1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2721 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Tourism. Mr. Rabbitt –– 2721

Ms. Edwards

Highways privatization. Mr. Lovick –– 2722

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Raw milk. Mr. De Jong –– 2724

Hon. Mr. Savage

Mr. Rose

Health and safety. Mr. Harcourt –– 2726

Hon. Mr. Strachan

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

Ms. Marzari –– 2728

Mr. Blencoe –– 2729

Mr. Kempf –– 2731

Mr. Loenen –– 2732

Mr. Clark –– 2732

Mr. Skelly –– 2734

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2737

The House met at 10: 11 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. DIRKS: In the members' gallery this morning is the good mayor, just re-elected, from the good city of

Castlegar. Would the House please welcome Audrey Moore.

MR. CRANDALL: The House will recall that the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) announced a task force

in July to review public library funding and organization, and on his

behalf I would like to introduce the chairman of that committee, Mr.

Stan Pukesh. The member for Nelson-Creston has already introduced Mayor

Audrey Moore, who is the vice-chairman of that task force; also Mrs.

Sheila Lid, who is a member of that task force. I would appreciate it

if the House would welcome them this morning.

MR. BLENCOE: I, along with my colleague across the way, would

like, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, to welcome Audrey Moore

from Castlegar. As Municipal Affairs critic, I and Audrey have had a

number of discussions about municipal issues; we don't always agree,

but they are interesting and lively. On behalf of our caucus and the

member for Trail, whose riding Audrey Moore is in, we welcome Mrs.

Moore.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Does anyone else want to introduce Audrey Moore?

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

TOURISM

MR. RABBITT: It's certainly an honour this morning to be

first on the list and try to convey some of my concerns with regards to

my riding, its future, and the future of tourism and the way it relates

to my riding. Recent events have rather diminished what I consider to

be some of the real concerns in Yale-Lillooet. I believe that my job in

this House is to keep both the government and my colleagues fully aware

of those concerns.

In the past year we have seen many changes, some positive and some

not. Historically — and still today — the mainstays of industry are

mining, forestry and ranching, but tourism is emerging, very quickly,

as one of the most important. For example, in region E, which

encompasses a large part of my riding, provincial stats are up. From

January to July there's a 3.4 percent increase over last year. Hotel

occupancy is also up and abreast of last year. Banquet and conference

sales are up 14 percent. When we consider that last year was also Expo

year, I think it's a good indicator; but it is still only an indicator.

Manning Park is one of the most popular downhill and cross-country

ski areas in my riding, and now, with the addition of hydro, there's a

vast potential there for some major expansion. The new Tyax mountain

resort in Gold Bridge has been in operation for almost a year. That

area includes hiking, cross-country skiing, heliskiing, as well as many

summer recreations. At the present time a new fishing lodge is under

construction at Minnie Lake.

[10:15]

It is estimated that in the central portion of the riding of

Yale-Lillooet the fish stocks are under quite a demand from the tourist

industry. The demands are created by an increased usage of over 30

percent this year. This will require that both direct and positive

action is taken by the Minister of Environment to see that the stocks

are replenished and that both the quantity and quality of fishing in

the central interior are maintained.

Some of the finest steelhead fishing in the world is found in the

Thompson River. Because of lack of cooperation between the federal and

provincial governments, fish stocks have been reduced to a dangerously

low level. I commend the ministry for restocking steelhead and suggest

that we continue to try to obtain an agreement between the federal

government and ourselves that will see the sports fishing industry get

their fair share of the annual run.

Several potential projects are now in the planning stage and will

need government cooperation. For example, at Hope, developers are

planning to have within the next year a paddle-wheeler operating

between New Westminster and Hope on the Fraser River. It has been

almost a hundred years since a paddle-wheeler has operated on a regular

basis; hopefully, next year we will see one back in service.

Also in Hope, we have a major project on the planning board by the

native community that will build a native cultural centre, including a

log round-house. In Merritt, we also have the native community planning

a centre that will exhibit both the crafts and lifestyles of their

historic Indian culture.

In Nicola, an entire town in the 1880-era design is being rebuilt.

This will create a resort town close to the community of Merritt that

will include commercial, residential, hotel and convention facilities,

an 18-hole golf course and a marina. It is estimated that more than $30

million will be expended in the next five years, and it will create 100

full-time jobs in that area.

This site is also to double as a movie set. Already, movie segments

have been shot in the last few years in Hope, Princeton and Ashcroft,

and a TV series has been shot in the Douglas Lake area.

Government has taken some initiatives, and one of them was by the

Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid), which was

the Gold Rush Trail. This was a locally conceived idea which was

adopted and implemented by this government. It gives tourists the

opportunity to learn the history of my great riding while they're

traveling through.

I must say, however, that the Gold Rush Trail has certainly not hit

its potential. It hasn't come close. Last year the signs did not go up,

and the season went by, and tourists were not able to take advantage of

many of the advertisements that had been placed on the western side of

the continent –– I ask the minister to make this a priority this year

and see that the signs go up prior to the tourist season, not after the

tourist season is over. I also suggest that the Gold Rush Trail can be

used in conjunction with other programs, such as the adventure travel

packages and circle tours which are now in existence.

Another government initiative is the downtown revitalization

program. When considering that many of the municipalities in my riding

are in excess of 100 years old,

[ Page

2722 ]

you can understand why I feel that this program is

so necessary. Both the communities of Merritt and Princeton have

completed their first stage, and they're working on the second.

Presently, both Ashcroft and Lytton are planning their first stage. I

encourage the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to

continue this program and in fact enlarge upon it.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure today to

respond to the member for Yale-Lillooet, whose area is one of the

lovely ones in British Columbia, and I would say in grandeur and

magnificence I'm sure it comes close to the Kootenays.

He is talking about a number of things that are crucial in the

development of this province — the tourism development. Tourism is the

industry that is on its way up, and it has the magnificent benefits

that it extends and will continue to extend and expand in every one of

the rural areas of this province. It's one of the few industries that

can do that, and I think we've all recognized that in our approach to

it in this province. He talked a bit about the wilderness tourism

aspect of this, which is extremely important, and again the part of the

industry that's going sky high.

The member for Yale-Lillooet has said a couple of things that I

think need response. He has talked about the importance of fish stocks

and of steelhead, and there being a great demand for fishing in his

area from visitors and tourists, who in fact become the base for the

income that we expect from the industry. I would like to remind the

member that the Stein River valley, which is one of the native heritage

spots, and also one of the possible spots for wilderness tourism in

this province, is now under threat from his own government, with the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) saying that they're going to log

in the Stein Valley. I would like to point out to him that the native

people do not want only the kind of centres that you're talking about

being built as cultural centres in Hope and Merritt. They're probably

very good ideas, but that is not the essence of the heritage of the

native people. It comes in the natural areas, such as those in the

Stein Valley that have incited the government, shall we say, to create

the conflict.

Congratulations that the steelhead are there; that is good. What it

indicates is that we need more planning. In fact, if you have a 30

percent greater demand for fish stocks, and a reduction in the amount

of resource that we offer for that demand, it indicates very clearly

that the planning that needs to be done for tourism — recognizing that

tourism is a land based industry, just as much as mining or forestry —

has not been done. If we develop industries without considering that

the resource base isn't all that we need, that we need more of an

organized approach to things, we end up with situations like northeast

coal, where there's lots of resource but no considerable success in

running it, because there was no planning.

The member has talked about heritage, and this is an important

aspect of tourism. I'm happy to applaud any efforts that go on there in

the development of heritage, which of course is one of the essential

things that we can offer to our visitors in the industry. There's a lot

of scope there, knowing that our travel deficit in the third quarter of

1987 was $574 million. Obviously there is a group of people very close

to us who are willing to travel, and who have not been traveling within

Canada. That compares to last year, when it was $21 million,

considerably less. There's a whole opportunity there that the industry

should be exploiting –– I certainly wish the riding of Yale-Lillooet to

have its fair share of that.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, with the growth of tourism also

come some demands on our traditional industries, such as ranching,

forestry and mining; I'll be the first to admit that. But somehow we as

a government must strike a balance, and that balance must recognize

that these traditional industries must also be recognized in their

fullest.

I think that when we develop any new industry, such as tourism, it

will infringe on those areas that have been traditional for 150 years.

But we have an education process that we have to live with, and we have

to develop this education so that the tourist coming in understands the

value of the historic part of ranching and mining and forestry, and

also we have to let the people who visit from the lower mainland know

that we in the interior have to make a living in these historic

industries. It's very important that we get the four industries to

understand the problems that each and every other one is faced with.

HIGHWAYS PRIVATIZATION

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, there are probably very few people

in B.C. today who haven't heard of what's called "privatization."

What's more, most voters now have some idea of what that means. They

know that the government's initiatives represent a massive and a

radical change. They know that the plan amounts to a huge transfer of

money and power that threatens the livelihoods of thousands of working

men and women and that calls into question the safety of our people and

the role and the duty of government to protect the public interest.

The government has created and encouraged a climate of fear and

uncertainty with its vague, incomplete and imprecise utterances about

selling off government services and the assets of the people. My

purpose here, however, is not to talk about all those initiatives.

Rather I want to focus on only one: the government's proposal to

transfer to the private sector the responsibility for maintenance of

our roads and highways.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many good and compelling reasons why

this proposal should be abandoned. What I want to do here today is

present ten good reasons. I hope that members of the government side

will listen carefully to the arguments and, indeed, I would challenge

them to point out any errors in the arguments presented.

Number one, Mr. Speaker. There is an obvious conflict between the

contractors' private interests and the public interest. Contractors

want to maximize their earnings, and that means maximizing costs. It is

just that simple. The public interest on the other hand wants maximum

service for as little cost as possible. Those two interests are in

conflict, and they are irreconcilable.

Number two. Highways maintenance work is virtually impossible to

quantify in terms of either scope or the amount of work required. The

simplest explanation of that, Mr. Speaker, is just that highways

maintenance is dependent upon weather and other unforeseen

circumstances. How do you bid on the unpredictable?

Number three. Private contractors will not be able to provide

service to remote communities. Remote communities, by definition, are

not large or accessible enough to provide a satisfactory return on

investment to encourage

[ Page

2723 ]

contractors to provide the service required. By the

logic of the market, remote communities would have to pay so much that

nobody could afford to live in them.

Number four. It is cost-prohibitive to maintain any kind of

meaningful control or quality of service. We know that governments are

required to accept the lowest bid; we know the problems with that. The

arguments about precise job specification and about performance bonds

are flawed. They are flawed, first, because of the additional cost for

supervisory personnel, to monitor. Second, high performance bonds

effectively rule out the small contractors; only the large contractors

can afford to pay them. Also, the bonds may ensure that we get our

money back, but they don't do anything to solve the original problem,

namely whether the road is properly maintained.

