1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1987
Morning Sitting

[ Page 2793 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Photodegradability of plastic bags. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2793

Ms. Smallwood

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Third reading –– 2793

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

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2793

Mr. Cashore –– 2794

Mr. G. Hanson –– 2797

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2799

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

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2799

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 2799


The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

PHOTODEGRADABILITY OF PLASTIC BAGS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been advised that Canada Safeway Ltd. will be announcing at 10:30 today in Delta that they will be introducing a new type of plastic bag in their retail grocery stores. This new bag will be manufactured using a new additive in the polyethylene plastic that will cause the plastic to become photodegradable. This means that when the plastic is exposed to the ultraviolet light in sunlight, a slow chemical reaction is initiated which causes the plastic to break down. The speed with which the plastic will break down depends upon the amount of special additive incorporated into the original plastic.

I want to stress that this is a very important initiative by Canada Safeway and the distributor of the plastic additive, Sunbag International Ltd. of Vancouver. While it is not a total answer to the growing volume of plastics in our municipal waste streams and litter, it is definitely a step in the right direction. In terms of the impact on the volume of municipal refuse disposal, it is not clear how significant an impact this and similar initiatives might have. Obviously the photodegradation process will not occur on plastics that have been landfilled, since exposure to sunlight is precluded. However, it could be very significant in reducing plastic litter, particularly along our highways and in our parks. The real importance of this initiative is that it is a positive step in the direction of environmental sensitivity by the packaging and retailing sector, which has generally been prone to consider buyer appeal before environmental protection when they consider product packaging.

For this move I commend Canada Safeway and Sunbag International Ltd., and I would commend this initiative to all other British Columbia and Canadian distributors of plastic packaged goods.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In response to the minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also welcome such an initiative. We congratulate the two companies for taking on this excellent project and would encourage the government to bring in legislation which would encourage the minimization of waste flow in our system. This is a very positive initiative by the private sector and we would look forward to the government's complementing their initiative and assisting other corporations in doing the same.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 34.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Bill 34 read a third time and passed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, regretfully I rise on a point of privilege. The point of privilege refers to the response of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to a question put to him regarding Surrey Memorial Hospital on Tuesday, at the last sitting of the House.

At that time, the minister indicated that he had not received a letter from the doctor. My question had to do with a letter sent by the chief of staff, Dr. T.S. Wong, regarding the report the government has initiated — a mental health consultative report dealing with Riverview Hospital and its implications on Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, I have documentation indicating that not only did the Minister of Health receive this letter dated November 24. but copies have been sent to his ministry, with supporting documentation by Dr. Luke from the department of psychiatry of that hospital, as well as from the president and the CEO. In addition, copies have been sent to the members representing both Surrey–Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Hon. Mr. Reid).

If the Speaker should rule that the House's privilege has been violated. I have presented a motion to you and would be prepared to read it at that time.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for her presentation; I'll reserve decision until later.

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987
(continued)

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to resume my remarks regarding the so-called decentralization program and direct them towards the parliamentary secretary and the regional minister of state. I want to get on the record in the House and to those two individuals some of the concerns that I and my constituents have, particularly regarding the maintenance of our transportation links throughout the region.

The West Kootenay area has the highest mountain passes in British Columbia and some of the heaviest snowfalls. In fact, the pass between Salmo and Creston — frequently called Kootenay Pass — is the only highway in British Columbia that is frequently closed due to winter conditions. I want to talk briefly about the quality of avalanche control and the competence that Highways crews have developed over the last few years in handling snowfalls on that particular pass.

As recently as five years ago the average closure on that stretch of highway during the winter was nearly five hours long. While the number of closures has remained the same — up to last winter, in the neighbourhood of 45 or 46 closures a year — the average closure is now down to two hours, and that is about the same time that someone would have to wait for a ferry if they missed one down on the coast here. When you consider that this pass goes to nearly 6,000 feet and has extremely heavy snowfalls, this is a significant improvement and indicates that the avalanche control officers, with their gunsheds and their howitzers, have extremely good management skills, and also indicates that the snow-clearing crews have great skills. I think we also must acknowledge the dangerous nature of this particular work.

Mr. Speaker, we're getting into regional management of many of these resources in this bill, and we're getting into regional control and probably private control of what I consider to be an essential public service — that is, operating the

[ Page 2794 ]

roads and ferries throughout the region. I touched briefly on Tuesday on the stated intent of the government to consider, in their contracting-out program, service levels and user fees on the inland ferries as well. Because on those 45 to 50 occasions a year that this major pass is closed, which I just mentioned, the population of British Columbia depends on the Kootenay Lake ferry to bypass this particular stretch of highway until it is reopened. There is a major concern here that with the intent to contract out the operation of these ferries and put user fees on them, these vital highway links will not operate as efficiently or as frequently as they have over the past 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the qualities of the highways maintenance people in my own constituency. There is a major pass in my riding going over to the west, and about three-quarters of that pass is in my constituency. The Christina Lake quarter . . . roughly that amount is in Boundary–Similkameen or the Grand Forks highway district.

On numerous occasions over the past 26 years that this road has been opened, snow-clearing and sanding crews from the Rossland highways district will be going down to Christina Lake and will reach the turnaround point of the boundary of the highways district and note that the road is impassable on the lower slopes of the pass in the Grand Forks district. This is no criticism of the Grand Forks district crews but only a recognition that, because of the generally lower rain and snow fall in the area, they simply don't have the budget — and don't need the budget — to maintain the highways to the same extent as they do in the interior wetbelt, which encompasses Rossland–Trail.

The crews from the Rossland highways district on these occasions will, without being supervised or told to do it, simply go beyond their regular district boundaries for as much as 15 to 20 miles, clearing road, getting traffic moving, plowing, sanding and making sure the highway is not only passable but safe to move on.

Mr. Speaker, numerous people — and I would say this is a non-partisan issue and crosses party lines; certainly in my area it does — have expressed by direct word, by letter and by phone call, a concern to me that under this regional program of contracting out this essential service, the private sector contractors are not going to exert that extra effort of going beyond what they are required to do into areas that do not fall into their district because they see a need to maintain the highway.

I also want to talk about something that has come to my attention, that under the existing management there is very intensive driver training. I'm talking about the people who handle the graders and the trucks in the winter. Driver training is done by experienced Highways personnel to make sure that the temporary workers hired in the winter or indeed any permanent drivers not only can handle their trucks properly from the point of view of maintaining those vehicles in a dependable state, but also show considerable courtesy and responsibility to the traveling public, particularly in urban areas where there is pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks along the highway through the centre of town.

I also want to note that we have some concerns with this essential service being contracted out under this regionalized program, that the ministry operations will not be quite so self-sufficient. They do not have the capability at the local level to quickly rebuild an entire truck engine, but they do have the capability to quickly remove and quickly reinstall the major power-train components of their trucks and graders, making use of the Cloverdale shop of the Highways ministry. We like to think that we're as self-sufficient as possible within the region right now, so that in the event of a major period of really inclement weather and heavy snowfalls, breakdowns and maintenance can be handled at the local level.

We also have major concerns under this regionalized program regarding the likelihood that a contractor is going to go through the process of changing, for instance, 300 to 500 cutting edges on the plows of the trucks and graders in the region. This is necessary to clean the highways right down to the sealcoat or the blacktop, and to make sure that the heavy trucks and cars have adequate traction right down to the asphalt, and can see the safety lines — the lane markings and so forth. People in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island take for granted, I think, that even in bad visibility they can see the centre yellow lines and the white lane and shoulder markings. If the road crews, however, end up with packed snow and ice after a snowfall, a great many motorists cannot know where they are. They'll know they're on the highway, but they won't know whether they're in a multi-lane situation, or whether two lanes are approaching them of traffic going the other way, or exactly what is happening.

So it's very important to us in that part of the interior — and, I think, throughout the entire interior and north — that the standards, and the ability of the trucks to continue to maintain those standards, be allowed. Quite frankly, if you're talking 300 to 500 blade changes a year in one Highways yard — and I have three in my riding — we have major concerns that the contracting out of this essential public service will not allow that sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, just before I sit down, I want — if it's not out of order; I realize the time is going on this particular bill — to make a comment on the ministerial statement and the reply we just heard. I just want to put on the record that the biodegradable plastic bags are not a new invention; they've been around for years and years. The problem has been that packaging companies were not prepared to assume the fractional, tiny cost that these were in excess of the non-biodegradable plastic bags — although some cosmetic companies, I think, have been using these for years and years. I think Body Shop International is one of them, for instance. But the food companies that produce most of the plastic materials have adamantly refused until now. That's why I'm very glad to hear that Safeway is going to use these bags. It's not because they were massively more expensive; they were just a tiny fraction more expensive than the non-biodegradable bags. I too would have liked to have seen federal and provincial legislation to enforce the use of these years ago. They are not a cost factor to the consumer. They were a very minor cost factor to the manufacturer, however; hence the resistance until now. Thank you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CASHORE: As I rise to speak on Bill 59, I am acutely aware of the differences of opinion that have been expressed with regard to the amount of breadth that may taken with the subject matter of this bill. It's my opinion — given the section very early on in the bill that enables raising the number of parliamentary secretaries, and some other sections later on in the bill — that taken on the whole, while it is a miscellaneous bill, there is nevertheless a thread connecting the government's plans for a new form of centralization within the province, and the government's plans to

[ Page 2795 ]

privatize without fair process for the people of British Columbia. While not all of my comments relating to matters in this bill deal with those two issues, some of them do, and I will try very hard to connect what I say to the substance of this bill.

First, with regard to the issue of the parliamentary secretaries, that certainly opens up the whole issue of a new reality which this government is imposing on the people of British Columbia, a reality that fails to understand our parliamentary traditions or the significance of the MLA elected in various areas throughout the province, and seeks to circumvent a process that is now able to work well.

Had the intent been to more effectively deliver services to the regions of the province, we might have looked at the infrastructure there now through the regional districts and through the process that could have been followed and would have involved prior consultation with the members of municipal councils, people in the regional districts, members of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, people who function within the diverse length and breadth of British Columbia and who would be able to advise the government on how to deliver more effective regional services. What we have instead is a gradually unveiling plan for a new form of centralization that will involve these eight regional heads appointed by political appointment, people who already have cabinet responsibility and who, in turn, will have their additional parliamentary secretaries.

[10:30]

It wasn't too many years ago that the number of parliamentary secretaries was increased as members of the caucus of the previous Socred government were assigned to various ministries in the role of parliamentary secretary. It was quite obvious at that time that that too was open to question. Was it, for instance, a means of trying to deal with the fact that there were back-benchers who found that they wanted to have an opportunity to have input into the kinds of decisions that were made in cabinet; that they were frustrated in their role as government back-benchers because they often found that they did not agree with the procedures that were taking place, and this was a way of kind of bringing them on board?

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the group dynamics involved in this process of hiring these new parliamentary secretaries to service the areas that are part of this plan, we have to ask: what are the criteria? When we recognize that this is a political process, that really it's no different from the type of thing that so upset Canadians in the ways Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Turner and Mr. Mulroney have issued patronage.... It's the same type of thing. It's a means of taking a person and making a political appointment where it is totally unnecessary in terms of the stated goal.

Mr. Speaker, as this plan has unfolded, it has seemed to be a kind of stream-of-consciousness unfolding. It has become quite apparent to the people of British Columbia that the plan was not well thought out. In fact, my recollection is that when the Premier first announced this program, he said that there would be $1 million going to each of these regions to help set up an infrastructure. But at the same time, the Premier has said that this is going to reduce bureaucracy, that it's not going to increase bureaucracy. At the same time, he announced the loss of many civil service jobs in the Victoria area and in other areas of the province. Then when the feedback started to come to the Premier on that set of comments, he started to adjust what he was saying: he said no, that it would not be used for setting up this new bureaucracy, that it would be used for helping with economic development in these regions.

So the public found, much to its chagrin, a sense of uncertainty which is a blight upon the land at this time. The public found that the comments of the Premier, the stream-of-consciousness planning, were contributing to a feeling of uncertainty and tension, which certainly is not conducive to the kinds of promises that the Premier made during the time that he was seeking a mandate in the recent election.

When we start to look at this from the perspective of my constituency, for instance, we find that a new process is being superimposed at great cost.... Yes, it is a costly bureaucracy. Yes, it is a way in which not only this $8 million is going to be spent in each of these regions, but in which the rules whereby regional fairness is achieved are being altered. It's a step towards it being not what you know but who you know.

Let's face it, within the cabinet and the back bench of the Social Credit government, there is a pecking order: there are those who have more experience and those who have more influence. That pecking order will be brought to bear in the delivery of unfairness, as this process is imposed upon the people of British Columbia.

In my riding, for instance, we find that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — who, I think, has sufficient responsibility in that capacity — is now being given the responsibility of governing the entire lower mainland. He's the governor of the lower mainland. I have to ask myself: with him living in Burnaby, and with Burnaby having SkyTrain, and with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) being from Surrey and being now in charge of the Kootenays region, given that that's a political process, how is that going to contribute to fairness for my constituency and others in the Coquitlam area? How is that going to contribute to fairness, when there's this attempt to co-opt fair-minded people into playing this kind of game?

Mr. Speaker, it's highly inappropriate. It is grossly unfair. What interest do these people have in seeing, for instance, SkyTrain coming into my municipality? It's more likely that we'll see SkyTrain going from Surrey over to Creston, given the present circumstances, than that we will see SkyTrain coming into Coquitlam, which was a commitment made by this government in the election campaign.

We have the issue of the special warrant, Mr. Speaker: a grave process of ignoring parliamentary responsibility, an example encapsulated within the process that this government is using that either indicates a failure to understand the meaning of our parliamentary democracy in British Columbia or — I hope this is not the case — is done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding of our traditions and values. It does not bode well for the people of British Columbia that this process would be set in motion through special warrant, which may at some future time come into this Legislature to be debated, after the decisions have been made and the plan is underway, without letting the elected representatives of the people have an opportunity to speak to it and to present their views on it. What kind of message — the medium being the message — is that sending to the people of British Columbia? Why would you want to increase the uncertainty and doubt that is out there already?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let's consider the field of mental health, for instance, under this new process. Given that this is a very delicate issue

[ Page 2796 ]

in which the government has committed itself to a comprehensive plan that includes the entire province, how is this new level of bureaucracy going to enhance that plan? Not at all. What it is going to do is move new players, at great expense, into the milieu, and they will be expected to have a part to play in making decisions that should be made on the basis of the present infrastructure that we have in this province, based on the elected representation that we have and the input that we could be having from our regional districts and from other areas.

I'd like to come at this in a more particular sense, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that as parliamentary secretaries are appointed, we could look at this from a number of different perspectives. For instance, let's assume for a moment that I was to set aside my personal feelings and bias about this situation, and to say: "Okay, for the sake of argument I'll go along with this plan." One of the new parliamentary secretaries who catches my eye is the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen). If it were the case that I favoured this plan — and I don't — I would have to say that that hon. gentleman is a worthy candidate for such responsibility. For instance, he has a strong record of municipal service in his community, and he is well spoken of and well thought of. I would go a step further and say that during the time that that member shared the recent hearings on the sale of alcohol in British Columbia, he worked very hard at that task. He went throughout the length and breadth of this province, along with commissioners, and he listened to people, heard their concerns, took those concerns seriously and filed his report. This would seem to be the kind of person that we would want appointed to positions of responsibility in our society and in the way we govern ourselves.

I make no apology for extolling the obvious virtues of the hon. MLA from Chilliwack. But part of the process that we are involved in is a process of public trust, and during the time that that MLA went throughout the province conducting these hearings, the public trusted him; and to the extent that they came and spoke to his commission, they trusted this government. They took seriously the implication that this study, after a great deal of taxpayer expense, would lead to findings that would be read, learned and inwardly digested by this government and then applied to the future with regard to that kind of a process.

I feel that there is a thin line among the members of the government side of the House, the back-benchers. I think it's a thin line between dissatisfaction with what the government is doing and going along with the party line. I think it's a thin line and we've seen evidence of it. We've seen that some MLAs have had the courage of their convictions and have spoken out against privatization. We've seen that.

We've seen that a recent cabinet minister has walked across the floor of the House and now he speaks quite freely in criticism of this government. Had circumstances been otherwise and had he not walked across the floor of the House, one could assume that he would still be trying very, very hard to follow the party line. So it's a thin line between those MLAs on the government side of the House who follow the party line and those who express their dissatisfaction.

Sometimes, much to the benefit of democracy, some of them have the courage of their convictions and do so. For instance, the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), who is one of the new parliamentary secretaries, has spoken out with regard to his opposition to user fees at the provincial museums. I wonder if he will continue to speak out in his new capacity, or is this a means of bringing some of the members of the government side of the House back into the fold? We'll never know, and tragically we'll never know with regard to the member for Chilliwack because we will always wonder if this is a means to shut him up because of brooding over the Premier's unwillingness to take his recommendations seriously.

[10:45]

The commission recommended that there was no need for further privatization of liquor sales within this province. The people who spoke to that commission from time to time had the opportunity to speak to the commissioner, and in discussing with him they found that he had not found evidence that would suggest an expansion of the privatized distribution of beverage alcohol. And now we find that that member who was brooding for the non-respect that his very good report received from this government is now in a position of becoming a parliamentary secretary within the lower mainland.

Can we count on this person who has had the benefit of the excellent input of people throughout this province to speak out for them? Can we count on that with regard to this government's position on privatization and phase two of liquor distribution? Can we count on that now that this person has been brought more closely into the field? It's a serious question. It's a question that deals with the kind of abuse that we can see coming into the way in which this government is functioning not only within this House but throughout this province.

The sad and tragic thing is that while I am very sincere about the positive statements that I have made about this member, we will never know if he was appointed because of his merits or whether he was appointed because he was brooding. It's a grave concern for the people of British Columbia.

It's a startling new direction that we are being taken in, and I think it's about time this government started to recognize that this plan, given the way in which it ties into the government's plans to privatize without adequate consultation, is causing a great deal of upset among the people of this province — a great deal of concern and uncertainty.

Also in this bill we have the sections dealing with the Hospital Insurance Act. I won't spend a lot of time on this section, but I wish to say that the section of the Hospital Insurance Act amendment that enables the minister or a designated person to determine, on a review of medical evidence, whether or not a person requires a certain procedure is really interesting. It assumes a kind of expertise that I do not see anybody on the government side of the House qualified to have. I find that very disturbing.

When we go a little further with regard to the amendments to that act, we find the issue of the payment of hospital fees for people who have to go out of province. It states: ". . . the amount and method of payment to hospitals and other institutions referred to in section 25 for hospital services rendered outside British Columbia to beneficiaries under this Act and the number of days of care for which payment will be made to those hospitals and other institutions."

Mr. Speaker, that sounds quite frightening in view of the lack of availability of treatment services for children that we've recently experienced in this province; people have had to go to such places as Calgary to get the treatment that this government was not able to provide in British Columbia. In this bill we find that the government is taking on the power to limit the number of days that people may be in the treatment

[ Page 2797 ]

that they are forced to be in by having to go out of province for services not available here.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at sections 16 and 18 of this bill, we're dealing with a process designed to bring under the public trustee some consolidation of the functions of the public trustee. I can see the point in that. But we find one disturbing thing happening here; the ceiling of 5 percent that can be charged by the public trustee from the estate of a child or an adult is being lifted. Here is one place where the possibility of privatization rears its head. Are we looking at a scenario where possibly the public trustee of this province is being considered for privatization? Are we considering a situation where it is going to be possible for this government — either through its own devices or through some service that it would set up through a private process — to reach into the often-meagre funds in trust belonging to unfortunate people, either children or adults in some form of care in our province, and take additional amounts of money for the costs of that administration?

As chairman of a B.C. mental health review panel, I have had dealings with the public trustee. In going through the files of many mental patients, I have been aware that, even with the minimal 5 percent fee, often that has resulted in a whittling away of the funds those patients had in their account. Having said that, the process that was functioning was working as well as could be expected. There was a nominal amount there for administration. This new change in the act is quite a concern because of the way it is taking the ceiling off the amount of money that can be taken out of those funds and those accounts. This is increasingly upsetting if this leads to further privatization. The very thought of the privatization of the public trustee sends a shudder down my spine, and it should be very frightening to many other people.

Just to make that point more clear, it states in the bill: "... or for services rendered by or on behalf of the Public Trustee...." Mr. Speaker, why would those words "or on behalf of the Public Trustee" be in there, if this were not an intent to privatize the public trustee service? This is a very interesting, possible indication of intended privatization in this process.

I would like to come to an intended change in this act that's under the Vital Statistics Act. I don't have too much to say on that, but if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I am a person who has had quite a bit to do with the Vital Statistics Act, having conducted a number of funerals in my day and having buried a number of people, and I would like to point out that I think this is a fitting time under this section to bury this government's helter-skelter approach to privatization.

MR. G. HANSON: It's a pleasure to take my place in opposing this miscellaneous statutes act, Bill 59. It runs contrary to everything we were led to believe this government was going to stand for. They try, in incremental stages, to abuse this process of miscellaneous statutes, which is supposed to be there as a way of dealing with a number of small, technical details. Instead, major policy shifts of the government are present in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, our party has long indicated that we are opposed to a non-elected senate in Canada, and now this government is embarking upon having a non-elected senate of back-benchers in the province of British Columbia. When the people went to the polls last October, they made their choices of the parties that had presented themselves and the candidates that had been brought forward. Through the election campaign, there was not one single word of restructuring the basic decision-making system in this province, of setting up a network of what I call a senate back bench — people who were not elected in that overall region. They may have been elected in one portion of the region, but they are not the people of choice for the citizens residing in those regions.

There are essentially three or four principles contained in this bill. One of them is a total adherence to non-consultation, contrary to what the Premier said during the election campaign. This was going to be a different style of government: it would be open. It would have ears, it would listen to the wishes of the citizens in a fresh way. Of course, this is absolutely contrary to every proclamation made during that campaign.

Another central principle running through this bill — and as Erskine May says, second reading deals with the principles contained within a bill; it's plural, not a principle — is a centralization feature where the government establishes eight regions and non-elected parliamentary assistants, not elected in the entire region. They are to oversee, in a kind of ward boss approach to politics. The government is trying to establish a political bypass, where they are trying to overlay, it seems to me, the Social Credit Party structure with the apparatus of government. The Social Credit Party is divided into regions. It has regional directors; it has a kind of a pyramid sales approach to politics. What we see reflected in this miscellaneous statutes bill with the eight zones and the parliamentary secretaries is this kind of pyramid sales approach. It's sort of the overlay of the Social Credit Party structure with its regional directors and regions, and the blur has been occurring over the last number of years — the blur between legitimate government business and party business. That perceptual fusion is taking place, and now we see the United States of British Columbia developing with their superministers and their appointed-but-not-paid parliamentary secretaries. They've got too many here; they need to pay them.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: You're not going to kill the tooth fairy. That's coming in miscellaneous statutes number 5, I think.

[11:00]

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there are negative principles contained in miscellaneous 4: non-consultation and extreme centralization, which is contrary to the Canadian and the British Columbia experience. I don't know what Classics comic book the Premier read in his childhood, but somehow he has a sense of what he would like to see governmental apparatus.... When he was previously a minister in this House.... There are not many members now present when the current Premier was a minister in this House. If you look through the 69 members here today and count up the number that actually were present and had firsthand experience of the Premier's philosophy and his approach to governance, there are not many. I was here. I saw him as Education minister. I saw him as Municipal Affairs minister. Some of his approaches are not surprising to me because I feel there are fairly strong common threads in terms of his ideological framework, and this miscellaneous statutes bill flows from it.

[ Page 2798 ]

We are very opposed to parliamentary assistants, parliamentary secretaries.... It's different if one serves a minister, say the Minister of Health or the Minister of Education. They have a large portfolio. We can understand that an undersecretary or a parliamentary secretary position can exist and would have some legitimacy. In fact, parliamentary secretaries did come about in the rules changes, and that has been raised in this House.

But that's not what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about when new political divisions are created in the province. This has been tried federally and has failed. It's been tried in other jurisdictions and has failed, because line ministers and superpolitical ministers cross swords; they bump into each other. There are unclear lines of jurisdiction.

The citizens in the local councils, village councils, city councils, regional districts — they don't know who to go to. Do they go to the line minister? Do they go to the regional ward boss? Do they go to the senate back-benchers as parliamentary secretaries? Many serious concerns are raised.

Certainly when this was outlined and the Premier said that he wanted a re-examination, for example, of the agricultural land reserve and its importance region by region, that flagged a very important subject. Mr. Speaker, you come from an area much of which is agricultural land. We have very little agricultural land in the province. We keep using the number 5 percent; but not all of that has the capacity to grow the range of food crops and so on. Class 1 and 2 lands — the very best lands — are not in great abundance. We happen to be a province that is topographically mountains and narrow valleys, estuaries and so on. Those fertile estuaries are where the competition is. In the interior of the province, along some of those bottom lands — those early lakeshores that formed when the glaciation subsided and the water levels dropped.... Okanagan Lake was once a part of Shuswap Lake, and Shuswap Lake was once a part of Kamloops Lake. They were all one lake. As the water level dropped, it left some fertile bottom lands which are so precious to us. We look enviously at our neighbours to the south around the Puget lowlands, which should have been a part of British Columbia; but that's another debate, Mr. Speaker.

What I'm saying is that it raises all the red flags in our minds when the Premier raises some concern about the sanctity of the preservation of farmland in our province. To allow farmland to be whipsawed into development region by region by having the little back-bench senators out there carving up their little fiefdoms and deciding that this bit of farmland shouldn't be in the ALR, etc. — we've had enough of that. We want to depoliticize the protection of our farmland. That's why we set up an Agricultural Land Commission — to remove it from politicians and from cabinet so that the best possible decisions about the preservation of that land would be made, not by the little senate back-benchers or by the superministers holding hearings, being carried from region to region on those sticks with the little capes and silk things, people feeding them hot hors d'oeuvres, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) with the welcome wagon running along, making sure that drinks are hot and there's plenty of ice. What kind of province is this?

Here we are at a policy crossroads where the government is embarking on these things, and where do they put them? Do they put them in a bill which they bring to this House outlining the program and the mandate, and what the mission is? No; they hide these things in a miscellaneous statutes bill which is a disgrace and an abuse of the rules of this House.

Another interesting feature of this bill that we object to is that the government.... Prior to the commencement of this session, we heard an ongoing debate between the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) about the costs of medicare and the cost of delivering health services in this province. We heard the Minister of Finance talk about wanting to do some serious cutting. He doesn't talk about beefing up preventive programs to allow people to have better health and better health care in a community-based system, as we had in the community resource boards' integration of Health and Human Resources, so that we would have good-quality preventive services. No, the government chopped that. Do you know what they're looking at now? To cut health costs, the cabinet's going to make more decisions on whether cataracts are to be covered in hospital surgery; whether adenoids will be there; what the drip will be in the intravenous; what sort of organs are going to come under schedules A, B and C. What kind of nonsense is this, Mr. Speaker? When you want to cut health costs, you embark on modern preventive programs: more paramedical services; more community-based programs; more nutritional programs for poorer families and children who are going to school hungry, malnourished, with no proper nutrition, etc. No, what we get here is that the cabinet is going to make decisions on what hospital services are going to be covered and paid for by the Medical Services Plan and the Hospital Insurance Act. We object to that; we oppose that.

There's another principle: centralization of hospital services. What's behind that? Are therapeutic abortions no longer going to be covered at all or provided in hospitals? Will that be an order-in-council we see come down the pike at a later date, dealing with this particular section?

What we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker, are major policy changes without any proper debate. We've had a one-hour debate, thanks to the Speaker's office and recognition that the motion put forward by our leader was urgent and important. We thank the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker's office for that opportunity.

We feel there should be a full debate around all implications, because the concerns do exist in the community. There are concerns about highways and their maintenance and safety, and about the sale of Crown assets, which are the legacy of this province. We heard the Premier speaking. He was very ill-prepared, by the way, in his debate. He was in error in many of his suggestions and in many of the examples he used about private/public — in terms of Air Canada, Canadian Pacific, etc. There are no provincial analogues for that. If a service goes outside the government domain, there is no other government competitor to ensure that things are at a high standard.

So, Mr. Speaker, we object to his bill. We feel it's been a non-consultative process. The cabinet ministers opposite — those present at the moment for example, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — are trying to achieve through the back door what they didn't.... There should have been some courage around the cabinet table. If they really believe in their program, those cabinet ministers should have had the courage to bring that program into the full light of day in this House — outline it; debate it in second reading on its principle, through the committee stage of this House — rather than have these little incremental changes

[ Page 2799 ]

that achieve what they want without any proper public debate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose it. My party opposes this. We're going to be voting against this upon the conclusion of my remarks in second reading. We have more detail with respect to our objections on individual sections.

In July of last year, when we watched on television the hoopla in the Howe Sound area, we thought the province was in for a change, but a change for the better as opposed to a massive alteration of the way the citizens relate to their government and their locally elected officials. We didn't expect a back-bench senate. We didn't expect the cabinet to be moving on services that should be determined by health care professionals. And we certainly didn't anticipate at all this massive centralization now.... The Premier's office is like a massive vacuum cleaner: it just goes around and vacuums up every available authority that seems to be sitting in cabinet offices. We've seen whole ministries disappear with the suction of that power.

This doesn't bode well for the citizens of this province. They wanted to relate on a more authentic basis with their elected officials through their local councils, through their regional districts and through proper debate and discussion on the floor of this House, not the political bypass contained in this act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to advise the House that I will be moving the second reading motion, and therefore I am closing debate, but will defer to any other members who wish to speak to this bill.

I move that this closes debate, and the question is second reading.

[11:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Brummet Rogers L. Hanson
Reid Dueck Parker
Michael Pelton Loenen
De Jong Dirks Long
Veitch McCarthy S. Hagen
Strachan Vander Zalm Couvelier
R. Fraser Jansen Gran
Mowat Ree Serwa
Vant Peterson Huberts
Davidson Jacobsen S.D. Smith

NAYS — 18

G. Hanson Barnes Marzari
Rose Skelly Boone
D'Arcy Kempf Cashore
Guno Smallwood Lovick
Williams Sihota Miller
A. Hagen Jones Edwards

Bill 59, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 63, in the charge of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

HON. MR. ROGERS: When I introduced this bill a couple of days ago, I said it was minor, and some people have misinterpreted it to be something other than minor, but perhaps with my second reading notes today I can clarify any misunderstanding that may exist among certain members. I have the honour to move second reading of Bill 63.

The significant amendments in this bill relate to crucial operational and legal issues that make enforcement of this act more efficient. These issues will allow the public more protection and clarify some of the more confusing sections of the existing act.

Other aspects include provisions for the introduction of the new National Safety Code and for regulation-making powers providing authority for implementation of the National Safety Code. It allows for the adoption of codes and regulations respecting road safety in the National Safety Code for motor carriers — and I think that's where the confusion has existed for some people. It allows for the issuance of safety certificates and for the exemption of a licence or a permit where a vehicle fails to meet these standards, which gives that option to the superintendent of motor vehicles. It requires that a vehicle owner allow for inspection of his records. It allows the minister to enter into an agreement with other provinces pertaining to such matters. It authorizes the superintendent of motor vehicles to compile information and profiles on drivers and on motor vehicles. It requires the inspection of commercial motor vehicles at prescribed intervals. It restricts the number of hours that a driver may operate a motor vehicle in a commercial state. It authorizes the superintendent of motor vehicles to cancel licences and permits.

Other amendments include the clarification of the use of demonstration plates and the additional reference to the Commercial Transport Act. Insurance requirements for towing vehicles are also required, to ensure that the vehicle that is being towed is also covered by the insurance of the vehicle that is doing the towing.

Many of these amendments, although minor in nature, are important in ensuring the traffic safety of the citizens of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's my pleasure to move second reading of Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987.

This bill proposes to establish the authority for the pension portion of the early retirement incentive plan. Two benefits are being offered through this plan: a lump sum cash

[ Page 2800 ]

payment and a waiver of the early retirement pension reduction. The lump sum payment is equal to up to six months of pay if an employee retires at age 60 or over, or eight months of pay if the employee is under age 60.

The second benefit is a waiver of the early retirement reduction. Under the superannuation plan's normal rules for early retirement, employees retiring before age 60 with less than 35 years of contributory service have their pensions reduced by 5 percent for each year their age is below 60. For example, if one retired at age 57, the pension would be reduced by three times 5 percent, or 15 percent. The maximum reduction in the formula is 25 percent.

As I mentioned when I introduced this bill, the reduction for early retirement tends to discourage retirements between ages 55 and 60. For example, if an employee leaves work on or after October 20, 1987, but before April 1, 1988, under the early retirement incentive plan the pension will be calculated on a non-reduced basis if it is paid immediately upon retirement. Any pre-retirement leave may be taken following the last day of work during the open period.

When an employee has service with one or more of the B.C. family of plans, the early retirement reduction will be waived under the other plans. The B.C. family of plans includes service under the Pension (Teachers) Act, Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act and the Workers' Compensation Board superannuation plan.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, the public service superannuation plan provides for cost-of-living adjustments to pensions in payment. Where employees are eligible for the waiver of the early retirement reduction under ERIP, any payments for the annual cost-of-living adjustment will be delayed to age 60, when there will be a catchup of the percentages missed from the date of retirement.

In order to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover the cost of the waiver of the early retirement reduction, special contributions are being made to the public service superannuation fund from the consolidated revenue fund to ensure that it is actually sound at all times.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also extend the early retirement incentive plan to other public sector employees who participate in the public service superannuation plan. These employees would be responsible for paying any funds required to provide the benefit under the public service superannuation fund.

The remarks that I have made so far pertain to employees at the maximum retirement age of 65, which, by the way, includes most public service employees. In addition, similar provisions will be put into place for employees such as correctional centre employees who at present have a maximum retirement age of 60.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the waiver of the early retirement reduction, which forms the second benefit of the early retirement incentive plan, is identical to the early retirement program that was introduced earlier this year for British Columbia's teachers. As a result of this initiative, those public service employees who wish to retire may do so on substantially improved pension benefits, thus providing the government with an opportunity to facilitate this restructuring program.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize that this program is entirely optional, and therefore will be provided only to those public service employees who wish to take advantage of it. Others who wish to remain in government will be encouraged to do so.

On the issue of pension options for privatized employees, the second part of this bill provides special pension options in connection with the privatization component of the government restructuring program. The options are designed to make it possible for privatized employees to be treated fairly and to make their pension as portable as possible. The three options are: (1) a privatized employee can receive a refund of his or her own contribution plus interest; (2) a person who has been privatized can leave contributions on deposit in the public service superannuation fund, and will be entitled to receive a pension at retirement, regardless of the employee's length of service — normally an employee would be required to contribute to the plan for ten years to be eligible for such pension benefits; (3) a privatized employee can transfer the greater of (a) the value of the employee's pension entitlement, or (b) double the value of the employer's contribution with accumulated interest, to a locked-in retirement savings plan or to the registered pension plan of the new employer. That will be their option. The second part of this option is to ensure that younger employees are treated in a meaningful way and a fair way as far as the pension entitlement is concerned. Mr. Speaker, the lump sum refund option and the deposit option, where an employee has at least ten years of contributions in the public service superannuation plan, are already available to employees. In addition to these benefits, which are already provided — that is, the deposit option regardless of the length of contributory service and the transfer option — this will provide privatized employees with the opportunity to receive proportionate pensions based on their period of public service employment.

Mr. Speaker, these new programs will be used to help reduce the size of government service, and in addition, through the early retirement incentive plan, will help to rejuvenate the public service and deal with all people in a fair and just and equitable manner.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to ministers who couldn't be here this morning, and some critics who couldn't be here this morning, I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:31 a.m.


Copyright © 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada