured. For that reason we welcome the government bringing

in this piece of legislation.

[4:00]

During the last election campaign the New Democratic Party brought

forward to the debate the proposal that we would make an early

retirement option available to teachers at age 55. At their voluntary

option they could retire at age 55, in order to allow new teachers to

come into the system and allow older teachers who had made their

contribution to retire. The NDP government of Manitoba had actually put

this policy into practice, in consultation with the Manitoba Teachers'

Society and the Manitoba school boards; and the govemment found that it

was a very profitable measure. On the one hand, they made available to

the teachers' superannuation fund something like $3 million in order to

pay the costs of the early retirement provision. But they saved far

more than $3 million, because the teachers who came in to work for

school districts at the bottom end of the salary scale created a

savings for those school districts, and ultimately for the provincial

government, of much more than the $3 million the government expended to

top up the teachers' pension fund in Manitoba. So it was a very

profitable measure from the government's point of view as well.

[ Page 2814 ]

Members will recall the strike that took place in the forest

industry during 1986, which ended in early 1987. One of the major

issues in that strike was the right to retire early without penalty,

and to change the forest industry pension plan to account for that. I'd

like to say that in my constituency it has meant that hundreds of IWA

members working in the logging and sawmilling industry who felt they

were getting too old to do the kind of work involved — in fact, they

were constituting a danger, because hundreds of lives have been lost in

the forest industry annually as a result of the danger of the work and

an ageing workforce — were allowed to retire early, and yet were able

to enjoy some income security because of the pension provisions won

during that last forest industry strike.

It's too bad they had to go through a strike to achieve what they

did. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, there's been a mini employment boom in

Port Alberni as a result of the changes in the IWA pension regulations.

Many of those older members have retired. Younger workers have been

brought into the forest industry workforce. They're more energetic and

productive, and they tend to be safer because they can move more

quickly. I think that that's been a terrific benefit to the forest

industry workforce in my area. Many, many people have been hired in the

industry since that change was made in the IWA pension plan as a result

of that unfortunate strike. I'm glad that the government has recognized

the need for this kind of legislation in dealing with policy changes,

so that the people who work for the provincial government and whose

jobs may be threatened by the privatization proposals will at least

have some income security as a result of the legislation that we're

bringing in today.

The NDP has always favoured voluntary early retirement provisions,

because we feel that it is a mechanism in the hands of the government

that can be used to make life much easier for older workers who are on

the verge of leaving the workforce, and the only thing preventing them

from leaving the workforce is the fact that their income and their

income security will plummet.

We feel that this is an important thing to do. In many western

European democracies that have had the experience of social democratic

governments, they have this kind of early retirement provision where

people are allowed to retire at age 55 or where there are special early

retirement provisions for industries that are becoming redundant or

that are vulnerable and subject to technological change. The government

and industry pension plans are used to absorb the changes without

threatening the job and income security of workers.

We feel that this legislation is a step in the right direction. As

my colleague has suggested, we feel that the legislation should be

broadened and that it would have been more appropriate, perhaps, if the

minister had made a statement along the lines of the statement made by

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) just a few months ago that

this would become a provincewide thing.

The Minister of Education covered all of the teachers in his

announcement, allowed all of the teachers to retire early at their

option at the age of 55. We feel that it would have been appropriate

for the government to have done this for all of the pension plans

within its jurisdiction. We also feel that it's appropriate to deal

with those employees who may fear job loss as a result of

privatization, so that they are able to have the additional benefits of

taking their pensions earlier or having some advantage even if they

haven't completed their ten years of contributions.

I think this is a good deal. It helps to deal with some of the

income security problems that people out there are experiencing. Mr.

Provincial Secretary, there is a great deal of fear out there, a great

deal of uncertainty. It's not being generated or exploited by the

opposition for any kind of political benefit. There really is no

political benefit that can come out of that kind of fear and

uncertainty.

The government often talks about concern and uncertainty having a

negative impact on investment in British Columbia, and that's quite

true. The kind of uncertainty and fear that's being generated by

radical policy changes also affect the investment climate and the

consumer habits of people in the province, whether they are directly

affected by those changes or not.

If the province had comprehensive legislation dealing with early

retirement, technological change and job redundancy, then I think we

could accomplish these changes much more easily and make it much easier

on the people involved. If we had programs that allowed retraining and

paid educational leave on a broad basis, then that would also make it

possible for us to accomplish some of the social, governmental and

economic changes that we require in order to bring the society and the

economy of this province into the modem age.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Those kinds of provisions are needed. This legislation doesn't go

very far in accomplishing that, but at least it's a step in the right

direction. There are many rumours that are going around the province

among workers in my constituency. They've seen the articles in the

newspapers; they've seen the trial balloon statements being made by

ministers. They're concerned that their jobs may be vulnerable. That

particularly affects people who are in the 40 to 50 age bracket, people

who are approaching retirement but don't really feel that they have

enough committed to their pension plan or to their savings that they're

going to be able to survive. Pension studies that have been done

nationally by the federal House of Commons and the Senate have

indicated that this is a great fear among all Canadians. Only a very

small percentage of Canadians are covered by adequate pension plans,

either administered by an industry, a company or a government

employees' association, such as this one is. The vast majority of

Canadians aren't covered and end up having to rely on their own

savings. As a consequence, they do fear the kind of changes that are

taking place in this province.

I would hope that when the minister is considering this legislation

that he would in the future consider expanding it to cover the whole

class of people who work for the provincial government — in the same

way that the Minister of Education has talked about making early

retirement benefits available to teachers without penalty. My

understanding is that not many teachers have taken advantage of that

change in the teachers' pension plan yet. Perhaps it's because the

information hasn't really gone out to the teachers to make them aware

that that benefit is there.

One of the savings that can be accomplished to the government is

that when early retirement provisions are implemented, older workers

move out of the system. Younger workers, many of whom are adequately

trained — and some more trained than the workers in the system — can

then come

[ Page 2815 ]

into the system, get off welfare, get off being

supported by the government, and make a positive contribution both in

terms of their talents and as taxpayers to the province. I think there

are some great benefits that are available to the province and to the

people of this province as a whole from the workers who are currently

unemployed if we take this kind of legislation and expand it on a

broader scale.

As I said before, there are tremendous benefits from the changes

that are taking place with the teachers and in the forest industry as a

result of the changes in their pension plan. We know that Air Canada is

currently negotiating around this issue, or a related issue, right now.

It's probably a component of every collective bargaining process and

every bargaining dispute. This type of benefit is key to the disputes

that are taking place: job security and income security as it relates

to retirement and pension benefits.

We'd like to thank the minister for making a short step in this

direction and encourage him in any way we can to take further steps in

this direction for the benefit of all the people of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to see

you in the chair today. It's certainly a pleasure to see the good

member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) here as well, who gave such

an outstanding response to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck)

earlier on in the day. We're still trying to overcome her comments.

I just wanted to put a quick matter on the record for the Provincial

Secretary. It's a matter than he and I have discussed, and hopefully

when we get to committee stage we can find some way to deal with this

particular set of problems that I have in my riding. It pertains to two

employees who, if the government intends to continue with its plans for

privatization, will be affected. They are both the kind of instances

that fall between the cracks. As it sits right now, one of the

employees has worked for the government in excess of 30 years. I won't

specify exactly how many years, as I don't want to identify the person,

but this person is 53 years of age and accordingly will not be eligible

under these provisions. The other has worked in excess of 20 years and

is in his mid-fifties as well, but will not be in a position to be

anywhere near 55 by March. Both of them, of course, will fall between

the cracks.

I hope that between now and committee stage on this matter we will

be able to come up with some type of an amendment. I've taken a look at

the provision, particularly 18.1(2) and (3). I think it's possible to

draft something in there that would allow for coverage for these

people, or alternatively in

section 1(4.1), 1(4.2) or 1(4.3). Hopefully

sometime between now and then I'll share those suggestions with the

Provincial Secretary and give him the benefit of my legal drafting

abilities, for what they're worth, and hopefully we can come up with

some kind of flexibility in the rules that will allow for the capturing

of these people and allowing them to receive the pensions that, given

their years of service, we would all agree they are worthy of.

MR. LOVICK: Given that the last time I rose to speak before

this House I was the model of decorum and civility, I think I am

allowed to be a little more engage , can I say, right now.

[4:15]

Madam Speaker, the predicament here is that we're talking about a

bill that all of us on this side of the House are supporting, but it's

a bill that ought never to have to come before the House, because it's

a bill that's really — if I can use the term — about damage control.

We're talking about the problem of caring for the wounded instead of

trying to put an end to the war. That's the problem with this

particular bill. I'm not going to go on at great length about the

point, but I do want to offer four observations to corroborate and

substantiate the claim I began with.

The first is — and the reason I'm a little incensed as I stand

before you now — that this is not a bill about employment, which ought

to be the mandate and the responsibility of government to create. This

is a bill about unemployment. It's a bill about dealing with those

individuals who are no longer going to have jobs. Granted, I recognize

that in the bill there are some other options, working on the

assumption that so-called privatized employees will have other work and

will be able to transfer their pension benefits. The bulk of the bill,

however, deals with people who are encouraged to take what is

euphemistically referred to as early retirement, i.e. to join the ranks

of the unemployed.

First then, Madam Speaker, let's have no illusions about what this

bill is. It may be kindness. It may be doing good service to the

workers — and certainly the workers deserve nothing less than good

service and some reward for their service. But it certainly should not

be seen as some great, momentous occasion we should all be cheering

about, for heaven's sake. It's a bill about unemployment.

The second point I would like to offer — and I hope that the

minister will listen, because I would love to hear the response to this

— is that this bill is a blatant and direct admission of failure on the

part of the government to live up to one of its main claims about the

privatization initiative. We have been told by the government from the

beginning: "You don't have to worry about privatization and job loss;

you don't have to worry about that because, if anything, what's going

to happen is the private sector will pick up the slack and indeed

create more jobs." If that's the case, why then do we have this bill?

Why then do we have to be playing damage control? Why do we have to be

dealing with a problem of unemployment, which is what early retirement

amounts to?

The third point I would like to make for the record is that people

on this side of the House and in the public sector support this

initiative. Yes, they support this initiative, simply because it is the

lesser of evils. They support the initiative not because they are

saying, "Gee, it would sure be nice to retire at the ripe old age of

55" — or some such thing. They are not choosing voluntarily to retire;

they are left no other choice. That's the predicament. I want to submit

to the minister — and I think we can corroborate the claim pretty

easily — the fact that the great majority of public sector workers out

there are now feeling either angry or very disillusioned. There's a

considerable sense of hostility and a feeling of anger out there,

because the perception is that here is a government that really has no

sense of loyalty to us for the things we have done. Those same people

are also disillusioned because they begin to wonder: given we have

performed good and faithful service, why do we meet with this kind of

treatment? Because the claim about privatization, about the inherent

and necessary superiority of the private sector, is just as much a

counterclaim that the public sector providers of the service have not

done the service well. You can argue and debate and try to hide behind

some other sophisticated and rather contrived arguments, but the fact

remains: if you are arguing the case about the inherent

[ Page 2816 ]

superiority of the private sector, you are also

just as clearly arguing that there is something inherently inefficient

and unproductive in the public sector. I would submit to you, Mr.

Minister: what self-respecting public servant can be told that and say,

"Well, gee, I sure appreciate hearing that I am a lazy

good-for-nothing, and therefore I'm going to happily take my early

retirement"?

Madam Speaker, I'm suggesting to you that this is not the kind of

legislation that the government should take pride in. Rather it seems

to me to be a clear admission of defeat, an admission of failure to do

the job that government ought to do, namely to provide full and gainful

employment for its people.

The fourth point I would make is really a question. I suppose I'm

giving notice of the question that I want to ask and discuss during

committee stage. The question is simply: what about the costs? Is it

true that unemployment is cheaper than employment? Does government

really want to encourage large numbers of people to be pensioned? Can

we afford pensions? How much is all of this stuff going to cost? And

apropos of that, let me just suggest that there are a number of other

questions that must be presented in terms of cost. For example, I

wonder what the cost is of all the particular task forces that have

been assembled and all the public servants at senior levels who

apparently have been doing nothing else for some months except study

the intricacies of privatization initiatives. I wonder what the cost is

of those glossy pamphlets extolling the virtues of the species. I think

the question of cost is a very important one, especially insofar as the

principal justification for this measure, so we are told, is

cost-efficiency.

In short, we are in the awkward and unenviable position of

supporting a piece of legislation but doing so, certainly for me and I

suspect for my colleagues, under protest, and under protest for darned

good reasons.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the opposition for their

support. I'm pleased to hear from the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and, closing off for the opposition

side, the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who's an entertaining

speaker at all times. I don't agree with him, obviously, but I

appreciate listening to him.

What we're talking about principally in this bill is the opportunity

and the absolute intention of the government to provide the principles

of fairness for those people who are retiring, and I think even to

exceed what is expected of a government at any given time.

Some of the speakers on the other side mentioned the plight of those

people who may or may not be privatized as a result of this bill. For

the edification of those members and anyone who may be listening, I'd

like to talk just for a second about the pension options for privatized

employees.

The second part of the bill, as I said before, provides special

pension options in connection with the privatization component of the

government restructuring program. These options are designed to make it

possible for privatized employees to be treated fairly and equitably

and to make their pensions as portable as possible.

The three options again are these. One, privatized employees can

receive a refund of their own contributions plus interest if they opt

for that provision. Second, privatized employees can leave their

contributions on deposit in the public service superannuation fund and

will be entitled to receive a pension at retirement — I want to

underscore this — regardless of the employee's length of service.

Normally, employees would be required to contribute to the plan for ten

years to be eligible for such a pension benefit, but under this option

they would be able to leave their funds in there and receive a pension

regardless of their length of service. A privatized employee can

transfer the greater of (

a) the value of the employee's pension

entitlement or (

b) double the value of the employee's contribution with

accumulated interest to be locked in a registered retirement savings

plan, non-taxable until the employee draws it down, or to the

registered pension plan of the new employer. The second part of this

option is to ensure that younger employees are treated in a meaningful

way as far as pension entitlement is concerned.

You will also note that the privatization committee is talking with

any individuals who may be affected by privatization. Anyone who can

possibly be moved will be moved. They are being dealt with in as fair

and equitable a manner as possible.

The second member for Nanaimo talked about people at 55. He talked

about them as if that was the end of their lives as far as productive

employment was concerned. I hope not, or a lot of us around this House

right now wouldn't have much to look forward to. I remember that many

years ago when I was first involved in politics I campaigned on the

spirit of new blood, and now I'm talking about experience. Experience

is something we must look forward to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, you're going on to greater experiences, I hope — in another life, perhaps.

People at 55 can go on to bigger and better things. There are lots

of things beyond that, lots of new careers that people can go on to.

Life doesn't end when one leaves a public service job. The

preponderance of people in this whole free world as we know it work in

private enterprise. The hon. member for Nanaimo should try it once in a

while. He may get to like it — you never know. There is a whole world

out there, and there is a whole world beyond that of government. What

we're talking about and what they're talking about is the size and

scope of government.

The government that existed from 1952 to 1972 under W.A.C. Bennett

may have been right for that day and that time. Again, the government

that existed under David Barrett — and some of us would debate this —

from 1972 to 1975 may have been appropriate for that day and that time.

Consequently the government that existed from 1975 until 1983 under

Bill Bennett was correct for those days.

What we're looking at now, moving into a new decade, a new century,

is a new form of government that fits a new economy and new ways;

that's what we're talking about. You can't expect government to stay as

it is over the years. The NDP are stuck in the age of the Industrial

Revolution, and they can't seem to get out of that, somehow or other,

in any of their thinking.

MR. LOVICK: A brave new world.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not a brave new world, but a different

world, hon. member. You should be willing to accept it; you should

investigate it and realize that the thirties

[ Page 2817 ]

have gone. We're in a new era. We're moving into a new century, and that's what we're talking about here.

The hon. member for Nanaimo, who claims he was incensed, was talking

about the private sector versus the public sector, and trying to pit

one against the other. I tell you, one sector is as important as the

other. What we're talking about here is the size of those sectors.

Whether we like it or not, all people who are engaged in government are

engaged in government because the private sector, the wealth and genius

of people outside, is able to provide the funds to keep us here and to

provide goods and services.

We're talking about the size of government. I'm very pleased to

bring forward this piece of legislation, which I know the opposition

are going to support wholeheartedly, as they've said they would. It's a

move towards fairness, towards equity and towards dealing in a correct

and proper manner with those employees who, for whatever set of

reasons, may be retiring from the service of British Columbia.

They are good people; they will continue to be great people. They

will go on, if they leave, to better things ahead, and I congratulate

them on that wonderful opportunity. I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to discharge

the order committing Bill 59 for debate the next day and for the House

to proceed, by leave, to committee stage of Bill 59 now.

Leave granted.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 59, Madam Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. ROSE: We had a hurried conversation about this particular

matter among our caucus, and we didn't know it was coming up

immediately, although we were approached right after question period.

We did agree that we could proceed to the committee stage of this bill.

We had a little flip and a little lottery about who would speak first,

and I lost. So I'm prepared to speak now about these parliamentary

secretaries.

I did a little math this morning, and I found that if we take the

Speaker's group — the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman

in Committee and the Deputy Chairman in Committee — then we actually

have three people with special jobs. Then we have all the Whip's big

staff — the Whip and the Deputy Whip. That's a couple of special jobs

for the government. I looked at the parliamentary secretaries, and if

my math is correct, we have something like nine of them plus some

others; then we have 18 in the cabinet. I was looking around and I

found....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's wrong; there's 17.

MR. ROSE: No, that's not wrong. I don't have the bill before

me, but I have a photographic memory. Maybe the number of cabinet

ministers has gone down, but the total number.... I know we don't have

the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, and I'm sorry about that

because I would love to be a Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

with all those trips to Ottawa and Washington, all those junkets every

which way.

Anyway, after going through that math, I came to the conclusion that there are only five members in this House on the

Social Credit side without special jobs and special salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. ROSE: Just five.

MR. LOVICK: What do they do, then?

MR. ROSE: What do they do? Well, we have the former Minister

of Highways. He doesn't have a special job, so he doesn't have any

special income. Then we have the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D.

Smith). He has to get along on an MLA's salary — just the simple MLA

sort of backbencher's salary....

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you sure of that?

MR. ROSE: Well, no. He may have a private source of income. I

wouldn't want to inquire into that, because I know he has filed his

declarations, and I'm certain that they're accurate.

Then we have one of the members for Delta: he doesn't have a special

job. I've forgotten the others, but I think there are two more.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell).

MR. ROSE: Oh, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey doesn't

have a special job. Now we only need one more, but they get special

jobs for the heritage committee and other such junkets around the

province.

What I'm saying is that of the totality of the Social Credit

members, if you add the cabinet to the special jobs, it seems to me

that very few of them are forced to live on an MLA's salary. They have

special jobs and special responsibilities. For instance, if they decide

as parliamentary secretaries....

Never mind the minister of state. I'm glad the minister of state is

here because I mentioned yesterday that probably in his ministry he

hasn't got as much to do as he used to. A number of very important

parts of the ministry have been gutted and put into another another. I

don't know whether the former deputy minister of the Provincial

Secretary has anything to do with this, or who was the guttor, but I

know who

[ Page 2818 ]

the guttee was. It's the minister over there, the

supermayor of the lower mainland — my minister, as a matter of fact. If

I need anything at all to assist me in carrying on my work or getting

any pork for my municipalities, then I know which chief porker to

approach.

He smiles because he's so affable about this, but he's going to have

lots of time for this. I will be approaching him, and he knows that. I

would like to tell him that the last time I approached him — and I'd

like to thank him — he was most generous. If I need to grovel any

further, I will just get into my grovelling gear.

Anyway, I looked at this whole group of people, then I began to look

at my own caucus. Many of them don't have private sources of income;

they are people of modest financial accomplishments. There are some,

though, who are fairly affluent and seem to have a knack for making

certain that nobody, when they reach their retirement years, will be

forced to contribute money into their tin cup. They will not be

peddling pencils or anything like that. The point is, though....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSE: I see. That is not autobiographical, that "Hear, hear!" part. I'd like to make that very clear.

I think it's obvious to everyone that aside from the merits of

decentralization — and there may not be any merits to decentralization.

It might be a pork-barrel scam; it might be a method to relieve other

elected people of their responsibilities, people such as school board

and regional district officers, and also municipal councils. We're told

it isn't. They are saying: "No, sir, this is an addition; it doesn't

replace regional government." If it doesn't replace regional

government, then how can it not be a fifth level of government?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it replaces Gracie.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know, you think that it's enterprise in new clothes.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's it.

MR. ROSE: Is it? Partnerships in enterprise in new clothes.

No more partnerships and no more dancing together. It doesn't take two

to tango, just one superminister per district. We're concerned about

that. It's not that we're concerned about decentralization; we want

decentralized government. But if you take a minister of state from each

of nine regions, equip him with an acolyte called a parliamentary

secretary, and maybe two, well paid, with all the perks, and then you

take that minister of state and put him in the cabinet and the cabinet

is presided over by a premier, folks, is that decentralization? I think

what it is is decentralization like the ribbons on a maypole: they all

lead to the top. And that's where the decisions will be made, because

that's where the buck stops.

We don't think that this is in the traditions of our inherited

British democracy. We did not go for the United States of British

Columbia. We feel that all regions should be treated equally and we

don't see why there should be a fifth structure designed to do an

end-run around MLAs. That's why we weren't interested in being co-opted.

Now there's nothing wrong with being a participant in an

organization that provides communication and input for various groups

of people. On the surface it looks fine. But then we heard from the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. M