[10:30]

Number five. A privatized maintenance service will not be able to

respond quickly and immediately to emergencies. Unless we allow the

contractor to write his own ticket, which we obviously cannot afford to

do, we will have less service. It is just that obvious.

Number six. The privatization of the service is likely to lead to

the elimination of the small contractor. I suspect that members on the

other side of the House have heard from some of those contractors.

Certainly I have. Remember that the current Highways department

operations do allow for small contractors to get a piece of the action;

it is questionable whether that can continue.

Number seven. There may be adverse impacts on local communities.

Highways ministry policy is currently to purchase locally and to use

local labour. No private contractor would likely agree to such a policy

unless the government were to demand that from every contractor, and

that, of course, would be an interference with the marketplace, which

we know the government is ideologically opposed to.

Number eight. The government's ability to control costs would be

significantly reduced. The government can assign the contracts either

on the basis of a flat fee or on a cost-plus basis. Under the former,

the provision of 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week emergency service

could, of course, easily bankrupt the province. Under the latter, the

problems with monitoring are immense. Look what happened with the

Coquihalla, given we had monitoring in place at the time. Take away the

monitoring; guess what happens?

Number nine. Under a system of privatized maintenance there can be

no assurance that the work will in fact get done. Two questions will

make the point: what if a contractor goes broke; what if a contractor

can't perform? At present we have private contractors doing

maintenance, and we have a record of failure to perform. There,

however, we have the ministry to bail out the contractors. What happens

when you don't have that?

Number ten. The privatization of the maintenance system will mean

less accountability. To whom do the people complain when the

maintenance is unsatisfactory? At present citizens can call on their

locally elected representatives, who can in turn put pressure on the

ministry. What kind of pressure can be put on a ministry which has at

best an arm’s length relationship with contractors? I submit, Mr.

Speaker....

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: I received a copy of the member's statement.

I hope you read the rules sometime about reading speeches in the House:

you just about got it totally verbatim.

If there is anything in your statement that I find a little

difficult, it's that the government has created and encouraged a

climate of fear. If anyone is trying to encourage a climate of fear, it

is the members opposite and other members in the community who seem

loath to the idea of believing that anybody who doesn't work for

government is incompetent and incapable of performing simple tasks.

MR. LOVICK: Listen, for heaven's sake.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, I listened to what you had to say and I

listened politely and I listened quietly, and I didn't interrupt you

when you spoke, and I listened to your ten points. Some of them are

based on fear, and some of them are based on assumptions.

On the basis of your first assumption, government should do

everything for everybody at all times, and I think we've already

established that's not really the way to do things.

You say it's impossible to quantify the highways work. If it's

impossible to quantify it now. how has Highways been able to budget

over the years and how have they been able to plan for it? Because if

the Highways ministry can do it, the private sector can do it; and if

we can make projections and have the flexibility within our own

budgeting system, we can do exactly the same thing within the

projections that we do for the private sector.

You say that the private sector will not be able to provide the

service to remote communities, and I tell you that I don't think that's

so and I don't think we're going to see anything like that. In fact, I

think we will find much more interest in the small, remote communities,

where there are other things to do besides government work. In many

cases, small communities have been stuck with the fact that the only

available equipment that's in the community belongs to — who? — the

Ministry of Highways and Transportation. When someone else has a

private sector job to do in the community, they have to move equipment

at great cost and at great lengths from some distance away. Why?

Because Highways didn't and doesn't have the flexibility to even

consider doing private sector work. That might make the whole thing

much more efficient, but your argument always misses that.

You say that the costs to maintain any kind of meaning and control

on quality of service would be prohibitive. I just say I don't think

that's so. I think that has been demonstrated elsewhere, and I think

the proof will be in how it works.

You ask about performance bonds. Performance bonds have been

available for small contractors for years, and there are lots of people

who have been able to raise performance bonds. Contractors, regardless

of size, will have to have performance bonds, and as we have existing

contracts right now.... I'll get a copy for you, because contracts in

terms of general construction carry performance bonds: it is written

right into the contract that if the work is not being done

satisfactorily, forthwith the supervisor from Highways can say: "Stop;

we'll put somebody else in there." That's what we've done on

construction; there is no reason to consider why we can't do that on

maintenance.

And so we go through the whole list of your things. I think number

six is nonsense, quite frankly, but you will obviously disagree with me.

[ Page

2724 ]

There also may be, in number seven, some positive effects. You

always look at the dark side of everything, but I think that in local

communities we will have a very positive effect.

If we have been paying a premium to purchase goods, is that the best

thing for the taxpayer? Are we not responsible for the taxpayer to get

the best bang for the buck, rather than necessarily always catering to

whoever the local supplier is because they're a local supplier? I don't

know that that's necessarily the most efficient way to look at it for

the taxpayers. I think we will have the ability to control cost, and

there will be teething pains with it — no question about it.

In number nine you say that under a system of privatized maintenance

there will be no assurance that the job will get done. I can assure you

that that will be there.

In number ten, in terms of less accountability, we'll probably end up with more.

I appreciate your concerns, I appreciate the way you put it

together, and I'll try to respond more formally to you by way of

letter. This is probably the right forum to bring it up for discussion.

MR. LOVICK: I want to respond in kind, if I may, and say that

I appreciate the minister's efforts to answer the questions. I think

that's commendable, and I am delighted to hear him say that he will

respond in a written form. It seems to me that this kind of debate must

not take place only in a very compressed and charged atmosphere; there

is too much at stake here. Indeed, I would love to see a written answer

to my contentions, and of course I would reserve the right of rebuttal.

Very briefly, let me say that the minister's suggestion that we are

somehow responsible for the climate of fear strikes me as ludicrous in

the extreme, given that we see evidence. everywhere from people who

call themselves supporters of that government; indeed, from former

ministers of the Highways department and from former deputy ministers.

We did not create this climate, Mr. Minister; rather, that was done by

the initiatives of this government. Let's have no illusions about that.

Second, I want to suggest that the argument that the proof of the

assertions the minister makes will be in the performance and nothing

else is simply not good enough. It seems to me that it is incumbent on

the Ministry of Highways to demonstrate, in advance of this radical

transformation, that there is good reason to demonstrate it can be

done. Don't ask us to trust you, Mr. Minister; the stakes are simply

too high.

Thirdly, the notion that if a contractor defaults the ministry can

always get somebody new doesn't make sense, because the predicament is

that we are often called upon to perform a service right now. It's not

a question of saying well, we're not going to finish off clearing that

mudslide or doing something about that avalanche because, after all,

we're not happy with this contractor and have to get another one. What

the devil happens in between? That's the problem. The analogy is false.

The notion of taxpayers getting the best bang for the buck. You bet,

Mr. Minister, we all agree with that. I submit to you, however, that if

you have out-of-province contractors and you have leakage from the

economy, that's not an efficient use of taxpayers' money. I suggest to

you that the local communities do indeed deserve priority in any

bidding.

I hope that the arguments I have presented here do constitute a good

and compelling case against privatization. I am suggesting that, given

the case against, I don't see how the government can continue to be for

this measure.

Given that I have a moment left, Mr. Speaker, let me make another

brief comment. We currently have a very desirable situation in terms of

highways maintenance in British Columbia. We have a good working

partnership between the public and the private sector.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request leave to make an introduction prior to my statement.

Leave granted.

MR. DE JONG: Accompanying my wife this morning in the public

gallery are John and Margaret Friesen. John Friesen has just been

re-elected as alderman in Matsqui. I ask the members to give them a

cordial welcome.

RAW MILK

MR. DE JONG: I rise to speak this morning on the subject of

the sale of raw milk in British Columbia and its potential

consequences. Being that I am still a shareholder in a family dairy

farm operation in the central Fraser Valley, the members may wonder why

I would be concerned about the sale of milk. Milk is indeed the most

perfect food that can be marketed, if it's marketed right. It's not

really the sale of milk that I am concerned about, it's the sale of raw

milk. Raw milk is being sold on the streets in British Columbia. That

raw milk is produced on non-inspected farms.

Just to clarify this point, every licensed shipper or producer of

milk in British Columbia is regularly inspected by the dairy branch of

the Ministry of Agriculture. All milk produced in and shipped from

processing plants is tested at least twice a month for various types of

carrying bacteria. Generally, two types of test are conducted. One is

to detect the bacteria, and the level of the same which would not

survive the pasteurization process. The other is to detect the bacteria

which could continue to grow after the pasteurization process, when the

milk has cooled.

Both of these tests have been carried out for many years in British

Columbia, and have established strong consumer confidence in dairy

products. Herd health, coupled with strong and extremely high standards

of cleanliness and sanitation for both buildings and equipment, are the

key to a successful dairyman. But more so is it the key to consumer

confidence.

This consumer confidence is currently being eroded by some illegal

operators in our province. Perhaps most are operating on a small scale,

but some are operating on a rather large one. Some operators are

perhaps very conscientious, but others leave much to be desired with

respect to herd health and cleanliness. The most important point is

that none of these farms are being inspected by the dairy branch. Nor

is the raw milk they peddle into B.C. homes tested. They are not

licensed, and are therefore illegal under the Milk Industry Act of

British Columbia.

[10:45]

am sure we are fully aware of the potential health

hazards that go along with this practice that could affect the lives of

young and old. Salmonella is one of these illnesses. While the word

"salmonella" may not strike terror into the hearts of all people, and

while there are 2,000 different types of salmonella, there are some

that are very serious, including

[ Page

2725 ]

some that can be fatal. We all know, I'm sure,

about an outbreak that happened in California in 1984 caused by the

sale of raw milk. Seventy-five people were hospitalized; 59 of those

survived, 16 died. The salmonella bacteria involved in this outbreak

was S. Dublin. California health authorities have calculated that the

risk of S. Dublin infection in people that use raw milk is 85 times

higher than in those who don't. Another study has shown that in

uncontrolled areas — as far as health and testing of herds are

concerned — the S. Dublin count in cattle is 10 percent higher.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to relate the potential dangers to the

public if the sale of raw milk in this province remains unchallenged.

Most provinces in Canada forbid the sale of raw milk. Even though it is

not allowed under the dairy industry act here, the act apparently does

not have enough teeth to stop it. It can only be stopped through the

Health Act. This is why I appeal that the Ministers of Health and

Agriculture get together in order to safeguard the people of this

province from the potential diseases that can be derived from the sale

of non-pasteurized milk. The Health Act must be firmed up to deal

effectively with this problem.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: My hon. colleague has raised some valid

points relative to the Milk Industry Act, and some concerns relative to

the Health Act as well. The member points out quite rightly that we do

have some concerns under the Milk Industry Act. We are looking for

amendments to cover the sale of raw milk, and inspection and licensing

for that sale.

The reason we're looking at it, if I could explain it to you, is

that from an ethnic point of view there are people who feel they have a

right as well as a desire to have the raw milk product. What we are

concerned about is that we also have a right to inspect, license and

control the sale of that product. From a health perspective, there

would also have to be some concern from the Ministry of Health. We are

trying to have the inspection services, etc. within the Milk Industry

Act transferred to the Ministry of Health. We feel that's very

important.

Just recently in Vancouver, there was a case where raw milk was

being sold at some comer stores which caused the city health officials

to close in and forbid the sale. That would require a city bylaw or

ordinance to be covered in almost every municipality if that happened

elsewhere in the province. The real concern here is that we have the

control of health standards within the Health ministry and administered

by them. I think it's very important to recognize that we have one body

looking after all health-concern aspects. We are conscientiously

working with the ministry to arrive at amendments to the Milk Industry

Act to allow that to happen and an inclusion in the Health Act that all

those inspections be administered by their department.

MR. ROSE: I don't know how much time I have on this according

to the rules, but I'll have more to say about this following the

question period. I am pleased to take

part in the debate and agree with

the member for Fraser Valley in the matter of testing and the necessity

to protect the public. He very carefully gave us an outline of what

dangers exist using untested or unpasteurized milk. So we agree with

him.

I wouldn't want him to be accused of spreading any fear around about

what might happen when you privatize the dairy lab in Burnaby — when

you sell off the dairy lab in Burnaby to whomever. Some people don't

realize just what it does to protect the public. Every milk producer

has to be tested twice a month by that dairy lab; they must be. It is

now a public institution with a budget of something like $600,000 a

year, and it is all recoverable except for $200,000 — a pittance to pay

for public safety.

People will say: "Well, it's still going to work. It's going to be

terrific. We're just going to privatize it; it's not going to move. The

law isn t going to change." I haven't got time to go into the details,

but there's a whole series in the New York Time s

in 1983 about what happens when you privatize testing labs. A

privatized lab falsified data on pesticides, on cancer tests and on a

great number of other things and were taken to court by the FDA over

this issue. I'm not saying that this going to happen here, because that

would be spreading fear. Just let me tell you what the honourable and

conservative New York Times had to say in an editorial about that. They

conclude after prolonged problems with private testing labs, not only

the ones of which I'm speaking but a number of others: "Instead of

being contracted out to private laboratories, the safety nets must be

conducted at an institute supported by the industry, perhaps with

government participation."

That is precisely what we've got here now, and we want to throw it

away. I think that's complete lunacy, and I don't think it protects the

public. Fifteen people who earn their keep, all except $200,000; it

doesn't make any sense. The access for the testing — which is required

by law — in remote areas is going to be difficult. There will be no

cross-checks done. There will be tests done on the cheap or else the

fees will be raised. I think this is an extremely important thing. I

agree with the member that we must have proper testing of dairy

products, and I think it's being done now. If it ain't broke, don't fix

it.

MR. JONES: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome 46

Grade 11 social studies students from Burnaby North Secondary School.

They are future voters, and they are seeing our democracy in action

here. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the weakness of

the system lies in whether the testing is done by a private lab or a

government lab. The weakness in today's system is that the Health Act

or the Dairy Act or perhaps both of them are weak and apparently allow

for the sale of raw milk. My statement this morning is basically to

warn ourselves that we should not allow this, because I believe very

seriously that it could become very much of an embarrassment to the

government if we don't act quickly to remedy the situation.

In one area in the Fraser Valley, one health branch receives up to

three complaints each week as a result of the sale of raw milk. I don't

think we should allow this to go on any longer. I believe we have a

very good product to sell in British Columbia, and there should not be

any fear among the public who drink the milk or make use of any other

dairy product that potential diseases could develop from the use of

dairy products. I think that's the key we should be looking at to

[ Page

2726 ]

tighten up our Health Act in particular so that it can be dealt with.

HEALTH AND SAFETY

MR. HARCOURT: It has become clearer each day this past week

that the Premier and other members of the government side of the House

have given little thought to the impact that privatization of public

services will have on the families and communities of this province. I

believe British Columbians would be dismayed, as I have been, at how

little knowledge the Premier and other cabinet ministers have of how

the various branches of government operate.

Yesterday in this House I asked the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) if contracts for the maintenance of highways by the private

sector would be based on fixed cost or cost-plus. That's an important

question, Mr. Speaker. If contracts are based on fixed cost, then what

does a private operator do when there's an emergency or a heavier

snowfall than normal? Will the private operators keep their employees

and equipment working and sacrifice their profits or even lose money?

If contracts are based on cost-plus, as they were in the construction

of the Coquihalla Highway, how much will the taxpayer end up paying

over and above what it now costs to maintain our highways? The minister

said he couldn't give me an answer until after the contracts have been

drawn up, but anyone who knows anything about the Highways ministry

will tell you that contracts based on fixed costs are written

differently than those based on cost-plus. Those government workers who

are responsible for preparing contract documents must first know which

way the costs will be based before they can draw up the contract.

So I can only conclude that either the government has spent so

little time thinking about its privatization scheme that it really

doesn't know what it is doing, or the government is trying to hide its

real intentions from this House and the people of this province.

The Social Credit Party has been in power for 12 years, and yet

government members seem unaware of the resources they have in the

public service and unaware of the responsible and important role that

government agencies play in the day to-day life of people in every

comer of our province. I have been trying, as have other members of the

opposition in this House, to ask questions which we hoped would force

the Premier and the government members to take a closer look at the

public services they plan to sell off to the private sector. When you

take a close look at almost any of the services that the government

plans to sell off, you cannot help but see the absolute folly of the

government's privatization plans.

Members on the opposition side have in the past few weeks visited

many of those government operations which the Premier has said will be

sold off, including what we have just discussed here today: the milk

and food testing laboratory, the soil and tissue lab, the B.C. Hydro

research centre, which I visited with the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Clark). There are many examples of the important work these

agencies do. But time is limited this morning, so I want to talk about

another one of these government agencies, the Environmental Laboratory

located at the University of British Columbia.

No private laboratory in the province has the people with the range

of skills, the equipment to test air and water quality or the

experience in responding to environmental emergencies that the

government environmental lab has. To make sure the water is safe to

drink, the Environmental Laboratory at UBC tests water so that the

waste discharged from industrial plants is not harmful to the

environment. It tests to make sure that smokestack emissions don't

pollute the air we breathe or cause acid rain.

[11:00]

The government's waste management branch, pesticide control branch

and fish and wildlife branch all depend on the tests that the

environmental lab does to make sure the laws we have passed in this

legislature to protect water and air quality are not broken.

The government Environmental Laboratory has another unique function

which is important to many thousands of people in this province. If you

live on a ranch or a farm, or you buy a summer cabin in rural B.C, a

place where you and your family can go for fun or recreation, you can

pay $25 and have the Environmental Lab test your drinking water. The

kits that tell you how to prepare samples of your drinking water are

available at any government agent's office anywhere in the province.

The fee for testing drinking water is subsidized as part of a combined

program to prevent environmental and health problems.

I can't think of anything more fundamental than having access to a

program which tests water to make sure it is safe for you and your

family to drink. There's nothing more fundamental. But if the

government Environmental Laboratory is sold off to a private operator,

the fee for testing the quality of drinking water will increase to

$200, a sevenfold increase, each time that water sample is tested. Many

ordinary people cannot afford to pay that. If the government sells off

the Environmental Lab, it will jeopardize the health of many thousands

of people in this province. Mr. Speaker, that is too high a price to

pay for privatization.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to respond as the Minister of

Environment, and to reflect on the comments the Leader of the

Opposition has made. First of all, his comments dealt with Highways

privatization. I think the questions that he asked today were really

answered yesterday in question period. If the member would care to

review the Blues, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) indicated quite clearly that we will be accepting bid

proposals, as we do in the construction of a highway or anything the

government's going to enter into.

Clearly, we will have to put qualifying ingredients in those bid

proposals, such as bonding and the type of thing that typically happens

in any construction or maintenance contract. It has been done for years

by our government, and by your government and governments before it,

and it is done typically in the business sector. Until the business

proposals are received, there's not much more one can say about that,

and I'm sure you're aware of that.

I would find it strange that you would hide behind this supposed

ignorance of what's happening. When you don't know what is

happening.... And agreed, we don't. We're asking for bid proposals;

it's clear. They can take many forms. It can be on a per-hour cost; it

can be on a per-unit cost. The construction industry is well familiar,

and so is government, with how to draft and analyze those bid proposals

as they come in.

I remember very articulate debate by the former first member for

Victoria many years ago on the privatization of Pacific Coach Lines; it

was doom and gloom, and would be just a terrible thing for the

government to do. Well, it did

[ Page

2727 ]

happen, and it's a superb service operated by the

private sector. It's turning a profit, and it doesn't require a

government subsidy anymore.

With respect to the Environmental Lab at UBC, I want to stress,

since this will be my responsibility, that safety and standards must be

maintained. That's been implicit in all the statements the government

has made about privatization — safety and standards. I myself have made

that same statement with respect to snow removal. I really don't know,

though, why the private sector can't bid on that lab and operate it

successfully. Much testing by private labs is done now in the province

of British Columbia, and it's a very good industry. I don't know why we

have to be involved in that.

But again, we are accepting bid proposals. And if they're not

acceptable, the Environmental Lab won't be sold; if they are

acceptable, it will be. But we have to see what those bid proposals are.

I am just going to close, because the member for

Boundary-Similkameen wants to speak as well. You talk about a $200 fee

for water testing, and it's now $25 and it's currently subsidized. That

means that those of us who aren't drilling a well and who don't have a

cabin on the lake are in fact subsidizing everybody else, and is it

really fair to have that type of cost subsidy in place? Maybe the $200

fee is more appropriate, whether the government does it or the private

sector does it.

With that said, I will relinquish my place to the member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. HEWITT: I will try to be as brief as possible and just

say, in response to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition: if

we look at it in terms of what the role of government is, I think it's

fair to say the government is there to make laws and to put into place

regulations to create an orderly but free society in British Columbia

and Canada under the democratic system. We're there to raise taxes and

revenues from the economy and to provide people services in health,

education and human resources. That's what we can do.

We can — and we have, as the minister said, with the private labs in

the health field — set the terms of the contracts to ensure that the

regulations and laws of the province are met to ensure that the people

are not put at risk. All those things can be done and will be done and,

as the Premier said, there will not be a fire sale in this province

with regard to public assets. What the Premier said is that we would

evaluate the proposals. If they were beneficial to the people of B.C.,

we would proceed.

What we have from the opposition is constant fear tactics, fear of

change, always wanting to bring up the issue of what might happen. Mr.

Speaker, it will be to the benefit of the people of British Columbia.

MR. HARCOURT: It was good to hear the Hobbes view of

government. It's good to hear that the member for Boundary-Similkameen

is back in his century — the seventeenth century — and to hear his view

of the role of government. I enjoyed that ancient theory of the role of

government.

And I may say that on the idea of fear, you should talk to members

of your own caucus, like the ex-Minister of Highways, who is fearful

about what is going to happen to the people of British Columbia. You

should maybe talk to a fine Social Credit member, the ex-Deputy

Minister of Highways, who is fearful for the lives of British

Columbians. You should talk to British Columbians who are fearful,

instead of blaming the opposition and the media for telling the truth.

Why don't you stand the truth for once?

That's basically what we're saying today. Take the time to rethink

these ill-thought-out, ill-advised and dangerous moves to harm the

people of British Columbia. Go back and rethink; there's mounting

evidence — it's becoming overwhelming evidence that you're soon going

to be buried in — that the people of B.C. don't want. and didn't want

in the last election.... You didn't tell them about it. You won't come

to the Legislature. You won't have independent reviews of these moves.

You can't table any studies. All you can do is blame the opposition and

the media for telling it like it is from the people of British Columbia.

I say to you, the Minister of Environment, that bid proposals and

bonding I'm quite familiar with. as a lawyer, as a businessman and as

the mayor of the third largest city in this country for three terms. I

can tell you that a bond won't do a heck of a lot of good when that

contractor goes bankrupt. That piece of paper won't shovel a heck of a

lot of snow on the Malahat in a snowstorm.

On the question of a private lab doing independent testing when the

bulk of the work is for the same private sector that they're testing, I

don't have to go back and give the same sort of primer that I just got

from the member for Boundary Similkameen about conflict of interest to

Social Credit. He should understand what conflict of interest is. A lot

of you have found out to your chagrin that you can't combine two things

at once.

We are urging, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, the

government to rethink privatization before people are injured or

killed. Please rethink these ill-thought-out, ill-advised schemes. On

behalf of the people of British Columbia we say that to you.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I am concerned about rule 25A

— and I'm glad the government House Leader is here — because it seems

to me that we need an amendment to it. This morning is a perfect

example of it. The member from Fraser Valley gave an excellent speech,

well prepared — and I thank him for giving me a copy in advance — and

he wanted the minister to respond. Whenever we raise a statement under

Members' Statements we want the minister to respond, and we're very

pleased that this occurred three out of four times this morning. I

imagine the Tourism minister is out of town or he would have been here

as well. So that part of it is working very well.

The point is that if the minister responds.... The way the rule is

drawn up, the proponent has the final three minutes. If the minister

takes up the full five minutes, it means that a member from this side

of the House has no opportunity at all to take

part in the debate. I

don't think that's the way the rule was intended. I have a good deal of

interest in this rule, because I was one of the major proponents of

having something like this so that we would have more opportunity for

private members to bring up matters in debate. We want the minister,

but we also want both sides of the House represented in the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if a motion would be acceptable, by unanimous

consent, that the committee look into this rule, or, as an alternative,

that I confer.... I see that the House Leader doesn't want this to

happen right now.

Interjection.

[ Page

2728 ]

MR. ROSE: No, the motion. What I'll leave it with is that if the

House Leader will nod his head in the affirmative and give us an undertaking

to have a conversation with me about rewriting this rule to reflect my concerns,

then perhaps we can make a motion to change or amend the rule at a subsequent

date.

Is it agreed, Mr. Speaker? Since a nod doesn't go into Hansard very well, I would like the House Leader to respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank my colleague opposite for his

observations. Of course, it would take the Select Standing Committee on

Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to restructure our

standing orders, and perhaps that can be considered at a later date. I

don't really have an opinion on that at this point.

However, I am quite agreeable, my friend, to a protocol arrangement

with the Whips, to be discussed Friday mornings or Thursday evenings,

or as soon as we know what the members' statements are on Tuesday

evening, and establish a speaking order. I don't think we have any

problem with that. I'm sure, since we're all courteous people, that we

can arrive at that protocol. I will agree to that, and my friend here

will discuss the speaking order with you, and the response. Is that

agreeable, Mr. House Leader?

MR. ROSE: I'm grateful for this, and I just hope that what

the minister has suggested...that our conversation will have no narrow

parameters. We will explore many avenues to improve that rule.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

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

[11:15]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

(continued)

MS. MARZARI: Bill 59, like many of the other bills that have

come before this session, represents in my mind, and in the mind of the

opposition, a lot of what this government has come to say to the House

and to the province. This bill contains in its pages wide-sweeping

changes to existing legislation. It contains sections from a

multiplicity of departments throughout our service. It changes laws, it

changes regulations, all to be debated in this House. With the few

minutes that we have to put our thoughts on the floor, none of this can

be given proper reading and proper consideration.

I would suggest that this bill, like many others, really lays the

government's foundations for its plans to privatize, regionalize,

deinstitutionalize and really degovernmentalize British Columbia.

It's of concern to me that, in the pages of this bill, there is a

clause that privatizes parts of Whistler, and a clause that basically

allows the Minister of Health to determine after the fact who should or

should not receive medical treatment. There is a clause that basically

structures the nine ministries of state for regionalization. There is a

clause that changes the number of Supreme Court judges.

Each one of these clauses demands hours of consideration by this

House. Each one of these clauses demands to be sent to a committee of

the House that would respect the House and respect the workings of the

House. Each one of these clauses should be before a bipartisan

committee, meeting regularly during the course of the sitting of the

Legislature, to be properly dealt with, with proper reports from the

civil servants, with proper witnesses being called from the public,

with proper consultation. Yet we find ourselves in the House debating

the number of Supreme Court judges; debating the number of

parliamentary secretaries; debating whether or not the Minister of

Health can disallow abortions, family planning or tubal ligations after

they've happened. It's a very radical piece of legislation.

The other side of the House, during the statement period, referred

to the opposition's fear of change. It referred to the fact that this

was the right forum — statement period was the right forum to discuss

privatization. They suggested that we were engaging in fear tactics.

With bills of this magnitude, presented in the House for a few minutes

of debate at the end of a year, I have to say that there is reason to

fear, and there is reason to fear the radical change that this

government seems to want to impose upon this province.

The radical change comes at us not in the form of carefully thought

through plans. It has come to us, as opposition and as citizens of

British Columbia, through press releases from the government side and

through documents like this bill that randomly, as I said, lay the

foundations for your plans. It is then up to us to read through these

bills piecemeal, without discussion in committee and without discussion

with the civil servants who wrote the reports that informed you, and

try to dissuade you and ask you to reconsider.

This House is hardly a place for reconsideration of anything. As we

have structured our parliamentary democracy and our legislative

assemblies, they are not structured for the government side to

reconsider anything. Reconsideration and in-depth consideration must

occur at a committee table, around the table, with both sides of the

House able to receive information from appropriate civil servants and

writers of reports.

That said, I turn to

section 2 of this bill. It's a one-line

section

on page 1 of the bill that simply says: "Section 12.1 of the

Constitution Act...is amended by striking out 'not more than 10'." That

one sentence sets up the government's plan for regionalization in this

province. Anyone coming to this bill would simply gloss over that and

go to something else. But that one sentence, basically, is this

government's way of telling the whole province that its scheme for

imposing a new regional system with nine ministries of state and nine

parliamentary secretaries is about to happen.

Nothing has been presented to this House through legislation.

Nothing has been presented to this House or a committee of this House

to suggest the need for this regionalization scheme. We only hear

through the press that these superministries or these regional

ministries with parliamentary secretaries are going to be dealing with

removal of lands from the agricultural land reserve. We can only

assume, then, that what

section 2 does is assist in the implementation

of a plan which basically denies respect and takes away from the

machineries of government that we have at our local levels now.

[ Page

2729 ]

Our municipal structures and our regional structures are

traditional. They have been built up, as the Legislative Assembly has

been built up over the years, with their traditions and their mandates,

in consultation with everyone — with the citizens — over the

generations.

Yes, we're afraid of change. We're afraid of radical change of this

nature, because the very democratic mechanisms that we have structured

in our communities are about to be threatened by

section 2 of Bill 59:

one line, which enables the government side of the House to give

appointments to anyone it so chooses, to its back-benchers, to pay them

double salaries or whatever, to go out and act as regional pooh-bahs.

It is more than municipalities and regional districts can tolerate,

particularly since my experience in the GVRD — the Greater Vancouver

Regional District — during the mid-seventies, when the GVRD was

building a plan of action and a regional development plan for the GVRD,

was a most exciting experience. Literally hundreds of citizens were

involved in the development of a livable region plan for the greater

Vancouver area. Our Premier chaired the committee that put together

that livable region plan and yet, within two years of that plan being

adopted by the region, not only was the plan scrapped, but the letters

patent for the planning function of the GVRD were removed by order-

in-council.

The planning function then of the whole region was lifted, and

municipalities in the region were left to their own devices to continue

to meet with the region to plan everything from roads to zoning

mechanisms, to how they would deal with agricultural land reserves when

that was lifted from them as well, along with the letters patent.

Municipalities have been left on their own, basically, for ten years,

trying to plan as best they can because of provincial government

intervention at that point.

Now we've got this new ministry of state coming along with

section

2, the parliamentary undersecretary or secretary or whatever you want

to call that person, at whatever salary you dictate through

order-in-council, coming to our region with an invitation that itself

must have cost a few hundred dollars, to invite me to a luncheon — that

is going to cost a few thousand dollars — to help design a plan of

action for our region. "This is the first of many important

opportunities I will have to make my voice heard in the economic and

social development of the lower mainland southwest region." This lunch

is going to be held on November 28 at the B.C. Enterprise Centre. We

don't know what rent is going to be paid to the Enterprise Centre, but

I doubt there will be any rent paid.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: On the Expo site.

This is an affront. It's an affront to the traditions; it's an

affront to the two levels of government, municipal and regional, which

for the last fifteen years have been attempting to come up with

regional land use plans.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government in the introduction of

Bill 59 is not just putting a few words on paper; it is basically

insulting the traditions of this province and the municipal and

regional infrastructures that we presently have. It is not respecting

this House by taking such pieces of radical legislation to

parliamentary committees where they belong. It is not respecting the

opposition, in its attempt to railroad these things through using the

press as its vehicle. It is not looking at change as a positive thing

for the people of British Columbia; it is engaging in change for

change's sake all the way along the line. It is centralizing its power

in a way that I think is almost incomprehensible. People are still not

aware of the implications of legislation such as the random sections

contained in this bill. As they become aware and as they see the

disarray in which you are unfolding your ideology on the province, they

will become most alarmed.

This bill represents lack of respect for institutions. It represents

lack of respect for the House. The power that this government is

absorbing unto itself would be better spread among the people that this

government claims to represent.

[11:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is second reading of Bill 59. Just

before we proceed and I recognize the second member for Victoria, I

would like to remind all members — since it is some time since we were

in second reading debates to any great extent — that in second reading

we are to deal with the principles of the bill only.

MR. BLENCOE: I intend to talk about the principle of the bill

in particular as it pertains, in my estimation, to the

section 2 that

deals with parliamentary secretaries. As my colleague before me

indicated, it is our impression and our belief that this

section 1s

very important to the new style of government that the province of

British Columbia wishes to impose upon the citizens of British

Columbia. We believe that it's part and parcel of the Premier's

attempt, along with his government members, to introduce an alien

system of government that we have not accepted since Confederation in

this great country — to introduce a United States of British Columbia.

We are deeply offended, as I think all Canadians and all British

Columbians are, with such a concept, which violates the principles of

British parliamentary democracy that we have accepted and cherished and

which indeed British Columbians and Canadians have fought for.

In the opening prayers this morning, the Speaker asked us to

consider the traditions of parliamentary democracy, and all members

present heard those words and I hope were prepared to honour those

traditions of parliamentary democracy. We have heard from the Premier,

and have had reaffirmed by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) this

week, that nothing is sacred in the province of British Columbia. We

believe that some things are very sacred — very, very sacred. Any

attempt by this Premier and this government to introduce through the

back door — which is

section 2 of this bill — a system of government

that offends the very roots of our fundamental principles of

parliamentary democracy in British Columbia.... I can guarantee from

this side of the House and from this speaker that we will do our utmost

to convince the government they are on a dangerous course and verging

on a constitutional crisis. The New Democratic Party believes this is

sacred.

British Columbia citizens and Canadians of all political persuasion

are deeply worried and fearful of where the government is going with

our traditional democratic parliamentary institutions. Again I refer to

the Premier's office talking about the United States of the province of

British Columbia. We believe that there is fear and apprehension. This

government has little or no regard for our way of governing which we

have accepted, struggled for and fought for since Confederation. There

appears to be a politically warped view of

[ Page

2730 ]

governing that is alien and appears to be a Republican presidential approach

that deeply offends us all in the province of British Columbia.

Under the guise of the Premier's platitudes of decentralization, we

are going to see, unless this government changes its direction, a basic

erosion of the principles of the British parliamentary system. As I

said, my party and I believe that we are verging on a constitutional

crisis of enormous proportions. There is a desire on the part of the

Premier and the government of British Columbia to ignore the traditions

of parliamentary democracy that we believe must be defended and is

extremely sacred to the people of this province. I cannot underestimate

that position.

We are British Columbians and Canadians. This country and this

province have accepted practices, going back to Confederation, that we

have put in place for how we govern ourselves. Any thought by this

Premier and this government to usurp, to destroy, to weaken that

system, through this United States of British Columbia system and this

Premier's view of decentralization and this new expansion of

parliamentary secretaries to support the new governors — or the czars —

of these regions that have been imposed upon local government.... Those

alien concepts have to be spurned, and we will certainly speak against

them.

In my estimation, it is no accident that the Premier jumped on the

free trade agreement before the ink was even dry or before he saw the

details. It is no accident that a few days later the Premier's office

and the Premier were endorsing the concept of the United States of

British Columbia. We see a direction that worries us all and that we

are indeed fearful of. We would hope the Premier of this province would

drop the concept of the United States of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The grand duchy.

MR. BLENCOE: The grand duchy, indeed.

This section, in our estimation, is the major start to putting in

place a new system of governing this province. It is no accident that

organizations of concerned citizens for democratic process are

springing up across this province, organizations that go right across

the political spectrum. People are deeply afraid. In their hearts and

souls they know that what this government is doing is totally wrong. We

denounced many years ago the concept of rotten boroughs, or Tammany

Halls, or backroom kinds of approaches to the parliamentary procedures.

Through the Premier's decentralized system and state system of

non-elected bodies which will govern this province and usurp the role

of local government, we are seeing the return to those days when

decisions which should be duly done in the Legislature and in the

parliament are being done in the back rooms, undemocratically and in a

centralized fashion. We will not ignore that, and I believe the people

of this province will not ignore that.

If the Premier of this province wishes to form a United States of

British Columbia, if he wishes to go that course, I will be the first

to offer him a one-way ticket on Air Canada to Washington, D.C.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: After the strike is over. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, as the Municipal Affairs critic for our party, when I see a

new system that is anti-democratic, is undemocratically imposing

another level of bureaucracy on regional and local governments — and

now we have the parliamentary secretary system going to be used to

interfere in the democratic work of all elected people at the local

level — I ask, as we are asking in the debate on privatization, that

this government rethink its course.

Local government has a hundred years of tradition of making

decisions for its own regions. They are elected to do that. And now,

compounded by parliamentary secretary expansion and what we have seen

in the Premier's centralization system of a new state system of

governing this province, we have a direct move to centralize and take

over and start to run the operations of local government. It is a

classic power grab.

It goes back to the Premier, when he left government some years ago

when he could not get through cabinet his land use act. We all remember

that. In that land use act there were at least 50 ways that the

provincial government could overturn local government decisions. We

know what he wanted to do with that land use act. He wanted to take

over or to be able to curtail the traditional roles of local government

and to have the power, through the provincial government, to overturn

decisions democratically made at the local level. What this Premier and

this government have gone back to is endorsing that concept once again.

We believe that local government must be allowed to govern itself.

They have the ability to make decisions for themselves. They have the

ability to develop their own economic plans, and they don't need

another level of bureaucracy, a state system, imposed on them through a

non-elected group in those regions telling them what to do.

Real decentralization is about devolution of power, the authority

for people to make more decisions for themselves about their own

resources, their own environment and economic decisions in their area.

That's what they were waiting for when this Premier talked about

decentralization. They had hoped that they would be given more

opportunities to get into economic issues and economic development.

Instead we see the reverse happening. This government has absolutely no

mandate to tinker with the system that we have set up — the British

parliamentary system and its relationship to local government — and

does not have the mandate to take on that very sacred system that we

have all accepted.

Of course, we are all concerned about the lack of utilization of

this Legislature in setting up the system. We all know already that $8

million is being allocated by special warrant to these regions; $8

million with no details of how this money is to be used; a special

warrant of $8 million — more borrowed money.

Basically it would appear that without those details, all we can see

is a system that is going to be used — and certain cabinet ministers

have admitted this — to fund organizations or institutions that cannot

get money through regular channels. The potential for abuse is

enormous, because there will be no accountability to this Legislature

for the spending of that $8 million — the first $8 million for the

Premier's United States of British Columbia.

All we can say is that we are fearful, because we have seen the

Minister of Tourism's (Hon. Mr. Reid'

s) comments out in Sooke: "If you

want to get anything done, you know what you have to do." We're very

worried that an undemocratic group....

MR. SKELLY: You get disciplined for telling the truth.

[ Page

2731 ]

MR. BLENCOE: That's true. The Minister of Tourism clearly

tells the truth and talks about what cabin et is trying to do, and what

he clearly laid out to the people of British Columbia was that the

United States of British Columbia, this presidential system that is

alien to our democratic traditions, is going to be used to go around

the Legislature and the democratic way of authorizing expenditures for

projects and economic development. That is totally unacceptable to us.

We hope that this government will really think long and hard about

the traditions of parliament, the traditions that we have had in place

for a very long time. We already see certain members of this government

breaking ranks over privatization, and I am sure there are others who

are very concerned about terms like "the United States of British

Columbia," which are very offensive.

Many members of this government will think long and hard about the

sacred traditions of parliament. We have been accused of fear of

change. We are very fearful when we see change coming into place that

we and the people of this province haven't endorsed, that we did not

give this government a mandate for. We are very fearful.

[11:45]

All we can say to this government is that if you want a

constitutional crisis in this province, proceed with your system of

Americanization, of the state system in the province of British

Columbia, and you will run into incredible problems and outrage on the

part of the people. Local government has traditions of autonomy, the

power to make their own decisions. They don't need another level of

bureaucracy to tell them what to do. They want the ability to govern

themselves, because they know their regions the best.

We want local government to be able to stand up for itself. The

message from our side of house, Mr. Speaker. has to be: let local

government govern. Don't utilize an inner-sanctum cabinet that has no

accountability to this Legislature — $8 million and no

accountability.... This Premier has no mandate to tinker, to usurp the

traditions of parliament that have been accepted in this province and

this country since Confederation.

This

section 2 is an offence, because we know what it is going to be

used for: parliamentary secretaries to run around this province,

separate from this Legislature, along with their state governors to

start to make decisions on economic issues that local government has

the plans for and the ability to deliver themselves.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are very apprehensive, and we hope this

government — if there's any wisdom left — will pull back from the

constitutional crisis that we are verging on in the province of British

Columbia and allow local government to do its real role. Let's talk

about real decentralization and devolution of power, and not

centralization in the Premier's office.

MR. KEMPF: I too am going to zero in on

section 2 of Bill 59

in speaking to the principle of this bill — because that's the only

opportunity we in this chamber are going to have to debate

regionalization, to debate something that's going to change the very

lives of all British Columbians. It is going to change the very

democratic process under which we have existed for so many years in

this country.

We really don't realize, Mr. Speaker — even members of this House,

and certainly members of the back bench of government — what is

happening in this province with regionalization. An alien system of

government, the member speaking before me called it. It is worse than

that. When you undermine and usurp the powers of duly elected

representatives, it is a little more than alien government, Mr. Speaker

— just a whole lot more.

I'm appalled that I have to speak in this way to this

section of the

bill. but it is the only opportunity we'll have to voice our discontent

about the seriousness of what's going on in British Columbia, about the

consolidation of power in one man's hands. We've all seen down through

history what that has done in other jurisdictions. Let me tell you. Mr.

Speaker, don't ever believe it can't happen here.

I'd like to see what that group over there would be saying if they

were sitting here and it was this group sitting there doing What

they're doing today in British Columbia. I know what they'd be saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've seen both sides.

MR. KEMPF: You bet I've seen both sides. I know what they'd be saying. They'd be screaming. "Foul!"; they'd be

screaming,"Socialism!"; they'd be on the lawns of the Legislature with placards. You bet I've been on both sides; I've been

around here a long time. That's what would happen. But you know, because they are doing it, we're all supposed to think that

it's all right. "Trust me," the Premier says. Mr. Speaker, nobody is benevolent, and neither is the Premier of this province

benevolent, and it's for that reason that I speak out against this

section of the bill. It's the only opportunity that I will

have in this chamber to speak out against decentralization.

Again I say it's not decentralization; it's not decentralization at all. We've got representatives in every region of

this province, 69 of them who come to this chamber to represent their regions. All we have to do in government is listen to

them. What do we need superministers for? Ministers of state — how preposterous! You laugh, Mr. Member. You'll laugh

out of the other side of your mouth before this is all through, mark my words, because the people of British Columbia are

going to start to understand what regionalization is doing to the democratic process in this province. Are you happy that

your position...? You haven't been here long enough, I guess. Are you happy that your position as the duly elected

representative for your constituency is being taken over by someone who hasn't been elected there? Are you happy about that?

I'm not. I've been duly elected four times in Omineca, and I'm not happy about someone coming in to tell my people what they

should or should not have, without recourse at the polls for those people to show their discontent if what is being done is

not to their liking. That strikes at the very root of the democratic system.

I may be a country boy from the backwoods, but I understand what's going on in British Columbia: a consolidation of power

not only in the hands of one man, which scares me enough, but in the hands of the non-elected mandarins who exist around

that Premier — non-elected people making decisions that they feel are good for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: I'm a mandarin, eh? You will learn, Mr. Member, when you've been here long enough — if you're here

long enough.

[ Page

2732 ]

Why do we even need this place anymore? That's the next good question.

If you don't need MLAs.... That's been said publicly by the Premier's

principal secretary. What do we really need MLAs for? What do we really need

this chamber for — that's the next question. Is that next on the privatization

list? Let's privatize this chamber, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it's not the

intent, but it could abolish our very democratic system. Any move in that direction

I shall fight to the fullest, Mr. Member, not just here, given the opportunity

in a one-line

section of an omnibus bill — the only opportunity to debate a

very serious issue in the province of British Columbia, probably the most serious

issue since we entered Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, it's a shame. Some members talked earlier about tradition. Tradition is going down the tube. There is no

tradition left in this province. Privatize the Queen's Printer! What do we care about tradition?

Decentralization indeed. It's wrong. It's scary. It's undemocratic.

Mr. Speaker, when we debate this bill in committee, I'm sure many members, and I would hope members of the government

caucus.... I've been there; I know what kind of mushroom factory it is — afraid to speak out on behalf of their

constituents because maybe they might get into cabinet. But I've got to tell you that even that's being abolished. All

of the power of this province in the hands of eight cabinet ministers.

With the advent of regionalization, your opportunity to get into cabinet has been cut in half. So it's about time you

started speaking out on behalf of those who elected you and sent you here. If you don't.... As I was driving along my bumpy

highway in Omineca the other day, I heard the government House Leader talk a bit about the privatization of highways.

It's about time not only back-bench members of that government started speaking out, but also cabinet ministers. We know

they aren't asked about what they think should be going on, or whether they think the Premier should be doing what he's

doing in the province. Not only is caucus not asked; cabinet is not asked. We know that — I've been around long enough.

I will vote against this bill merely because of

section 2. That's

unfortunate, but it's the only opportunity we'll get in this House to

voice our concern on behalf of the people we represent, and all British

Columbians, about what regionalization is doing to this province.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MR. LOENEN: I'd like to make a few comments in response to

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). We've heard a great deal

this morning about a fourth level of government, about a constitutional

crisis, about an alien form of government, about lack of democracy. I

would just like to say this: we do not have a fourth level of

government. When it comes to government, we all know that there are

three levels of government, and that the local level of government

exists because it is a creation of the provinces. The critic for

Municipal Affairs ought to know that.

[12:00]

These levels of government exist because they have powers embedded

in the statutes of this province. The decentralization plan has no

powers. There are no statutory powers given to them. It's not a fourth

level of government.

It's very elementary, and you ought to understand that.

Decentralization of government is a great initiative to bring

government closer to people. For you to characterize it.... Our Premier

is a populist who understands the needs and the wishes of the people of

this province. To characterize our Premier as a dictator, as a

president, is not only unfair; it is absolutely and totally inaccurate.

You know that.

As for the $8 million accountability question, that, like every

expenditure of this government, will be accounted for fully before this

Legislature. I do not want to go on and on. I simply want to illustrate

and put on record that what we have heard is an absolute distortion of

the facts.

MR. CLARK: I want to talk about

section 19 of this bill, but

I'll start with

section 2. It's absolutely clear that what the last

member said is rubbish and what the former Minister of Highways said is

more the reality in British Columbia today. If that member had the guts

that the former Minister of Highways had, we'd be better off.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members, please. Could we have just a little bit of decorum before we leave for the weekend.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: The Dukes of Hazzard — that's what they call it in my riding. The member for Point Grey called it pooh-bahs.

It's absolutely clear that

section 2 is really an attempt to give a

little gravy to the back bench so they continue to cheerlead for the

government. That's the job for the second member for Richmond (Mr.

Loenen), we all know that: be a cheerleader. Pork-barrel politics at

its worst.

Here we see that the first economic development officer appointed

under this government is a former campaign manager for the Social

Credit. How in the world can anybody have faith that this is nothing

other than pork-barrel politics at its worst when the first person

hired is a former campaign manager, a jeweler from Smithers. He's going

to be deciding how economic development will go on in the Nechako

region.

MR. BLENCOE: What does he do? Who is he?

MR. CLARK: A jeweler. We find out that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is looking at high-risk venture capital

spending with pension funds, and we're going to see a jeweler in

Smithers — a Socred Party member, a former campaign manager — decide

how to invest public sector pension funds in the north. Unbelievable!

The Dukes of Hazzard.

This isn't decentralization at all. This is just pork-barrel

politics. This

section of the bill is to make it unlimited. Every one

of you could be parliamentary secretaries, except for Alex Fraser.

Everybody here should get up and speak like the second member for

Richmond did and do a little cheerleader job. There's one cabinet

minister here in the House, and he'll take it back and tell them what a

good job you've been doing, and you'll get that extra what is it? —

$6,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

[ Page

2733 ]

MR. CLARK: Three thousand, I'm sorry. Next it will be $6,000.

This section....

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Some members on the other side are saying: "Why

are they debating the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act? We want to

go home for Christmas." Well, it's because we're not having a debate.

We can't have a debate. We have an hour. But this

section 1s an

opportunity for us to raise what is really going on in this province,

which isn't rational thinking or planning or decentralization. It's a

way in which back-benchers can get goodies and handouts in order to be

cheerleaders for the government — in order to buy their silence. It's

nothing more than that.

There are other sections of this bill that directly relate to

privatization. I want to spend a little bit of time today talking about

section 19, amendments to the Railway Act, to regulate railways in

British Columbia. It says: "....amplifies, clarifies and confirms the

regulatory powers of the minister under the Railway Act." That's the

explanatory note. Why would they do that at this time? It's

interesting, because very few railways are regulated by the government

of British Columbia; they're mostly regulated by the federal

government, the Canadian Transport Commission. It relates directly to

the privatization of the B.C. Hydro rail group. I'll talk about that at

some length.

The Thorne Ernst and Whinney report says it doesn't make any sense

to privatize that B.C. Hydro rail group. It's a dumb idea. An

international management consulting team comes in and says it's not a

good idea; but no, they're going to proceed. No thought. But they bring

in this

section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act to try to

firm it up. I want to read you what the Thorne Ernst and Whinney report

said about rail: "Rail is directly governed by only one regulatory

body, that being...the Railway Act of British Columbia." B.C. Hydro

Rail — only one act, the Railway Act. Here we have a Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act coming at this time, amending the Railway Act,

to deal directly with the sale of the B.C. Hydro rail division.

It says: "A majority of Rail's business dealings are with major

national railways, all of which are regulated by the Canadian Railway

Act.... These national railways are subject to the Canadian Transport

Commission setting rates which may be charged for rail transportation."

The members should listen to this. They probably haven't read it.

They're just cheerleading without reading the facts. It says:

"It is important to note a major distinction between

the federal act and the provincial act. Under the federal act there is

a provision called the 'switching provision, ' which at present allows

any competing railway to use a

section of line four miles on either

side of a switch (switch is defined as a

section of track that is

bisected by a

section of your competitor's track). The price for the

use of this piece of track is regulated under the federal act and is

considered a very nominal charge. Under proposed changes to the federal

act, the four-mile limit is extended to eighteen miles. Should Rail

become subject to the federal act...." — through privatization — "this

extension would effectively turn the entire Rail

section of track into

switching track and therefore dilute the potential commercial advantage

for a federally regulated purchaser."

So what does it say? It says: We can't sell B.C.

Hydro rail division to any other railway that's regulated by the

federal act or it will be worthless.

So there are only two options: sell it to B.C. Rail, or sell it to

the workers. Make them buy it. Of course, we know that the government

said they don't want B.C. Rail to buy it. They want someone else to buy

it. Ws ironic that a government which says it's in favour of

deregulation would view.... What the federal government is doing with

the switching track is deregulating it. making it a situation where

anybody can use their competitor's tracks at a nominal cost. But if we

allow the B.C. Hydro rail division to be regulated by the federal act,

it will be worthless. So they have to take steps to make sure that the

federal deregulation of railways doesn't have an impact on the B.C.

Hydro rail division.

The B.C. Hydro rail division has a depreciated replacement value of

fixed assets of approximately $130 million. Of course, much of that is

in land. There are only 219 employees of the rail division, so if they

want to buy it, they each have to come up with about $500,000. As one

of the workers there said to me: "If I had enough money to buy this

operation, I wouldn't be working here." It's an enormous cost, but

we're trapped by this ideology of selling things. We can't sell it to a

federally regulated body because it's not worth anything. They don't

want to sell it to B.C. Rail because B.C. Rail is already government

owned. So it seems that the government's only option, from the logic of

their own ideology, is to try to foist it on the workers somehow. For

them to come up with that kind of money seems beyond me, unless the

government gives it to them. which is certainly entirely likely with

this operation.

What else does the rail division do under its current operation? It

actually makes money. It won't make money if it's federally regulated.

but the way it is now, it makes money. It also says that the net income

from rail contributes to the long-term debt of B.C. Hydro. So if we

sell off the moneymaker, B.C. Hydro also loses money. Then we

ultimately have to raise electrical rates to compensate. I don't want

to overstate that. It's not a lot of money they're contributing, and

B.C. Hydro has $9 billion in assets. So a small operating revenue from

the rail division isn't going to impact on rates enormously. but it is

going to impact on the viability of B.C. Hydro in the long run.

There are a couple of other things about the privatization of B.C.

Rail that are quite important. The electric division of B.C. Hydro uses

rights-of-way that are owned by the rail company — or effectively used

by the rail company — for transmission line corridors, so there's a

kind of natural efficiency that comes about as a result of the hydro

company owning a small railway. They can use the same rights-of-way for

the railway as they use for the electric company as they use for the

gas company. What happens? Most of the assets of B.C. Hydro rail are in

land, and that land includes the rights of way. If you sell the land

and the rights-of-way to a private operator, then the hydro company,

the electric company and the gas company will have to pay the rail

company to rent the rights-of-way. So not only will the operating

profits of the rail division not be going to the electric company, but

the electric company will have to rent the rights-of-way back from the

private operator.

Again we see no economic merit to the people of British Columbia in selling off a small, profitable enterprise that

[ Page

2734 ]

won't be profitable if it's taken over by a federally regulated company,

and a small operating railway that in fact contributes in many different ways

to the viability of B.C. Hydro electric division.

What are the recommendations of the Thorne Ernst and Whinney report?

"Rail, small by railway standards, is integrated with and relies on

other resources within B.C. Hydro. Accordingly it is not a stand-alone

candidate for the sale of shares to the public. An operation is a

separate entity. It's more likely that a merger of Hydro rail into B.C.

Rail makes sense." Is that what the government is doing? Are they

following the study that they commissioned, produced by David Emerson,

former Deputy Finance Minister" No. It doesn't matter what the

consultants say; it doesn't matter how much money they spent on

consultants. Keep trying to find consultants that actually justify what

they're doing. No, they can't do that, but somehow they're going to go

ahead with privatization. They don't know how they're going to do it.

[12:15]

We heard yesterday, on Highways, that we're going to wait and see

what kind of interest we get from the private sector. They don't know

how they're going to do it in B.C. Hydro rail, because it's integrated

into the Hydro system. It's integrated into the whole operation.

Overhead costs, corporate costs, legal costs — all that is provided by

the head office, so there has to be a whole new infrastructure

developed with this new private rail division. Every study that has

been done that we've seen.... Of course, maybe there are other studies.

I doubt it; I don't think so. The one study we've seen says it's not a

stand-alone proposition. Not only are they going to proceed with it;

they're going to proceed with it in precisely the opposite way to that

the consultants recommended. I think that runs through this

government's privatization initiatives, and this bill that we're

dealing with here deals specifically in this section,

section 19, with

railways.

There are a couple of other things in here that are interesting. It

says they should merge the Hydro rail company with B.C. Rail and then

privatize B.C. Rail. The Premier, of course, has talked about phase 1

and phase 2 and then, the other day, phase 3, and we don't know whether

B.C. Rail is on that — we know it's not on phase 1. But clearly that's

the strategy of the government. This is just the beginning of a

revolution, what Webster calls social revolution in British Columbia.

This is the beginning. So it's not very reassuring for workers or

others to even see this kind of situation where they say,"Well, B.C.

Rail is not on the block," and yet we see the consultants saying:

"We'll merge the Hydro rail division with B.C. Rail and then sell the

whole works."

Another aspect that disturbs me, because I think it is a hidden one

on many of these privatization initiatives, is the kind of undervalued

land values that exist in these operations. The Hydro rail division —

which makes money for the Hydro company and doesn't make any sense to

privatize — also owns very strategic and important blocks of straight

real estate in industrial parks and in communities all up and down the

line. So what is a private operator going to do? If the thing doesn't

make money, it doesn't make sense to sell it. If it's going to be

federally regulated, it's not going to make any money. Maybe they

should buy it for the railway price — it doesn't make any money; a

depressed price — but then sell the land, redevelop the land. Maybe

that's the hidden agenda that we see in this government. Because it

doesn't make any sense; there is no rational thought; there are no

studies that demonstrate that it makes any sense. All we get is

ideological rhetoric from the other side, proceeding on the basis of

blind faith in ideology. So maybe there is a reason; maybe the reason

is that the real estate can be flipped somehow. Maybe that's the

agenda. There are large blocks of land we know they own, so maybe the

real agenda is to offload that land to their friends or to others —

developers — who aren't going to buy it for the railway division,

because every study says it doesn't make sense, but are really going to

buy it for the land values.

I'm at a loss, I'm struggling to try to find.... We haven't heard

anything from the other side, any rational argument, so I'm searching

for some reason why they actually want to sell it. There isn't any

rational reason. It's hard to believe that in the face of all the

evidence they're going to proceed on the basis of some blind faith in

ideology. It's the triumph of ideology over common sense. We see that

all the way through. We saw it with the Dukes of Hazzard and

decentralization and all that kind of stuff, and we see it now with the

Hydro rail division. We've seen it with the Hydro R and D division —

all the way through it, All the consultants say,"Don't do it," but

we're going to proceed and do it.

We will be voting against this bill, clearly. It doesn't make any sense.

It's unfortunate that we have to debate privatization under a

miscellaneous statutes amendment act, because we only have an hour. We

have a revolution going on, massive wholesale changes to the way we

govern British Columbia, and an hour to debate it. So much for open

government. So much for a fresh start. It's unbelievable. So we are

forced to debate these little sections, to try to get our points across.

MR. SKELLY: Madam Speaker, I've been listening. to the debate

and to the contributions made by such individuals as the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and others who have spoken on a particular

section

of this act, a

section that's pretty fundamental to the whole process

here; it's one of the reasons why members have concentrated on it.

That's the second

section 1n this miscellaneous statutes act, which

amends the Constitution Act.

During the debate members have talked back and forth about their

concern over the changes that are taking place in the system of

government in this province, the changes that are taking place in the

Legislature, the changes that are taking place around the issue of

privatization and centralization. Some pretty important and fundamental

changes are going on today, changes that many people do not feel have

been adequately thought through and adequately worked out with adequate

consultation among the people of the province. Pretty serious changes

are going on, and the people are legitimately concerned about it.

When we bring these concerns to the floor of the Legislature, the

members of the government are saying that the opposition is fearful of

change. That's not true, Madam Speaker. The opposition wishes for

change as much as any other citizen of British Columbia. We'd like to

see a change in government, for one thing; we feel that that would

benefit the people of the province greatly. But we tried that once. We

tried it a number of times. Next time I think we may be a little more

successful.

Madam Speaker, we're not fearful of change. But there are some

aspects of the change taking place in this province that should

rightfully engender fear, because they do attack some of the

fundamental principles upon which our democracy is based. I'd like to

talk a little about that, because

[ Page

2735 ]

section 2 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act deals with those fundamentals, and tries to sneak change into

legislation in what appears to be a harmless way. Yet this will

radically and fundamentally change the constitution in a way that will

damage the province's future.

I have always been a person, Madam Speaker, who has tried to change

the tone of the debate in the Legislature, and tried not to react too

violently or too loudly to changes that are taking place, in order that

we may see the real kernel of debate rather than a lot of smoke and

rage and all of that kind of thing that has tended to cloud debate in

this province. I think this issue is an extremely important one, and I

hope members on both sides of the House will pay very close attention

to it.

This tradition of parliamentary democracy is very fragile, not one

that we would want to change without very careful consideration of the

changes. The parliamentary system was established by a series of

precedents and changes that took place not over hundreds of years, not

since Confederation in Canada, but over thousands of years. Over many

centuries this tradition of a democratic parliament has developed.

Many of those traditions that are the foundation of the democracy of

this country, Madam Speaker, are not founded in legislation or in

written constitutions. They are founded on traditions that are very

important. The tradition of your office, for example, and the

independence of your office; the fact that the Speakers of the

Legislature have to be dragged into the House after they are elected,

because the Speaker was a key position in the Legislature and one that

was the target of sovereigns who considered that they had the divine

right to rule quite apart from parliament.... So the Speaker was often

killed or hanged, and sometimes members of the Legislature supported

that.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm thinking of centuries past.

There are some very important traditions in the Legislature. There

are traditions that are irrelevant to modern times, traditions that

we've managed to shuffle off to make this Legislature an efficient,

functioning democratic body. I think it's worthwhile to get rid of the

traditions that are useless, but that we keep and respect and protect

the traditions that are fundamental to our democratic system.

For that reason, I am concerned about this

section and about this

statute. I think that

section 2 is a fundamental attack on the

principle of a democratic Legislature.

I've been in this Legislature for quite a while as well, Madam

Speaker. I was here when the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) arrived,

just a green member from the backwoods of Omineca. Over the years I

have developed a respect and, I think, an understanding of the

traditions of this Legislature. One of the things that this Legislature

and all British parliamentary democracies are based on is the equality

of private members. Every member in a legislature is equal to every

other member. That equality has been protected over the years in

tradition and law, and it is in our Constitution Act to this very day.

There are many sections in our Constitution Act that say that members

cannot receive any moneys, preferments, offices or bribes from the

Crown or the government. That is put in the Constitution Act in order

to protect the independence of members. The penalty for receiving

offices. preferments, payments and bribes from the Crown is that you

lose your seat immediately. That principle is considered such an

important principle that it is spelled out very clearly, and the

penalties for a member who receives those kinds of preferments and

payments are very clear and quickly enforced. I think that members

should understand it, and know why that

section 1s there. The reason is

to protect the independence of this parliament from the Crown and the

government, and to make sure that ever), private member of this

Legislative Assembly is equal in his or her ability to represent

constituents to every other member of the Legislature. It is important

and fundamental to our democracy that that principle of independence be

retained. This

section subverts, perverts and undermines that principle.

Madam Speaker, I felt that when this

section came in in this bill,

you should have ruled this bill out of order. No bill that undermines

the privileges and subverts the independence of its members, and denies

them the principle of equality with every other member, should be

permitted on the floor of this Legislature. This bill institutionalizes

a violation and a breach of the privileges of the members of this

Legislature. The Speaker should have ruled it out of order the minute

it was brought on the floor. But it is here. and we're forced to debate

it.

[12:30]

I am fearful of this change because it overturns the last election

result in 23 ridings in the province. Frank McKenna, head of the

Liberal Party in New Brunswick and.... There are probably too many

Liberals in Canada already, but the people of New Brunswick voted to

have 100 percent Liberal members of the Legislature, and that's their

right. They didn't want New Democrats or Tories or any of the other

parties or candidates running in that election. They wanted 100 percent

Liberals, and they got them democratically — and they have that right.

Maybe in the future they are going to regret it, but they have a right

to the kind of representation that they now have in the Legislative

Assembly of New Brunswick.

What this piece of legislation does is give to the people of this

province undemocratic ally what the people of New Brunswick got

democratically. Because what it says is that, instead of 49 percent of

the people in B.C. voting and getting 69 percent of the members of the

Legislature, now 49 percent of the people of this province are voting

and giving Social Credit 100 percent of the power in this Legislature,

through this sneaky little

section of the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act.

It is a fundamental attack on the privileges of the members of the

Legislature, and I ask the private members on the other side to

consider this. They have been conspicuously silent in this debate, but

it's extremely important. Why have they been silent? Because each one

of them is now entitled to a $6,000 additional payment from the Crown,

a payment that they would be deprived of, that they would have no right

to, under the Constitution Act of this province, because it would be

considered an illegal payment, an illegal preferment, an illegal

office, if the Crown gave it to them under the current Constitution

Act. What this does is subvert the Constitution Act of the province.

Madam Speaker....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We're going through a sex change here. Under the Medical Service

Act, after we pass this bill, that will be illegal. That's quite apart

from what I was saying, Mr. Speaker.

I think this

section is completely repugnant. I would hope that

every member of this Legislature would give this

section consideration

over the weekend and would vote against this

[ Page

2736 ]

section. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would take a look at this

section over the weekend and that you would consider ruling this kind of legislation

out of order. It should not be on the floor of this Legislative Assembly. What

it does, essentially, is give the Social Credit Premier the right to pay his

party members more than New Democratic Party members or other private members

of the Legislature, and that is completely repugnant to that principle of independence

I was talking about.

The government says that they need this

section of legislation in

order to set up these eight regions of British Columbia and allow

individual ministers of state to have their parliamentary secretaries

to support them and to give money to those parliamentary secretaries so

that they will have greater ability than opposition members to

represent their constituents in this Legislature. It subverts the

independence of private members in this Legislature. It makes some

members dependent on other members, rather than being equal and

independent.

Today, if I want a bridge built in my constituency, I'm going to

have to go to a parliamentary secretary, who represents and was voted

in by another group of constituents altogether. I'm going to have to go

to some regional committee of Social Credit campaign managers to try to

get that bridge built in my constituency.

My constituents don't want any more than they deserve in this

province. They want fair and equal access to the resources of this

province; they want services allocated to my constituency that they

need equally with every other constituency in the province. They don't

ask for more than they require; they simply want what they're entitled

to in order to meet their needs in that constituency. They don't want a

member that they elected in a free and democratic election to have to

go to some other back-bench member of the Legislature and to ask that

member's permission to get those services in the riding or to get that

capital in the riding. They don't want that to happen.

This is an extremely important section. I'm not going to be a member

of this Legislature much longer, Mr. Speaker — probably longer than the

media's reporting, but I'm not going to be a member much longer.

Supposedly I have no reason to be concerned about this piece of

legislation, because some other New Democrat is going to take my place

and sit in the Legislative Assembly. But I am concerned about the

principle here, and I'm concerned about that democratic parliamentary

tradition that I'm talking about. I'm concerned about the fact that

this

section of this legislation subverts the principle of

parliamentary democracy by making me less of a member than another

member simply because that member belongs to another political party

and was elected for that political party in another constituency. I

think this is a very dangerous section.

There was a time in the past when the King could influence what was

going on in parliament by paying off some of the members, by buying

their support or buying their silence. The reason that parliaments over

the years, often at the cost of human life, developed and protected and

retained that principle of parliamentary independence was to make

members free and independent so that they could represent their

constituents rather than being bought off by the King. If the member

was bought off by the Crown, then they could dismiss that member from

parliament in order to protect the independence of parliament. This

section completely subverts that.

What we're going to have, Mr. Speaker, is a Legislative Assembly

where, if a Social Credit member wants to do some kind of research or

wants to get information from the government, that member is going to

have an additional payment of $6,000 for the very reason that he's a

Social Credit member. That member is going to have an additional $6,000

to do that kind of research, to generate that kind of information, to

meet with people around the province, which members on this side of the

House will be deprived of. Strictly because they are New Democratic

Party members, opposition members, they will be deprived of the funds

that they require. If we want to make members in the Legislative

Assembly more effective and it takes money to do that, then those funds

should be granted equally to all private members of the Legislature and

not given on a political basis to members of a certain political party.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very dangerous piece of legislation and

precedent. Over the years we've complained and demonstrated to the

government about the fact that lottery grants have been allocated

unequally from riding to riding.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got the most.

MR. SKELLY: Well, if I got the most, it's because I've been more effective. I'm the exception that proves the rule.

Over the years we've complained about grants from lotteries and

various government programs going unequally from one constituency to

the other. We've complained about other things where Social Credit

ridings.... When we were in office, you were complaining that NDP

ridings were getting more money.

What happens in this case — and this is why I'm particularly

concerned about this principle — is that this institutionalizes the

kind of breach of parliamentary privilege that we're talking about. It

puts it in legislation. It destroys a fundamental principle of this

parliament. Every member of this Legislature — every private member —

should be equal to every other member. That's absolutely fundamental to

our system. As I said before, this system is a complex house of cards,

and the minute you remove one part, the whole thing collapses.

What I'm talking about in this

section of the legislation is the

government snatching out one of those key fundamentals that hold up our

system of parliamentary democracy. They snatch it out, and as a result

my privileges as a member of the Legislature have been undermined,

because the principle of equality has been undermined in this

Legislature.

I would hope that, over the weekend and over the next several days,

government members and in particular the back-bench members would take

a look at this

section — I'm not even dealing with any of the other

sections that we can debate on their merits in committee stage —

because their privileges are being attacked by this

section as well.

Their independence in representing their constituents is being attacked

as well. Their equality with other members of the Legislature is being

undermined as well. Look beyond you, beyond your person, beyond this

time in the Legislature. Look at the future and how this piece of

legislation is going to influence the future operation of this

Legislative Assembly.

If the member for Cariboo speaks out against what's happening in

privatization, is he going to be deprived of the right to be a

parliamentary secretary? Is he going to be deprived of access to that

additional $6,000 that he may need to represent his constituents....

[ Page

2737 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: ...or $3,000, or whatever. Who knows what it's

going to be three years from now. What this does is undermine the

equality of the members of the Legislature, which has been established

in the Constitution Act.

MR. CRANDALL: So does the cabinet.

MR. SKELLY: Cabinet does that, but cabinet must have the

support of the majority in the Legislature, and I'll tell you, there is

no provision in the Constitution Act for cabinet to buy that support.

What we're doing here is putting that provision in on an unlimited

basis. We're turning around what generation after generation of

legislators, at the risk of their lives in many cases, put into

constitutions like this and the tradition of parliaments like this.

We're putting in jeopardy the contribution they made to the democratic

parliamentary system we enjoy in this province, in this country and in

the Commonwealth around the world.

I would hope that government members, before they make up their

minds on this issue, do not consider the $3,000 to which they may be

entitled. There's a conflict-of-interest situation here, Mr. Speaker.

These members may not want to vote against this section, because

they're voting against $3,000 for themselves. What I'm saying to the

back-bench members in Social Credit is: there's more at risk here than

$3,000. Ignore the potential for $3,000, and consider the future of

this institution. Consider the future of democracy in the province of

British Columbia. Consider the future of parliamentary democracy.

I'm not afraid of change, but some traditions, as the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) said, are sacrosanct, sacred, fundamental to

our system of democracy. Before you consider that $3,000, you should

consider that system.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise to join in this debate. I will be

brief because it is Friday and I will be adjourning shortly. We can

consider the bill in second reading on Monday, or whenever the House

calls it. However, I think I should point out before adjourning this

afternoon that this has been an interesting debate, characterized, I

guess, by the fact that most of it has been totally out of order. Far

be it from me to break the mould; I'll continue to be out of order in

speaking to this in second reading. As we all know, it's very difficult

to speak to the principle of a miscellaneous statutes act. Normally the

debate is really carried in its fullness in the committee stage.

However, I would like to respond to a couple of remarks made by

members opposite and a couple of accusations, particularly with respect

to the parliamentary secretaries in the

section of this act that

strikes the number ten and leaves it open for an unlimited amount, or a

larger amount.

First of all, I want to put on the record that the notion of

parliamentary secretaries was put in place by the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services,

which was an all-party committee. Members of the New Democratic Party

were on that committee, as was Frank Howard, who was opposition House

Leader at the time, and Lorne Nicolson, if I'm not mistaken. So the New

Democratic Party did agree that we should have parliamentary

secretaries; there's no question about that.

[12:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But they did agree with the principle. The

fact that we are expanding them I guess is government business, but

that's our position.

Secondly, with respect to representation, the member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) have both indicated

— and I guess other members too — that for whatever reason, this bill

is going to limit their ability to respond to their constituents and to

act as members of the Legislative Assembly for the geographic area they

represent. That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. MLAs, as long as they have

the right to appear in this House, are very important people in the

democratic process and very important people in representing their

constituency.

Plus, I should point out that the Premier, in his decentralization

program, has indicated that ministers of state — and I happen to be one

— should invite all MLAs to meet with us and be on our various

committees. That includes NDP MLAs as well. It doesn't specifically say

Social Credit MLAs. It says New Democratic MLAs; it says all MLAs. That

invitation has gone out to all MLAs. In my region the member for Prince

George North (Mrs. Boone) will be invited to sit on the various

committees and serve in the decisions that I make, and my colleague the

second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), when we're talking about regional

initiatives.

I understand, although I haven't heard this from the member for

Prince George North, that some NDP members have declined to sit with

the regional ministers of state. I find that curious. In one breath

they come to this Legislative Assembly and say. "We're not allowed to

represent our ridings; " yet in another breath — and we have it in

writing, I believe — NDP members have declined to sit on those

committees. I find that curious and rather a contradiction of their

position, at least the one that has been advanced in the last two days.

I do find it curious that they would decline to represent the people

who have elected them. I want to put that on the record.

Perhaps the opposition should take a different view of how they are

going to address the ministers of state and how they're going to

address regional initiative as it affects their ridings. I would

suggest to them that they reverse their position on this and welcome

the opportunity to be part of the development that occurs in their

regions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) just said: "We don't endorse the government's idea of the

system." I think what you really meant to say is that you don't endorse

looking after your area, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You have? The member....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then why won't you sit on the committees? Will you give us that undertaking?

[ Page

2738 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You have no mandate to put this system in place. Bring

in the legislation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The government can put any committee it

wants in place, and so can any member if he wishes. You know that. Why

are you declining to sit on it? I think the....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've always been under the impression that the guy who yells loudest is normally wrong.

Anyway, I will have lots to more to say about this on Monday or when

we resume debate on Bill 59, but in the meantime I move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd also like to advise the House that the Legislative Assembly will not sit Wednesday next.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada