[ Page 2801 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

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

Privatization of textbook branch. Mr. Jones –– 2803

Ms. Edwards

Ministerial Statements

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

Mrs. Boone

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

Mr. Lovick

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

Mr. Sihota –– 2806

Mr. Lovick –– 2808

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2810

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2811

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

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2812

Mr. Skelly –– 2813

Mr. Sihota –– 2815

Mr. Lovick –– 2815

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 2816

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

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2817

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Jones

Mr. Skelly

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Dirks

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It is indeed a great honour and a pleasure for me to welcome Rick Hansen, his lovely wife Amanda and his sister Christine to the Legislature this afternoon. Rick Hansen is an inspiration to us all. Through his Man in Motion tour, Rick showed us what determination and hard work can accomplish.

Rick left Vancouver on March 19, 1985 with two objectives: to raise public awareness of the needs and potential of disabled people, and to raise funds for spinal cord research and rehabilitation. Forty thousand kilometres and 34 countries later, he achieved those objectives, and in the process became a living symbol of what individuals can accomplish when they are determined and prepared to make sacrifices. He made us all think about what it means to give our best, to reach for the stars, to stretch ourselves both physically and mentally. With him we shared the dream — a dream that has come true. To date, I understand that the Man in Motion tour has raised over $20 million — a phenomenal accomplishment.

I would like to take this opportunity to note two recent events that have taken place in Rick's life and to extend hearty congratulations: first and most important, his recent marriage to Amanda Reid; and second, his appointment as commissioner general of the Canadian pavilion at Expo 88 in Brisbane, Australia. I know that Rick will do an outstanding job of representing both British Columbia and Canada, and he is a most appropriate choice. Rick is known worldwide for his accomplishments and will be an excellent ambassador for us all. I would ask all members of the House to extend a very warm greeting to Rick Hansen, his wife Amanda and his sister Christine.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to reiterate the words of the Premier in welcoming Rick, Amanda and Christine. As the mayor of Vancouver it was a great honour, Rick, to help the slow, modest start that built into, indeed, a miracle. We're all very proud, and on behalf of the New Democrats I'd like to express that. I'd also like to say to Rick and Amanda that I hope you enjoy that gorgeous wooden bowl carved by Beau Dick that I presented to the two of you from the New Democrat caucus at your recent wedding. Congratulations to the two of you; and in your new assignment, g'day.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to give a warm welcome this afternoon to Mr. John Catchpole. John is a business acquaintance of our Speaker and comes from West Vancouver. Would you all welcome him, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You'll all notice in the rotunda a very large new addition. It's nine metres, or 30 feet, tall. It's a new Christmas tree, and it comes from the East Kootenays, from the land of Len Lancaster, who has a place — and if you'll forgive the pronunciation — near Lake Koocanusa in the East Kootenays. The presenter of the tree is Mr. Michael Fleming of Woodstock Evergreens Inc. He's here in the gallery today, and I would ask you to give a great welcome on behalf of British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: I know the House will join me in congratulating Notre Dame high school in my constituency for winning the B.C. high school football championship last night. I know the Premier will be especially interested in congratulating them, because the team they beat was Richmond.

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

MR. SIHOTA: We have just heard about two high schools in this province, but I want to say to all members of the House that the only high school that rates is Esquimalt secondary school, and joining us in the gallery today are a number of Grade 11 students along with their teacher, Mr. Kowlyk. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

[2:15]

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today I have three friends, one of them being my wife. The others are two of our very close friends, Miguelle and Luke Raffin. Luke is an artist in Powell River. In the art gallery in Victoria there is a show opening on B.C. wildlife. His exhibit is on display there, if anybody gets a chance to see it. I think we'll all make him welcome here in Victoria.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome two dear friends of mine from the constituency of Nanaimo. The first is my constituency assistant, Miss Susan Vanlerberg; the other is the secretary of the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Local 8, in Nanaimo, Mr. Bob Chow. Please join me in welcoming them, if you will.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery above me today is Alderman Gary Begin. I'd ask the House to make him welcome. He's the former chairman of the B.C. School Trustees' Association and was recently elected for his second term as alderman in the municipality of Burnaby.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome Alderman Begin to the House today. Gary and I served for a number of years on the Burnaby School Board and he certainly earned distinction in his leadership role as president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, as I'm sure the Premier will well remember. Welcome, Gary.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to make a special welcome today to Mr. Stan Pukesh from Port Coquitlam. chairman of the library task force on new approaches that has just completed meetings around the province. I'd ask the House to give him a special welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) rose on a matter of privilege relating to statements made in this House by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) during question period on Tuesday last concerning a letter from Dr. T.S. Wong, chief of staff of Surrey Memorial Hospital.

First, I wish to thank the hon. member for her courtesy in advising the Chair of her intention to raise this matter. The hon. member has raised this matter at the earliest opportunity and has filed a letter dated November 24, 1987 addressed to

[ Page 2802 ]

Mr. Brian Copley and signed by Dr. T.S. Wong. Page 3 of the said letter indicates that a copy of the letter was sent to the hon. Minister of Health.

I have examined the official report of the debates of this assembly for Tuesday, December 1, 1987 at page 2780, which makes it abundantly clear that during oral question period the hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley raised a question concerning this same letter to which the hon. Minister of Health replied, in part: "I have not had a letter from that particular doctor."

Hon. members might well speculate as to whether or not a copy was ever mailed to the hon. minister, as page 3 of the letter purports to indicate. We might speculate as to whether or not after it was mailed the Canada postal system carried it with its usual dispatch to the addressee. We might also speculate as to whether or not the letter, having been received at the minister's office, has been brought forward for his consideration on the date in question, to wit December 1, 1987.

All of this speculation is quite unnecessary in the face of the minister's clear statement as recorded in the official record of the debates: "I have not had a letter from that particular doctor." In this House, as in all parliamentary democracies, one hon. member's statement is accepted by all other hon. members in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. There is no such evidence in possession of the Chair today. Accordingly, the matter raised by the member falls squarely into the category of a case where there is a simple dispute as to the facts. There are numerous decisions on similar facts contained in our Journals, and I refer the hon. member to the Journals of this House, 1982, pages 12, 34, 55 and 132, to Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 12, and to Parliamentarv Practice in British Columbia, second edition, page 244.

Let me make one further observation for the guidance of all members. It is inevitable by the very nature of the debates in this House that countless disputes as to the facts will arise from time to time. It would be unfortunate if, in each of these instances, an attempt was made to routinely convert those disagreements into a charge of misleading the House. Matters of privilege which involve a charge of a member misleading this House are not to be embarked upon lightly, and I would ask all hon. members to consider the seriousness of such a charge before bringing it forward as a matter of privilege.

Oral Questions

HEART SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. In his speech to the House on Monday, the Premier made mention of it taking 11 to 15 minutes to dispatch an ambulance for a young child in this province.

Ted Vanderberg has been waiting 18 months for heart surgery. He's now clinging to life in Surrey Memorial Hospital. Today there are 400 British Columbians awaiting heart surgery, and 40 of them will die before they get to surgery. Will the Premier tell the House why Ted Vanderberg and hundreds of other British Columbians cannot get the vital health care they need?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't argue with the time it takes an ambulance to travel from the dispatch centre to wherever it's been called. I think my statements then were more taking exception to the response given by the dispatcher, and that has since been explained. Certainly I hope that may be the end of it.

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

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of this by the report in the Province. I phoned the doctor in question this morning because I was concerned. When someone is waiting in hospital for an operation, or when anyone is ill, it is of concern to everyone in this House and certainly to me. I spoke with the doctor this morning, Mr. Speaker, and he told me that there would be no guarantee that this person would not have had the stroke had he had an operation; no guarantee that he would live any longer. As a matter of fact, he says heart surgery does not prolong a person's life, but it certainly gives him a better life. I believe there are cases, and many doctors have said the same thing, where people in fact have lived longer. There are cases that have died on the operating table.

I've got another report from another doctor, and the headline is: "Bypass Operations 'Status Symbol' — Doctor." It says: "Bypass heart surgery, which is unnecessary in some cases, has become a trendy status symbol, thus artificially swelled waiting-lists for heart operations, a Kamloops physician said Monday." He goes on to say that he recently talked to doctors in the lower mainland, and the situation is not as serious as reported. He goes on to say: "'There are 5,000 other diseases. We can't utilize all resources for heart patients at the expense of people who can't see because they need cataract surgery, or people who can't walk because they need an artificial hip."'

He goes on to say: "'Bypass surgery was originally for people who couldn't be treated with medication. The procedure is not there for everyone that has heart disease. You can't convince some people that a bypass is not going to be the start of a new life."'

What I'm trying to say is that I am concerned about the situation of people waiting for heart surgery. There are many people in need of serious consideration because of their health, and we're doing the best we can under the circumstances.

I want to also mention that moneys were allocated for 2,200 open-heart surgery cases. The hospitals have done exactly 1,700 in a 12-month period; that's 500 short. Mind you, they used that money in other areas that were very necessary, I'm sure. At the beginning of the year, in my estimates, it was pointed out that we would probably have 2,200 heart conditions that needed open-heart surgery, and the moneys were allocated for that purpose –– I am not blaming the hospitals; I'm just saying that was the forecast in the estimates, and we did do that. I'd like to tell the members opposite that we are doing everything possible under the circumstances with the resources available.

MR. HARCOURT: I don't think that Mr. Vanderberg and his wife think it's a trendy operation or cosmetic surgery. We don't expect the minister to phone every time there's a newspaper report. Open up some more operating rooms and let those people live, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 2803 ]

SUICIDE OF MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Minister, I have another question for you. If you won't deal with people who are critically ill, how about two deaths? Is that good enough? We've had two psychiatric patients....

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last two weeks in Victoria we've had two psychiatric patients turned away from the emergency wards of the hospitals, and they've committed suicide. Is the minister going to finally admit that there's a crisis in the mental health care system in this province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, the question was asked whether I had a concern, or whether the Vanderbergs had a concern because they did not get open-heart surgery. Of course. I cannot deny that people in that situation would not have a concern. However, it is not I who makes the decision whether that person should have open-heart surgery, but in fact the cardiac surgeon in charge. When he feels that it is not an emergent case, he may take others instead. They also make a judgment call; many times they make an error.

About these two psychiatric patients who committed suicide, in retrospect, yes, I can believe that perhaps another action should have been taken. I am not the physician. I do not make those judgment calls; the physician does. If he says medication would do the job and sends the individual home, that is the physician's responsibility, not mine. Had he thought it was an emergent case, he would have admitted him to the hospital.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplemental. Mr. Speaker, that surgeon had five minutes to make that assessment. Your emergency wards are overcrowded. They don't have the ability to make that judgment; that's part of the crisis. You're the minister. Don't put it on the backs of a surgeon who's overworked, who has to make a judgment call in five minutes.

I'll repeat my question; the minister didn't hear it. Are you finally going to acknowledge that we have a crisis in mental health care in this province, Mr. Minister? Yes or no.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I must reiterate what I said before: that any emergent cases are looked after. That we perhaps have a shortage of space in emergency departments is true. I should also say that since we were forced to eliminate the user fee, the emergency department went up 25 percent. That is part of the cause; that's part of the reason we have such a shortage of beds or such a shortage of space in emergency departments. This is absolutely a fact. I would like more money. I can tell you right now, I could have a billion dollars extra and could use it all, because it's an endless pit that you can put money into, because it's used up as fast as you can get it. We must remember that I consume one-third of the total budget, and when you see the delivery of health service we're giving in British Columbia, you cannot sit on that side of the House and tell me we're not delivering a good health care service. You're absolutely wrong.

FUNDING FOR MINISTERS OF STATE

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to one of the eight new millionaires here in the Legislature, the minister of state for the southwest region: by what authority do you call yourself a minister of state?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know the hon. member hasn't spent much time in this House and is not really acquainted with parliamentary matters, but if he would care to do a little research, he would find that it's a common term used for policy ministers throughout the Commonwealth, certainly in the Mother of Parliaments in Britain. That's just for his edification. He may want to check that out — he may not care.

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

Could the minister of state for the southwest region of British Columbia advise us how much he has already spent on the Grey Cup party, on staff, on travel and on loans?

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to be fair, I think that's more a question for the order paper. I think the member could probably rephrase the question.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member would check — and he's been around here for a long time.... I don't use the same guidelines he operated under when he was a minister, I can assure you of that. This government — each and every ministry, each and every expenditure — operates under Treasury Board guidelines, the same as for everything else that's done in this House. If the hon. member wishes to take the time to check the appropriate authorities, he'll find that that is in fact being done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister confirm that matters under $50,000 do not get referred; that they are within his own discretion: that indeed, these are eight new millionaires? It looks better than Lotto 6/49.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would confirm what the hon. member ought — I underscore "ought" — to already know: contracts under $50,000 are not normally referred; nor were they referred during the time he was a minister at the Treasury Board.

PRIVATIZATION OF TEXTBOOK BRANCH

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Education, regarding the privatization of the publication services branch. This textbook branch of his ministry was told over a month ago that they were to be targeted for privatization or decentralization. The minister knows that bulk purchase in the textbook branch saves the taxpayers of this province between 10 and 40 percent of the budget of that branch. Can the minister tell us what studies have been undertaken to show that privatization or decentralization of this branch is going to save taxpayers money9

[ Page 2804 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we have looked at the Ontario system, which operates through a decentralized ordering system, and at their average cost per pupil for supplied textbooks in the province as well as the cost of the textbooks to those people. I might point out that the rest of it is an ongoing study, despite the conclusion by some people as to just what the benefits and costs might well be.

MR. JONES: I think the minister knows that there is no cost benefit analysis done for this province, and if he has such a study I would like to ask the minister to either table such a study that shows that it will be economical to decentralize that program or back off this wild scheme that is not in the best interests of the taxpayers of this province.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It would be of some help if the member would listen. I said that there is an ongoing study — right now — in discussions with the school boards, with the school districts....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, there are discussions going on between my staff members and secretary-treasurers, district superintendents, boards. A lot more looking has to be done. I did not say there was a cost benefit analysis done. I'm saying that it's in the process and that we are looking at it and at seeing if it can be done.

We know that there has been a fairly good response from the school districts in terms of the flexibility they feel they might have, but they raise some of the concerns that the member has and that have been raised in the press. They raised those concerns; we're looking at them; we're studying; we're analyzing them to see whether they are legitimate or not.

Just because a proposal is made and concerns are raised and we are dealing with the matter in trying to come up with the information, I have some difficulty with the member jumping to conclusions that are fed to him by certain media people and assuming that he has some knowledge already that doesn't exist.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary to the Minister of Education. Decentralization of textbook purchasing in Ontario in the sixties led to a practical impossibility of getting Canadian textbooks into schools because of the flight of educational publishing to the United States. Does the minister consider access to Canadian and B.C. materials for the children in our schools to be important enough to justify retaining the textbook branch even if it means continuing a public service to our families?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know where the member gets the information. In all provinces there are some textbooks that are received from United States publishers. There are quite a few textbooks that are received from Canadian publishers as well. And there is quite a bit of material in the schools from British Columbia publishers. I don't know why the member jumps to the conclusion that if there is some change in how you distribute textbooks, that suddenly prevents any of the existing Canadian or British Columbia publishers from being part of that. To say "Are you prepared to abandon this?" on the say-so of that member, rather than waiting for the information that I'm looking for.... The answer is no.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH CONSULTATION REPORT

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement. There has been much controversy about the mental health consultation report, and I felt it was only proper that I make a statement in that regard.

The mental health consultation report prepared by my ministry represents two years of intensive consultation and thousands of submissions. This was a consultative planning process. It is known as the "Mental Health Consultation Report," and it is a draft plan to replace Riverview Hospital.

The document that resulted from this lengthy and costly process known as the "Mental Health Consultation Report" also represents the views of several organizations and institutions. It should be emphasized in no uncertain terms that the contents of the report are not reflective of the private thinking of ministry officials, nor are they coloured or tainted by political considerations or narrow interests.

The report is a valuable compilation of strongly held and supported views and opinions of those most qualified to provide them. These include the service providers such as the B.C. Medical Association; advocacy agencies such as the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association; consumers themselves — that is, former patients; the Registered Psychiatric Nurses' Association; families and friends; and, most importantly in any democratic society, an informed and concerned public. I could go on with the many others who provided valuable input: the B.C. Health Association, Friends of Schizophrenics of British Columbia and so on.

In the past week our report has drawn 87 letters in response. I should point out that all these binders here are from the first report. Then we sent it back to the ones who responded with submissions, and we got 87 letters back from those respondents saying that we were on the right track. They agree practically 100 percent with what the plan recommends. I should point out that we have not yet reviewed it nor have I taken it to cabinet. They expressed their approval and support — some of them with valid concerns and reservations, but overall an overwhelming vote of support for a more decentralized mental health care system.

Therefore it seems conflicting that the B.C. Government Employees' Union, in aligning themselves with the opposition in the House, at first prefaced their official response with a statement supporting the concept of community living for most psychiatric patients, then publicly attacked this concept.

If the House would allow me, I would like to read some excerpts of some of these responses. The B.C. Health Association said: "The association supports the concepts of decentralizing mental health services as closely as possible to the client's family and home community and generally agrees with the overall thrust of the report."

Vancouver Interagency Mental Health Council: "The overwhelming consensus is that the plan offers a vision of mental health services in this province that will leave us second to none in the treatment and care of the psychiatrically disabled."

[ Page 2805 ]

A letter signed by 60 individual consumers — i.e., former patients of Riverview and elsewhere — said: "The trend of decentralizing treatment facilities and therefore moving from highly segregated hospitalization into one's own community and into locally provided treatment, residential and social-vocational programs is exciting. Being near family and friends is an essential source of support and encouragement for us and one that for many is unavailable when hospitalized at Riverview. It is often too far for relatives and friends to travel for a visit."

A group of six psychiatrists from the interior of B.C. said: "We look forward to working with all parties involved toward the eventual replacement of Riverview and the regionalization of mental health services in our ongoing pursuit of excellence in psychiatric care."

BCGEU said in their written submission: "We agree that community residential facilities are appropriate for most psychiatric patients, with some reservations and some provisions to be taken into consideration," and we will do that.

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

CMHA, B.C. division, Kelowna chapter, said: "It would be a great achievement to accomplish this change from institution to well-designed community living without the mentally ill being shortchanged."

Other responses indicate to us that there was considerable debate over certain details. That is, while accepting the principle of decentralization, along with our recommendations as to implementation, there is understandable concern as to the mechanics of implementation. Here it should be emphasized that the ultimate replacement of Riverview should not in any way be regarded as a vehicle for addressing other community service delivery systems. These remain separate to the decentralization process. However, the replacement services will allow us to strengthen our commitment to community demands.

Our report outlines a draft plan to replace Riverview Hospital over the next five years with a comprehensive range of in-patient and out-patient residential care and community support services decentralized throughout the province and closer to the homes of patients, their families and friends. It is unfortunate that the large effort and investment of time and human talent in reaching what is nothing more or less than a broad public consensus has resulted in such misrepresentation and distortion of the facts.

In conclusion, I state that the final phase of the mental health consultation process is now complete. The responses to the report have been broadly supported, with many helpful opinions and ideas having come from all areas of the province. Ministry staff have now commenced a detailed analysis of these responses and will prepare a final plan for approval by me, as minister, and cabinet as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

MRS. BOONE: I regret that the minister didn't give me advance notice of this or provide me with a copy of this ministerial statement, as it is rather a lengthy one, but I'll do my best to respond to it.

You talk about misrepresentation. We on the New Democratic side believe, in addition to everybody else out there, that the report that has been developed is a good report. It has many recommendations that are sound and valuable. However — and this is the point that we're making — the services that are out there right now are sadly lacking. We do not have the support systems in any of our communities. We do not have the support systems in our mental health services. We do not have the personnel out there. We do not have the transportation out there. We do not have the housing out there. We do not have trained and qualified personnel to deal with the problems that we have right now.

What we are saying, Mr. Minister, is that before any part of this report is implemented, before any more doors are closed on the people that we have, we want to see this province clean up its act with regard to the problems that we have. And we do have problems out there. We have problems in Prince George, in Vernon, in any part of this area that you want. We have problems in the downtown east side. We have problems in the mental health services in this province.

[2:45]

Before you start to implement any type of decentralization process, any type at all, we are saying we want to see our communities up to scruff. We want to see everything available there. We want to see in place services for the people that we have, not for what we're going to have. And we don't see that happening out there right now.

Once those are in place, then by all means, we will fully support the implementation of this report. Until such time, Mr. Minister, we believe you must adamantly oppose any decentralization. any closure of those beds, any move to get things out. You've lot to clean up the act that you've got out there and you're not doing it right now.

Ministerial Statement

COMMISSIONER DOUGLAS McKAY

HON. MR. ROGERS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. This statement is in response to an editorial comment that suggested I have attempted to improperly influence the Coquihalla Highway commissioner, Mr. Douglas McKay.

I did not ask the commissioner what his recommendations would be. I don't know what his recommendations will be, and the commissioner did not offer me any of his recommendations. However, shortly after taking over the Highways portfolio, I met with the commissioner, Doug McKay, as I thought it would be prudent to advise him orally of the changes that I believe were urgently needed to fill vacant positions and provide the ministry with adequate leadership. I sought his views, as I did not wish to make changes that would later be found contrary to his recommendations.

The commissioner agreed to reply in writing to specific requests. The wording of the request and the reply were agreed to by my deputy minister and the commission secretary. The commission secretary was advised by the commission counsel that it was proper to reply to this request. This is quite a normal situation. On November 24 I signed a formal request: however, since the draft correspondence has already been agreed to, the staffing changes were announced at the beginning of this week.

Mr. Rogers tabled his letter to Commissioner Douglas McKay.

MR. LOVICK: A very brief response. Certainly we on this side of the House are delighted that the minister has stood up and clarified for the record precisely what happened regarding the McKay commission and his own role.

[ Page 2806 ]

We think, however, that what is at issue has perhaps been neglected somewhat and that the minister's response begs another more important question. The other question really concerns what the Premier said about this issue, because what the Premier did, you recall, Mr. Speaker, was to suggest that something had to be done in terms of cleaning up the Highways ministry, and that people who spoke out against the Coquihalla excesses were perhaps well gotten rid of.

The suggestion we're making is that that is entirely inappropriate, because what the Premier is in effect doing is blaming the civil servants for the sins of their political masters. What we want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is simply that it is a sorry, sorry day indeed for the affairs of this province when politicians allow that procedure to unfold so that the hired people, the civil servants, who do not have the power to speak up in their own defence, are attacked, rather than the politicians who caused the problem in the first place.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset — this is a tad late, but I'll do it anyway — I would ask leave for the special committee to appoint an auditor-general to sit today while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill 63, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987. As government House Leader, I adjourned debate, but will now defer to members opposite for second reading debate continuation.

MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987
(continued)

MR. SIHOTA: I'm going to be leading off debate on this matter. However, as most members of the House are aware, the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is our critic in this area. He has been good enough to allow me to proceed ahead of him, although he will be our designated speaker on the matter of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2).

Having said that, I want to go back first of all to the introduction of this piece of legislation in the House, when the minister who introduced it described it as being an innocuous piece of legislation. In fact, if one takes a look at pages 3 and 4 of the legislation, which deal with the section that I want to focus on particularly, the explanatory note says that those sections, although lengthy, are self-explanatory. I believe, frankly, that the minister was quite straightforward when he described the legislation as being innocuous. I don't think there was any intent on his part to suggest — despite some of the cries that came up from this side of the House — that there was anything more to the legislation than simply that which was included in it. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe the good minister when he says that the provisions of the legislation are essentially innocuous and, to some extent, are housekeeping.

The section that gave me a fair bit of concern was the section that.... And I wouldn't say that "concern" is the perhaps right word. It provided a fair bit of intrigue in my mind. It was the section that dealt with the possible reintroduction of motor vehicle testing in the province. It's really about that section that I wish to talk. That's section 7, which enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations with respect to safety.

I'm told that yesterday around noon the superintendent of motor vehicles indicated that he felt those changes were brought forward in legislation primarily to deal with fleet vehicles and taxis. That's applaudable, in the sense that all of us recognize the need to make sure those vehicles are kept in a proper state of repair. Not only is that important to the public; it's also important to the self-interest of those who drive taxis, because many of them have seen their insurance rates skyrocket over the past couple of years. Whatever can be done to make sure those vehicles are in proper condition will certainly assist somewhat to reduce the cost of taxation.

So that comment by the superintendent of motor vehicles was not of particular concern to me either, Mr. Speaker, and it was certainly kept well within the tone of the minister's opening comments that the piece of legislation that we're debating now was "innocuous."

What did intrigue me, however, was when, around 5 o'clock yesterday, I heard the Premier of the province announce the fact that the province was moving back towards mandatory motor vehicle inspection. That is a move that is worthy of applause. I don't think there's anyone on this side of the House who would take issue with the need to have ongoing motor vehicle inspection on a continual basis in this province. To the extent that the legislation allows for that, we applaud it. In fact, let me say this: the comment that the Premier made caused me to take a second look at the legislation, and certainly at the wording.

Interjection.

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

As I read the legislation — and I'm quite prepared to debate it — the legislation does not restrict itself to motor carriers, but deals with promoting and securing road safety. Throughout subsection (4)(a) to (j) it talks about motor vehicles, with the exception, I believe, of subsection (4)(a), which talks about motor carriers. So my reading of the regulations is such that it would allow for the reintroduction, if we want to, of broad-scale mandatory motor vehicle inspections in the province.

So it struck me as somewhat unusual that on one hand we've got the comment that the legislation is innocuous, and on the other hand we have the Premier saying that it is the government's intent now to return us to 1983, when we had motor vehicle inspection stations in the province.

I think the thing that I find most disturbing in a general way about the Premier's statement yesterday is that it ties in in a very nice way with what's going on in this province right now with respect to privatization. I know I was cautioned earlier on, Mr. Speaker, about moving too far into that debate. I don't intend to get into privatization in a heavy way, except to say that I think that there is a corresponding and somewhat interesting argument with respect to ideology and approach that needs to be raised at this time.

We saw in 1983 — and witnessed in this Legislature, although I wasn't here at the time — a rather heated debate with respect to the elimination of motor vehicle testing stations in this province. There were indeed several concerns expressed by the opposition that this was a regressive move, and it was felt that it was in fact a move that would in the long

[ Page 2807 ]

run cost the province more. I did some quick research this morning and took a look at the actual costs; I'll get into them a little bit later on.

Nonetheless, in 1983 the discussion focused again on the government making an ideological commitment to the elimination of this type of service. On the basis of pure ideology alone it was felt that motor vehicle inspection stations ought to be removed and certainly that, if they were to return, they should come back in the private sector later on. I'll touch on that matter in a few minutes as well, with respect to the private sector.

In any event, we saw the government sort of bent on its position with respect to ideology, and saying that for reasons of pure dogma it wanted to eliminate the motor vehicle inspection stations. We see now, some four years later, the potential reintroduction of those facilities, if one reads the legislation and listens to the minister, and their certain reintroduction if one listens to the Premier.

It makes you wonder about privatization as we see it today. Again, as we pointed out in this House on several occasions, there is an ideological, dogmatic, philosophical, single-planed insistence and stubbomess on the part of the provincial government to proceed with its privatization program. Given the history that we see being played out in front of us right now with respect to motor vehicle inspection stations, one must wonder where we will be in 1990, when three years hence the chicken sort of comes home to roost with respect to the government's privatization plans. Do we have to wait three years to have a thing boomerang back at us and to come to the conclusion that yes, that ideological fervour that created the decision in 1983 was wrong, and in today's terms the ideological fervour which is behind the privatization efforts of the government will again prove to be wrong in 1990, and all the things the opposition was saying — accused of fear-mongering, as we were then — will indeed be proven to be true?

It emphasizes in my mind the need to move with caution when government proceeds with radical and ambitious plans based on ideology alone. In 1983 there were no studies. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go into any depth on privatization, but we haven't seen any studies in 1987 with respect to highways maintenance. We've seen the contradiction of studies with respect to B.C. Hydro. We've seen the contradiction of studies with respect to liquor control in this province. The situation that is boomeranging back to us now in 1987, through the provision of the legislation that we're debating now, sets us up for the same type of argument in 1990,

[3:00]

I can only implore the government at this stage of the game to try to learn from the experiences of 1983, to recognize the need for study, to recognize the costs, to take a look at the economics of the decision, to ask why it is that we have activities in the public sector in the first place, to ask what has happened as a consequence that would allow for the removal of those services. Can the private sector now provide those services? If it can't, things ought to remain in the public sector. That's what we're asking with respect to the privatization debate going on right now. That's what we were asking in 1983, when motor vehicle testing stations were disbanded in this province. Now we're finding that we need to provide those services again.

I want again to sort of focus on — as opposed to making a philosophical argument as to whether these things should be privatized, cut back, eliminated or whatever — the economics of it. I happen to be the critic for the Insurance Corporation of B.C. for our political party. We know from the statistics of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. that last year 3 percent of all motor vehicle accidents in this province were as a result of vehicle defects. Three percent doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a portion of the incidents. And it doesn't account for all the incidents; quite often a rear-end accident or an accident in running a red light is attributed to a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act as opposed to a problem with vehicles. But 45 percent of that 3 percent of accidents are attributable to defective brakes. The next highest category is defective headlights. So it's clear to me that a considerable number of accidents are attributable, according to the statistics, to motor vehicle defects.

During the course of my time as a lawyer I happened to practise a lot of personal injury law. We know that the cost of the motor vehicle testing stations back in 1983 was approximately $2.6 million. That sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, take a look at the cost of a motor vehicle accident. If one of those 3 percent this year and one of those 3 percent in each of the other years had resulted in serious injuries to an innocent passenger or an innocent driver of another vehicle, and if those injuries were so severe, let's say, as to render one a quadraplegic — and I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility when one takes into account the nature of accidents that can happen if there are defective brakes — then the payout from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia would inevitably be in excess of a million dollars. It would take only two of those accidents a year to make up the cost of the motor vehicle inspection stations. I think it's fairly safe — although ICBC doesn't break down its statistics in this way — to say that at least the payments out on two accidents of the 3 percent that have occurred in this province will have resulted in that type of cost impact.

The fact then is that the money all of us are paying out in ICBC premiums was being put out in terms of motor vehicle inspection stations. Certainly the public good would have been served, and certainly one could argue — and, of course, there is no way of proving this — that those accidents could have been prevented. The money that it was costing the taxpayer in motor vehicle inspection stations is being paid out now through ICBC premiums.

It makes a lot of sense, and we're pleased to see, under the provisions of this legislation, the reintroduction of motor vehicle inspection facilities. Whether they will be for carriers or for vehicles remains, I guess, to be seen, although I suspect they will deal with motor vehicles in the future. As I say, I think it's a good move. I think that in the long run it will prove cost-effective. It's good for fleet vehicles, if it's the intent of government to stagger those changes in. At the same time, if the Premier is to be held to his word, if one reads the regulations here, given the use of the words "motor vehicle" as opposed to "motor carrier" throughout the legislation before us, the regulations contemplated here under section 7 are regulations that will suffice to allow us to go back to where we were.

Whether we do it in the public sector or the private sector, of course, is another debate, and I guess we will have that at some other time. I certainly don't intend to get into it in any depth at this stage.

The final point on this is to go back to one of the other points that I made, that you are saving money by moving in this direction, and that is laudable. Secondly, on top of that, it

[ Page 2808 ]

demonstrates the triumph of sensible, pragmatic public sector activity over ideology, and the fact that what the government is trying to do now with respect to its privatization program is allow ideology to triumph over sensible, rational public sector involvement in society. It just demonstrates that we will be dealing with it in the future, much as we are now with respect to things that occurred in 1983. If there is a message that flows from the introduction of this legislation back to government, it is to proceed, not with caution, but to just shelve its privatization plans, to pay heed to the studies it has and to the former ministers and deputy ministers and all those other people, including Socred committees that toured around the province, who are saying: "Look, don't privatize this stuff."

MR. LOVICK: I almost feel as if I ought to begin my remarks by making a declaration, namely that despite the fact of being designated speaker, it is not my intention to take up two hours. I almost expect to hear applause or at least a sigh of relief at that point.

I want to begin by offering, for the record, thanks to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) for being kind enough to share with me some background information on this bill. That is a good modus operandi for this House, and we should do it more often. In fact, I suspect we would probably have less acrimonious debates and less heat and hostility around here if we were more willing to share. So I commend the minister for doing that.

You will recall that the minister began by saying that Bill 63, the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, was relatively innocuous. Let me start by saying that I think the minister is being too modest. It seems to me that there are some good things in this bill, and I wouldn't for a moment want to suggest that "innocuous" describes all of that. Rather, I think the ministry is to be credited for some of the steps it's taking. For example, clearly the minister's intention in the bill is to accommodate new technology, new kinds of tow trucks. Obviously that's good and desirable. Similarly, the intention to ensure that vehicles are properly insured is well and good. No problem. We certainly support and endorse that idea. Thirdly, the ever-general, animating force of the bill, I think, is to ensure that vehicles on the road are fit to be on the road, which opens the door to the whole issue of motor vehicle testing. Of course, I have questions. That is my duty, obviously: to have questions. I am in search of clarification. Most of that, however, can be deferred to committee stage.

For a few moments, at least, I would like to refer to three specific parts of the bill, all of which can fairly be called legitimately dealing with the principle of the bill. The first one is — surprise, surprise; I'm sure the minister will be able to tell in a word what I'm about to talk about — privatization. Once again, in this particular bill we see something that looks very clearly to us on this side of the House as a door-opener to privatization — a means to facilitate the process.

Without being cantankerous or testy about it, I might say that one of the things that does frustrate us on this side of the House — and I'm not about to blame the minister for this — is that we have really not yet had an opportunity to grapple precisely with the philosophy, the arguments and the pros and cons of privatization in its various manifestations. To be sure, we've had some token debates, and I have spoken now for well in excess of two hours using a number of different vehicles to address the issue. But I'm a little concerned and perplexed that we always seem to be coming at the problem — dare I say — in a kind of circuitous or even back-door route. It would be nice if we could have the debate up front, open and clear, so we knew precisely what we were doing.

I do not wish to be inflammatory, but it seems to me entirely fair to argue the case that part of this bill, whether the minister intended it or not, because I know he is relatively new to that portfolio, clearly is designed — again I emphasize from my perspective and reading of the bill — to facilitate the privatization process. Let me give you the chapter-and-verse citation for that.

Part of the privatization program announced by this government, which we all know about, is the plan to sell the government-owned tow vehicles that serve the Annacis Island crossing and the first-member-for-Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) bridge. Is that an appropriate way to describe that, Mr. Speaker, or can I actually use his name? That's clearly part of the exercise; it has been stated. The concern we have is whether the provisions of this act, in section 6 specifically, will impact on the provision of those particular towing services. We know that the government plans to sell the trucks and to contract out with the private sector. Again, that's a given.

Section 6, however — and again I recognize, Mr. Speaker, this will appear to the casual observer to be perhaps in the realm of paranoia, or fear-mongering, but as I have said on a number of occasions, you leave us no choice. We must take advantage of these opportunities to raise questions, and again, I think legitimately within the rules. What I'm suggesting is that when you look at section 6, it's an entirely fair and reasonable conclusion to say that section 6 enables the superintendent to exempt certain vehicles, certain operations, unconditionally, or for prescribed purposes, from the requirements of the act.

Let me show you the line of logic, Mr. Speaker, that leads me to the conclusion I enunciated a few moments ago: namely, that since privatization is indeed a prescribed purpose of government these days, presumably the superintendent can expect an instruction to facilitate the process by doing a favour to whomever happens to want to bid on those contracts. I'm not suggesting that that is the intention; I wouldn't do that for a moment. I'm saying, however, that the way this particular bill is drafted, that kind of possibility is indeed entirely legitimate, and certainly within the realm of possibility. So of course I'm hoping that the minister will respond to that concern, as I'm sure he will.

The second broad area I want to touch on also once more — surprise, surprise! — comes under the large and general heading of privatization. This one refers specifically to section 7 of the bill. Section 7 of the bill, as is made very clear — I see you have the document before you, Mr. Speaker, so you're aware of what I'm referring to — enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations respecting safety. Laudable, good; nobody would ever for a moment question such initiatives. The issue, however, is whether indeed section 7(b) opens the door to something other; whether in fact it heralds the return of motor vehicle testing and, given what this government did in 1983-84, whether it heralds the return of motor vehicle testing done by the private sector, i.e. a privatized system of motor vehicle testing. That, of course, is what my colleague the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was touching on briefly, and let me offer just a few observations about that too.

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

[ Page 2809 ]

appearing once again. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that the former Transportation minister, the current first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), said at the end of September 1983, to quote him: "The Social Credit policy regarding motor vehicle testing is to turn it over to the private sector, not another level of government." Clearly that is the policy that was enunciated then. I believe it is the policy that still obtains.

The issue, then, is whether the privatization of motor vehicle testing is in itself desirable. I'm not about to belabour that point at great length here, Mr. Speaker, but certainly for the record I would like to offer a few brief observations.

[3:15]

First of all, it's clear that once again we are dealing with what I referred to before as a classic, paradigm case — conflict of interest. Not conflict of interest as we often are used to using that term, but rather conflict of interest in a different and indeed perhaps more serious way. I'm referring to two interests working on a kind of collision course: conflict of interest, insofar as one set of interests leads one to a particular aim, to a particular conclusion, and urges one to expend one's energies to achieve that aim; but another interest is, if you like, in direct conflict with the first one. Is indeed incompatible with it.

I want to suggest that privatized vehicle testing stations are also inherently in a conflict-of-interest situation, in the same way as I suggested a few days ago that things like privatized highway maintenance operations are in that kind of conflict situation. The reason is not esoteric or difficult to discover. The reason is just that the end of the person providing the service is not compatible with the service being provided. More specifically put, if my job is to protect you the consumer, your safety and that of your vehicle, what I want to do is look out for your interest and no other. If, however, I stand to profit or benefit from the degree to which I can show you that you need service and assistance, clearly my advice to you will be coloured by my own self-interest. That's the predicament, Mr. Speaker. That's the basic problem with privatized services of such things as vehicle testing stations and highways maintenance. It has nothing to do with the venality or greed or lack of moral fibre of those performing the service. When I say these things I am not attacking the private sector or anybody else who may provide the service. I am merely pointing out a systemic problem of conflict of interest: the fact that the public interest is in direct, irreconcilable conflict with the private interest — the interest of the person who provides the service. That's the point I'm making.

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

MR. LOVICK: I hear a comment, Mr. Speaker. I believe it's the second member for Langley. He suggests that there is a difference of opinion in our caucus with regard to that issue. I would point out to him that that is not the case; rather, what has happened is we have been victimized by the 15-second news clip. If the second member for Langley wishes to watch a little more carefully and perhaps do something he is not necessarily too accustomed to doing — namely, read what we have said — the problem will be solved for him rather quickly. I say that, I hope, humorously: I don't mean to be offensive — well, just a little, perhaps.

Just a bit of evidence. Mr. Speaker, on the predicaments beyond the broad one, beyond what I will loosely call the philosophical one of conflict of interest. Let me see if I can be a little more specific and provide some empirical evidence from various studies and examinations of privatized inspection services in other jurisdictions. I want to share with the minister the courtesy he extended me and tell him my source. The source is the debate that took place in 1983-84. I think the record there is rather clear; most of these issues were probably raised at that time. Sadly, they didn't have the desired effect; I hope they may have the desired effect this time.

The predicament with privatized vehicle inspection systems is essentially fourfold; there are four main areas of problem. The first, predictably, is the reliability of inspections. Just one study to make the point. Mr. Speaker: a study conducted, I believe, in the United States describes an experiment where defects were implanted in a vehicle. This was a test to find out whether these inspection stations were doing the job. Fewer than half of those defects were detected, but at least one non-existent defect was found in all the tests. The question is whether that is simply the result of somebody having two motives: one, his or her own self-interest in getting sufficient work out of the inspection; the other, serving the public interest. I suggest again that those two are not reconcilable.

The second result of those empirical studies is that there is indeed a correlation or connection between the level of inspection fees and the relationship to the vehicle failure rate. It’s an elaborate argument that looks suspiciously like sliding scale, but we can clearly see cause-and-effect relationships between raising and lowering fees and the kind of service performed. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is sufficient grounds to, at the very least, make us suspicious about privatized testing stations.

Another area is the business of competition between testing stations — unless we are talking about giving some kind of monopoly control to a particular entity, which I am sure is not the intention of the ministry or the motor vehicle branch. I'm not going to belabour that point, Mr. Speaker; I simply say it for the record.

The other large problem, again from the literature dealing with vehicle testing station experiments primarily in American jurisdictions, is the qualifications of the inspectors and the licensing methods. Again, to clarify it for the record, Mr. Speaker, let me offer you a little bit of information — a quick summary of the practices in 32 states of the United States of America. In 22 of the 32, the inspectors must pass a written exam. Notice that fully one-third don't have to do that. In 23 states the inspectors must pass a performance exam; again roughly only two-thirds. What about the other third? In 19 states the inspectors must be qualified mechanics; only 19 of 32. In the matter of training, only 24 of the 32 states require specific training.

You can see the case that comes from this: namely, that unless we are very careful to provide rather strict control, we are creating something that has the potential to be a time-bomb, frankly, by producing unsafe vehicles, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents on the road. There are other bits of information coming from the same database, but I think I have given sufficient to make the point, Mr. Speaker.

The third broad area I want to talk about — I'm sure that members opposite will be happy to know this — does not have to do with privatization. Rather, Mr. Speaker, it has to do

[ Page 2810 ]

with what can fairly be regarded as too much power being vested in the inspection operation. I'm not going to brandish the flag or the sword and suggest that we should all rally to the barricades or some such thing, but I do want to suggest apropos of this.... I'm talking now about section 7. Under the aegis of providing regulations for safety purposes, I'm afraid that we may have gone too far. I'm concerned about section 7, particularly the provision that would seem to make it possible for the government to install what is called in the trade "a black box."

The problem here, Mr. Speaker, is simply that the language is not precise or clear enough, and perhaps the government, if this bill is to become legislation, will have much more power than is required. As we all know, that kind of power — however benevolent we might be, however well-meaning we might be — ought not to be given. We should never have more power than is absolutely required. I'm sure we all agree on that.

The predicament is that black boxes can record what the vehicle does: the amount of time it has been operated, any external jolts to it, and so forth. I understand full well that in the trucking industry, for example, people appreciate this. They find it useful and they don't look at it with any hostility or suspicion.

I'm concerned, however, as I read the bill, particularly section 7, that perhaps what is possible in this section is discriminatory power on the part of the regulators to insist in effect that black boxes will be inserted in all motorists' cars. I think that's conceivable. I don't think it's intended, but I think it's conceivable. The question is: who pays for that? As near as I can make out, that would be at the motorists' expense, either directly, through taxation or, I suppose, through some other mechanism that I won't dare speculate on.

The predicament is that what we're looking at is something that looks a little like Big Brother, because a black box will of course effectively tell the authorities everything about you. I realize this is just a scenario, Mr. Speaker, just a speculation, but I think it's a legitimate conclusion to draw. A car could be pulled over by a police officer, and a policeman or policewoman could effectively push a button and find out whether the motorist has committed an offence. We may well want to say that perhaps that's not a bad idea, because after all we want tight law and order and so forth. But I think that most of us in this House recognize that there are limits on authority, and we're a little suspicious of having that kind of incredible power vested in authority.

I would just like to say that I hope that the minister will look kindly on making some amendments to this particular section so that we can circumscribe and limit the jurisdiction of a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations. I hope we can have that kind of discussion in committee stage.

In short, I don't think that my colleagues and I are going to stand up and declaim against this bill and say that this must not pass or any such thing. Indeed, we applaud the government on certain parts of the bill, with reservations duly noted.

[3:30]

MR. D'ARCY: I have only a few remarks to add to those of my colleagues from Nanaimo and Esquimalt. Regarding the general attitude of the government building towards motor vehicle testing, I know that some people may have a concern about the compulsory aspect of this. I have to note, though, that some inspections are and always have been compulsory, as anyone who has ever been pulled over in a roadside test by the RCMP or city police regarding safety equipment knows. I also would like to make the note that there are a number of accredited testing facilities in the province right now and most of them are drastically underutilized. Certainly that which was put in place for members and the public by the B.C. Automobile Association was drastically underutilized.

The other concern I have, and I don't believe it's been raised, is the question of user fees for motor vehicle testing, mechanical strengths and so on, should the government go that route. Those of us who recall the debates around the closure of the government-operated testing stations back in 1983 recall that the user fee very nearly defrayed the cost of operation. In other words, a very small increase — in fact I think it was less than $1 in the $5 user fee — would have meant that there were no funds to be saved to the government by the closure of these stations. As a restraint move — and "restraint" was the buzzword then — the closure of the testing station certainly was not one. In fact, as I say, the most modest increase in the user fee would have had these stations meeting their own costs.

Even if we allow for inflation and a modest increase, I would hope that should the government get back into this business and mandate inspections through the private sector — because I can't imagine the government wanting to reopen government-operated testing stations, no matter how desirable that may be — I would hope that a clearer control is made on the level of user fees. Certainly we have the experience of a few accredited testing operations in the province of British Columbia now who don't even have a user fee for their safety testing service providing it's a regular customer who comes in and uses the service.

To underscore what my colleague for Nanaimo had to say about the question of conflict of interest regarding private sector testing of motor vehicles, I might point out that when you're dealing with the consumer, which is the population — me and thee — I think it's fair to say that it's the perception or possibility of conflict of interest that is the factor and not whether it might be there that is really the controlling bottom line on this.

The final point I would like to make — and it has been pointed out by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) — is that as much as 3 percent of the accidents in British Columbia are directly related either to mechanical failure or inadequate equipment, such as bald tires or possibly a motorist who.... This is particularly true in areas such as mine where plowing and sanding of roads is frequent in the winter. You find a number of vehicles with headlights that are absolutely encrusted with dirt, and very often drivers who are quite religious about cleaning their windshields and the back lights in their cars will drive around virtually blind in terms of illumination. It's not only whether they can see but whether people can see them. I would very much like to see some enforcement of that obvious requirement for safety.

Generally the bill is a good one. If the government does get back into mandating motor vehicle testing, I hope that it is done not only in a very effective way, but in a comprehensive way around the province — unlike when it was in place before. I hope that the user fees, which should be in effect, will be modest, reflecting the actual costs of the service. Since the automobile owners of British Columbia, through the Insurance Corporation of B.C., have a direct financial interest — as well as a personal safety interest — in properly inspected and operated vehicles which are mechanically

[ Page 2811 ]

safe, I hope that the government would consider establishing vehicle testing, possibly through ICBC, especially in my constituency where you have a greatly underutilized ICBC claims centre operation. Perhaps when the corporation built their temple in the Glenmerry district of Trail in 1973. they anticipated that drivers in the West Kootenay were going to be a lot more dangerous and have a lot more accidents than we have had. But there is space in that building to operate a testing station. I suspect that if that's true in Trail, it's true in other parts of the province as well.

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: I did describe this bill in the first instance as being relatively innocuous, and the bill is, in fact, relatively innocuous in that it has received more press coverage than it normally would have had they actually looked at the principle of the bill, which was to incorporate the recent changes to the National Safety Code into the Motor Vehicle Act of British Columbia. It really deals with commercial transport and commercial vehicles.

There have been some very kind remarks made by the members opposite about the objectives that we're trying to accomplish. This ministry, like all others. has legislation which becomes dated over time. With technology changing in the automotive world, we have to continue to change our regulations. I was amused when we talked about things that were out of order. One has to wonder whether if someone invented a motorcycle today, anybody in the safety business would ever approve its design and use for carriage on the road. I suspect not. I suspect the same thing would be done about cigarettes if the Health minister were allowed to do that.

Miscellaneous statutes by their very nature are bills that are discussed in committee and seldom discussed in second reading in this kind of detail. However, having done that, I thought I would comment on one of the things that the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) mentioned about the powers of the superintendent to vary the regulations. The one that comes to mind is that our Motor Vehicle Act requires that all vehicles be fitted with a lock. He has actually used his awesome, sweeping powers to exempt transit buses from the requirement of the Motor Vehicle Act so that transit buses don't all have to be fitted with a lock. You can imagine how difficult it would be when the drivers change buses. Who looks after the key, and who locks it where? That's the example that is given.

I got a few kicks out of the black box thing. In Europe, incidentally, any commercial vehicle has to have a device fitted behind the speedometer which is like a laboratory testing card where, when you submit it at the end of a trip, you can automatically monitor any excess speeds. Since most of the speed limits in Europe are unlimited, it's only a technical thing to do. As someone who used to operate heavy equipment which was equipped with a black box and a voice recorder, I'm not sure that it's such a bad thing if, in the final analysis, it helps to prevent future accidents — which was among the things that our black boxes were used for; then it's worthwhile. This is to allow us to fit those particular devices on commercial vehicles, and it's not intended in any way — nor would the act permit it — to be fitted on a private vehicle. Although I shall inquire into that in case that possibility exists; perhaps we'll move an amendment to it.

On the subject of testing and how testing can be done, there's a pretty wide range of discussion going on both in my ministry and by members of the public. The real difficulty in vehicle safety is not the vehicle; it's usually the person behind the vehicle. When we attack the commercial vehicle, we have to consider that a commercial operator has a different set of priorities and values when it comes to the vehicle. Most people who own a vehicle are proud of it, and it's something that they personally have a lot of investment in, or at least some investment in. Most people would like to have a nicer car or a fancier truck if they could, and if money would allow them to do so. In view of the fact that it's their family and others who travel in them, I think most people make the effort to ensure that the vehicle is safe.

My observations from looking at vehicles which are missing a headlight or missing a taillight or are not in the best of repair are that the people inside them don't appear to be dressed in mink coats or wearing diamonds. Sometimes the condition of the vehicle is in direct relation to the ability of the person to pay. So when you want to set up a standard of tightening up on vehicles that are unsafe, you really don't want to have it so strict that people who are at the borderline, where this vehicle and all its attendant costs are an expensive part of their disposable income, have to drop off the list. In some cases they use that vehicle to go to and from university or college or to work. I certainly don't want to necessarily crack down on those people. because that's not where the problem is. The problem is the people who are driving vehicles at excessive speeds or driving while impaired or in other conditions.

Commercial people, however, are a little different. They'll tend to run that vehicle just a little longer, the tires a little longer. There seems to be a need for a little more discipline of the people in the commercial sector — someone who underbids a job, someone who has cash-flow problems for other reasons.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Oh, it can happen. How many times have you been behind a cement truck or dump truck, or some other vehicle, which hasn't really got a very clearly illuminated licence plate? And the list goes on. This particular bill is designed to allow for that particular inspection.

When it comes to testing and what's done in other jurisdictions, and how it's done, this incredible conflict that you perceive and which has become such a major concern of yours is realistically addressed in other jurisdictions. Of course, there are several choices. You can have government inspectors. You can have inspectors through ICBC or through other accredited organizations. You can have inspections which take place, interestingly enough, where inspectors have to pass a written and a mechanical test, and then if a vehicle they sign out is subsequently found to be defective, they lose their right to test — that's one of the ways you can do it. You can have people bid on whether it's done on a community basis. You can make regulations to say that people who test vehicles can't also be the ones responsible for doing the service on the vehicle. And we could go back to the kind of system we had before, but the system we had before was one that I lived through, as a student, and of course everybody registered their vehicles just far enough outside of the

[ Page 2812 ]

zone so that if they knew they couldn't get the car through.... I had a 1929 Ford at that time; I still have that car. Nowadays it's exempt because of its age, but in those days it wasn't considered that old. It comes from my Scottish blood, I think.

MR. LOVICK: You were younger then.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, well, that's right.

But I still know how to fix it. I'm not sure that if I took it to a service centre I could find anybody else who was competent to fix it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm getting, comments from all around me.

When you think about cars.... I remember that one of your colleagues, who sat just about where you used to sit, drove a Mercedes-Benz. Oh, how he got ridiculed by people on this side of the House for driving a Mercedes-Benz. His pride wanted him to drive a Mercedes, but the Mercedes was so old that I'm sure if we had had a strict motor vehicle inspection, he would have been relieved of his political embarrassment a lot sooner, because the vehicle certainly wouldn't have passed. But now that he's back practising law, he's certainly able to....

Mr. Speaker, debate on this bill has been almost totally out of order. We have gone over a very wide range of things well outside of the bill. I anticipate some more detailed questions during the committee stage. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 63, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading debate on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

MR. D'ARCY: I'm glad to see that the representation on the government side is not quite as slim as it was a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the opposition is going to support this legislation; however, I have some points to make about it.

First of all, I think it should be made quite clear that it is not.... The government maintains that their intention is to contract out essential public services, which is making necessary this particular piece of legislation. I would like to submit that this piece of legislation has been needed ever since 1982-83, when the government began deliberately to cut back on the services which it was offering to the public, hence making redundant a number of loyal civil servants in the province of British Columbia.

I also want to note that over the past four to five years other employers in the public sector in British Columbia — those covered by various provisions or various parts of the superannuation acts in British Columbia — in fact have been following, as much as they have been allowed to do under legislation, these sorts of policies. Certainly school boards and municipal governments, hospitals, universities, Crown corporations, etc., as much as has been possible, have been allowing, encouraging even in many cases, employees to get into early retirement with either no loss of benefits or fewer losses than they would have had without special provision being made for them.

I have spoken briefly to the minister about this before, but I would like to make the point in this debate that the provisions of this legislation, while specifically stating a starting date and a completion date for the early retirement option here, also allow the minister — specifically the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — discretion to vary those dates; and since the desire to contract out essential government services is not just a policy of the government today but in fact has been a policy ever since they received the endorsement of 49 percent of the people of British Columbia on October 22, 1986, I would like to suggest to the minister that the government consider making provision in the bill, using powers in the act, to make the entry date retroactive to October 22, 1986.

I have no idea how many employees, perhaps only a handful, this would encompass. I don't think it's going to break the superannuation fund, but for those employees who in fact did what the government wants them to do, voluntarily without being pushed, and since the government received its last endorsation by, as I said, 49 percent of the public, I believe those employees should not be penalized, however few or many they are. I quite frankly think that there are very few who would fall into that category. But those employees who took voluntary early retirement between October 22 of '86 and October 20 of this year, quite frankly, should be included under this umbrella.

I would also like to note that the legislation only makes provision for those employees that the government deems to be affected by the contracting-out scheme. I quite frankly think that if some employees of the government, or some employees who are covered under all the other superannuation acts — I note in particular that obviously B.C. Hydro gas employees would come under this — are going to be considered eligible or potentially eligible for the increased retirement benefits covered by this act, I fail to see why the government cannot simply designate all provincial government employees for the period that this legislation is going to cover — not just provincial government employees but all Crown corporate employees and those covered under the municipal, school, hospital, university and so on superannuation sections.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, there is, shall we say, a retrenchment throughout all of these jurisdictions, and while this early retirement provision is going to assist those long-term employees, it does very little — well, it does nothing really — for the younger employees, and it's the younger employees that our society needs the most. I'm not taking anything away from those employees in their fifties, but as any employer or business person can tell you, it is the younger, more innovative employees, the ones who are going to show leadership over the next decades, who are most important to the smooth operation of public services in British Columbia. I feel quite strongly that provision should be made for these to in fact move, if their particular ministry or

[ Page 2813 ]

particular operation is going to be contracted out, to give them the opportunity to bid into other parts of the civil service or into positions in Crown corporations. Making this provision available across the board would open up some positions, that wouldn't otherwise be opened up, for younger employees who are already trained; they already have good work records and they're already within the system.

I note that part of this legislation allows the government to relax the ten-year rule regarding retirement. I welcome that change; again, it should have been in for some time. But I would like to see the government take into consideration relaxing the ten-year rule for those employees who were not hired soon enough to ever put in their ten years. I would note to this House that many employees in that situation who were not hired until they were in their mid-fifties have never had the option of putting in ten years. They are faced with compulsory retirement, regardless of this act or any other, when they hit 65. I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not compulsory retirement at 65 is desirable or constitutional; I simply note that it does exist within the jurisdictions that we're discussing here.

Provided a person has made his superannuation payments, and provided a defensible and reasonable percentage-per-year formula is put into effect, I believe short-term employees.... When I say short-term, I mean those who by law will have less than ten years and do not have a choice of ever putting in ten years under any of these jurisdictions. They should be given the opportunity to at least take advantage of a modest pension on their compulsory retirement. I would like to point out that most of the employees who would fall into this situation are likely to be women. The reason they didn't get back into the labour force or weren't in the labour force before the age of 55 was in most cases because they were involved with the domestic duties of raising a family. In many cases they only went into the labour force — or the management force, as the case may be — in government out of economic necessity, yet they have performed a very valuable service on behalf of the province of British Columbia. Again, I think it is a very small cost item and one that should be looked at.

With those remarks I want to reiterate my opening statement that while this legislation is welcomed, it doesn't quite go far enough. Also, I notice that the government really is the last to act in these matters, when the other public sector employers, whether Crown corporations or local jurisdictions, have acted years ago on these provisions, as much as they were enabled to by their empowering legislation.

I know the government is going to want people to believe that they are taking these actions in this case out of the goodness of their hearts; the government would want people to think that they're not being callous and heartless. But we know that the reason the government at long last is finally acting on these things which should have been done several years ago really is that they know that without these provisions the public is going to view a rather callous treatment of loyal and long-standing employees as being heartless.

I would like to see more provisions for more people in the public sector in British Columbia in recognition of the loyalty, dedication and financial contributions which they have made into the superannuation funds over the years.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to rise also in support of this proposed legislation and to echo some of the concerns expressed by my colleague the member for Rossland-Trail.

Quite apart from the problems that we have in this Legislature with the ideological ramifications of privatization and decentralization, a lot of people out there feel that they are the pawns in the game. They are not connected with the ideological battles, but they would like to have some assurance that their lives and their contributions aren't going to be affected by what we do here in terms of the ideological battle. For that reason, it's very important that legislation like this is brought into the House to give them that kind of assurance that they're not going to suffer as a result of what we're doing here. So I think the legislation is important from that point of view.

A few months ago the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) stood up and announced in the House that he was going to bring in provisions that would allow teachers in this province to retire early, so that senior teachers who had been in the system for many, many years would be allowed to retire early without penalty as a voluntary option. They could then leave the system to which they had made a great contribution over the years. and some of the younger teachers — just out of teacher training. Just out of university, just out of their practice teaching — could come into the bottom end of the system and make a contribution to education in the province. These are teachers who are young, enthusiastic, excited, and who want to get into the system and make a contribution. Yet because there were employment problems within the system, they were unable to get involved and make their talents available to the government. By changing that legislation, the Minister of Education was allowing these people to come into the system and make their contribution.

I think it's an indicator to the government that they have a tremendous mechanism here, in the form of the funded pension plans under the administration of the government, to not only influence employment and unemployment in British Columbia. but also allow employees of the government in its various instrumentalities — whether it's the school system, Crown corporations or municipalities — who feel they are caught up or used as pawns in the ideological debate some security for their future. They know that if they lose their jobs, or if their jobs are threatened as a result of, say, privatization or some other change in government policy, at least their future income is going to be assured. For that reason we welcome the government bringing in this piece of legislation.

[4:00]

During the last election campaign the New Democratic Party brought forward to the debate the proposal that we would make an early retirement option available to teachers at age 55. At their voluntary option they could retire at age 55, in order to allow new teachers to come into the system and allow older teachers who had made their contribution to retire. The NDP government of Manitoba had actually put this policy into practice, in consultation with the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba school boards; and the govemment found that it was a very profitable measure. On the one hand, they made available to the teachers' superannuation fund something like $3 million in order to pay the costs of the early retirement provision. But they saved far more than $3 million, because the teachers who came in to work for school districts at the bottom end of the salary scale created a savings for those school districts, and ultimately for the provincial government, of much more than the $3 million the government expended to top up the teachers' pension fund in Manitoba. So it was a very profitable measure from the government's point of view as well.

[ Page 2814 ]

Members will recall the strike that took place in the forest industry during 1986, which ended in early 1987. One of the major issues in that strike was the right to retire early without penalty, and to change the forest industry pension plan to account for that. I'd like to say that in my constituency it has meant that hundreds of IWA members working in the logging and sawmilling industry who felt they were getting too old to do the kind of work involved — in fact, they were constituting a danger, because hundreds of lives have been lost in the forest industry annually as a result of the danger of the work and an ageing workforce — were allowed to retire early, and yet were able to enjoy some income security because of the pension provisions won during that last forest industry strike.

It's too bad they had to go through a strike to achieve what they did. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, there's been a mini employment boom in Port Alberni as a result of the changes in the IWA pension regulations. Many of those older members have retired. Younger workers have been brought into the forest industry workforce. They're more energetic and productive, and they tend to be safer because they can move more quickly. I think that that's been a terrific benefit to the forest industry workforce in my area. Many, many people have been hired in the industry since that change was made in the IWA pension plan as a result of that unfortunate strike. I'm glad that the government has recognized the need for this kind of legislation in dealing with policy changes, so that the people who work for the provincial government and whose jobs may be threatened by the privatization proposals will at least have some income security as a result of the legislation that we're bringing in today.

The NDP has always favoured voluntary early retirement provisions, because we feel that it is a mechanism in the hands of the government that can be used to make life much easier for older workers who are on the verge of leaving the workforce, and the only thing preventing them from leaving the workforce is the fact that their income and their income security will plummet.

We feel that this is an important thing to do. In many western European democracies that have had the experience of social democratic governments, they have this kind of early retirement provision where people are allowed to retire at age 55 or where there are special early retirement provisions for industries that are becoming redundant or that are vulnerable and subject to technological change. The government and industry pension plans are used to absorb the changes without threatening the job and income security of workers.

We feel that this legislation is a step in the right direction. As my colleague has suggested, we feel that the legislation should be broadened and that it would have been more appropriate, perhaps, if the minister had made a statement along the lines of the statement made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) just a few months ago that this would become a provincewide thing.

The Minister of Education covered all of the teachers in his announcement, allowed all of the teachers to retire early at their option at the age of 55. We feel that it would have been appropriate for the government to have done this for all of the pension plans within its jurisdiction. We also feel that it's appropriate to deal with those employees who may fear job loss as a result of privatization, so that they are able to have the additional benefits of taking their pensions earlier or having some advantage even if they haven't completed their ten years of contributions.

I think this is a good deal. It helps to deal with some of the income security problems that people out there are experiencing. Mr. Provincial Secretary, there is a great deal of fear out there, a great deal of uncertainty. It's not being generated or exploited by the opposition for any kind of political benefit. There really is no political benefit that can come out of that kind of fear and uncertainty.

The government often talks about concern and uncertainty having a negative impact on investment in British Columbia, and that's quite true. The kind of uncertainty and fear that's being generated by radical policy changes also affect the investment climate and the consumer habits of people in the province, whether they are directly affected by those changes or not.

If the province had comprehensive legislation dealing with early retirement, technological change and job redundancy, then I think we could accomplish these changes much more easily and make it much easier on the people involved. If we had programs that allowed retraining and paid educational leave on a broad basis, then that would also make it possible for us to accomplish some of the social, governmental and economic changes that we require in order to bring the society and the economy of this province into the modem age.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Those kinds of provisions are needed. This legislation doesn't go very far in accomplishing that, but at least it's a step in the right direction. There are many rumours that are going around the province among workers in my constituency. They've seen the articles in the newspapers; they've seen the trial balloon statements being made by ministers. They're concerned that their jobs may be vulnerable. That particularly affects people who are in the 40 to 50 age bracket, people who are approaching retirement but don't really feel that they have enough committed to their pension plan or to their savings that they're going to be able to survive. Pension studies that have been done nationally by the federal House of Commons and the Senate have indicated that this is a great fear among all Canadians. Only a very small percentage of Canadians are covered by adequate pension plans, either administered by an industry, a company or a government employees' association, such as this one is. The vast majority of Canadians aren't covered and end up having to rely on their own savings. As a consequence, they do fear the kind of changes that are taking place in this province.

I would hope that when the minister is considering this legislation that he would in the future consider expanding it to cover the whole class of people who work for the provincial government — in the same way that the Minister of Education has talked about making early retirement benefits available to teachers without penalty. My understanding is that not many teachers have taken advantage of that change in the teachers' pension plan yet. Perhaps it's because the information hasn't really gone out to the teachers to make them aware that that benefit is there.

One of the savings that can be accomplished to the government is that when early retirement provisions are implemented, older workers move out of the system. Younger workers, many of whom are adequately trained — and some more trained than the workers in the system — can then come

[ Page 2815 ]

into the system, get off welfare, get off being supported by the government, and make a positive contribution both in terms of their talents and as taxpayers to the province. I think there are some great benefits that are available to the province and to the people of this province as a whole from the workers who are currently unemployed if we take this kind of legislation and expand it on a broader scale.

As I said before, there are tremendous benefits from the changes that are taking place with the teachers and in the forest industry as a result of the changes in their pension plan. We know that Air Canada is currently negotiating around this issue, or a related issue, right now. It's probably a component of every collective bargaining process and every bargaining dispute. This type of benefit is key to the disputes that are taking place: job security and income security as it relates to retirement and pension benefits.

We'd like to thank the minister for making a short step in this direction and encourage him in any way we can to take further steps in this direction for the benefit of all the people of the province.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair today. It's certainly a pleasure to see the good member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) here as well, who gave such an outstanding response to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) earlier on in the day. We're still trying to overcome her comments.

I just wanted to put a quick matter on the record for the Provincial Secretary. It's a matter than he and I have discussed, and hopefully when we get to committee stage we can find some way to deal with this particular set of problems that I have in my riding. It pertains to two employees who, if the government intends to continue with its plans for privatization, will be affected. They are both the kind of instances that fall between the cracks. As it sits right now, one of the employees has worked for the government in excess of 30 years. I won't specify exactly how many years, as I don't want to identify the person, but this person is 53 years of age and accordingly will not be eligible under these provisions. The other has worked in excess of 20 years and is in his mid-fifties as well, but will not be in a position to be anywhere near 55 by March. Both of them, of course, will fall between the cracks.

I hope that between now and committee stage on this matter we will be able to come up with some type of an amendment. I've taken a look at the provision, particularly 18.1(2) and (3). I think it's possible to draft something in there that would allow for coverage for these people, or alternatively in section 1(4.1), 1(4.2) or 1(4.3). Hopefully sometime between now and then I'll share those suggestions with the Provincial Secretary and give him the benefit of my legal drafting abilities, for what they're worth, and hopefully we can come up with some kind of flexibility in the rules that will allow for the capturing of these people and allowing them to receive the pensions that, given their years of service, we would all agree they are worthy of.

MR. LOVICK: Given that the last time I rose to speak before this House I was the model of decorum and civility, I think I am allowed to be a little more engage, can I say, right now.

[4:15]

Madam Speaker, the predicament here is that we're talking about a bill that all of us on this side of the House are supporting, but it's a bill that ought never to have to come before the House, because it's a bill that's really — if I can use the term — about damage control. We're talking about the problem of caring for the wounded instead of trying to put an end to the war. That's the problem with this particular bill. I'm not going to go on at great length about the point, but I do want to offer four observations to corroborate and substantiate the claim I began with.

The first is — and the reason I'm a little incensed as I stand before you now — that this is not a bill about employment, which ought to be the mandate and the responsibility of government to create. This is a bill about unemployment. It's a bill about dealing with those individuals who are no longer going to have jobs. Granted, I recognize that in the bill there are some other options, working on the assumption that so-called privatized employees will have other work and will be able to transfer their pension benefits. The bulk of the bill, however, deals with people who are encouraged to take what is euphemistically referred to as early retirement, i.e. to join the ranks of the unemployed.

First then, Madam Speaker, let's have no illusions about what this bill is. It may be kindness. It may be doing good service to the workers — and certainly the workers deserve nothing less than good service and some reward for their service. But it certainly should not be seen as some great, momentous occasion we should all be cheering about, for heaven's sake. It's a bill about unemployment.

The second point I would like to offer — and I hope that the minister will listen, because I would love to hear the response to this — is that this bill is a blatant and direct admission of failure on the part of the government to live up to one of its main claims about the privatization initiative. We have been told by the government from the beginning: "You don't have to worry about privatization and job loss; you don't have to worry about that because, if anything, what's going to happen is the private sector will pick up the slack and indeed create more jobs." If that's the case, why then do we have this bill? Why then do we have to be playing damage control? Why do we have to be dealing with a problem of unemployment, which is what early retirement amounts to?

The third point I would like to make for the record is that people on this side of the House and in the public sector support this initiative. Yes, they support this initiative, simply because it is the lesser of evils. They support the initiative not because they are saying, "Gee, it would sure be nice to retire at the ripe old age of 55" — or some such thing. They are not choosing voluntarily to retire; they are left no other choice. That's the predicament. I want to submit to the minister — and I think we can corroborate the claim pretty easily — the fact that the great majority of public sector workers out there are now feeling either angry or very disillusioned. There's a considerable sense of hostility and a feeling of anger out there, because the perception is that here is a government that really has no sense of loyalty to us for the things we have done. Those same people are also disillusioned because they begin to wonder: given we have performed good and faithful service, why do we meet with this kind of treatment? Because the claim about privatization, about the inherent and necessary superiority of the private sector, is just as much a counterclaim that the public sector providers of the service have not done the service well. You can argue and debate and try to hide behind some other sophisticated and rather contrived arguments, but the fact remains: if you are arguing the case about the inherent

[ Page 2816 ]

superiority of the private sector, you are also just as clearly arguing that there is something inherently inefficient and unproductive in the public sector. I would submit to you, Mr. Minister: what self-respecting public servant can be told that and say, "Well, gee, I sure appreciate hearing that I am a lazy good-for-nothing, and therefore I'm going to happily take my early retirement"?

Madam Speaker, I'm suggesting to you that this is not the kind of legislation that the government should take pride in. Rather it seems to me to be a clear admission of defeat, an admission of failure to do the job that government ought to do, namely to provide full and gainful employment for its people.

The fourth point I would make is really a question. I suppose I'm giving notice of the question that I want to ask and discuss during committee stage. The question is simply: what about the costs? Is it true that unemployment is cheaper than employment? Does government really want to encourage large numbers of people to be pensioned? Can we afford pensions? How much is all of this stuff going to cost? And apropos of that, let me just suggest that there are a number of other questions that must be presented in terms of cost. For example, I wonder what the cost is of all the particular task forces that have been assembled and all the public servants at senior levels who apparently have been doing nothing else for some months except study the intricacies of privatization initiatives. I wonder what the cost is of those glossy pamphlets extolling the virtues of the species. I think the question of cost is a very important one, especially insofar as the principal justification for this measure, so we are told, is cost-efficiency.

In short, we are in the awkward and unenviable position of supporting a piece of legislation but doing so, certainly for me and I suspect for my colleagues, under protest, and under protest for darned good reasons.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the opposition for their support. I'm pleased to hear from the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy), the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) and, closing off for the opposition side, the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who's an entertaining speaker at all times. I don't agree with him, obviously, but I appreciate listening to him.

What we're talking about principally in this bill is the opportunity and the absolute intention of the government to provide the principles of fairness for those people who are retiring, and I think even to exceed what is expected of a government at any given time.

Some of the speakers on the other side mentioned the plight of those people who may or may not be privatized as a result of this bill. For the edification of those members and anyone who may be listening, I'd like to talk just for a second about the pension options for privatized employees.

The second part of the bill, as I said before, provides special pension options in connection with the privatization component of the government restructuring program. These options are designed to make it possible for privatized employees to be treated fairly and equitably and to make their pensions as portable as possible.

The three options again are these. One, privatized employees can receive a refund of their own contributions plus interest if they opt for that provision. Second, privatized employees can leave their contributions on deposit in the public service superannuation fund and will be entitled to receive a pension at retirement — I want to underscore this — regardless of the employee's length of service. Normally, employees would be required to contribute to the plan for ten years to be eligible for such a pension benefit, but under this option they would be able to leave their funds in there and receive a pension regardless of their length of service. A privatized employee can transfer the greater of (a) the value of the employee's pension entitlement or (b) double the value of the employee's contribution with accumulated interest to be locked in a registered retirement savings plan, non-taxable until the employee draws it down, or to the registered pension plan of the new employer. The second part of this option is to ensure that younger employees are treated in a meaningful way as far as pension entitlement is concerned.

You will also note that the privatization committee is talking with any individuals who may be affected by privatization. Anyone who can possibly be moved will be moved. They are being dealt with in as fair and equitable a manner as possible.

The second member for Nanaimo talked about people at 55. He talked about them as if that was the end of their lives as far as productive employment was concerned. I hope not, or a lot of us around this House right now wouldn't have much to look forward to. I remember that many years ago when I was first involved in politics I campaigned on the spirit of new blood, and now I'm talking about experience. Experience is something we must look forward to.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, you're going on to greater experiences, I hope — in another life, perhaps.

People at 55 can go on to bigger and better things. There are lots of things beyond that, lots of new careers that people can go on to. Life doesn't end when one leaves a public service job. The preponderance of people in this whole free world as we know it work in private enterprise. The hon. member for Nanaimo should try it once in a while. He may get to like it — you never know. There is a whole world out there, and there is a whole world beyond that of government. What we're talking about and what they're talking about is the size and scope of government.

The government that existed from 1952 to 1972 under W.A.C. Bennett may have been right for that day and that time. Again, the government that existed under David Barrett — and some of us would debate this — from 1972 to 1975 may have been appropriate for that day and that time. Consequently the government that existed from 1975 until 1983 under Bill Bennett was correct for those days.

What we're looking at now, moving into a new decade, a new century, is a new form of government that fits a new economy and new ways; that's what we're talking about. You can't expect government to stay as it is over the years. The NDP are stuck in the age of the Industrial Revolution, and they can't seem to get out of that, somehow or other, in any of their thinking.

MR. LOVICK: A brave new world.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not a brave new world, but a different world, hon. member. You should be willing to accept it; you should investigate it and realize that the thirties

[ Page 2817 ]

have gone. We're in a new era. We're moving into a new century, and that's what we're talking about here.

The hon. member for Nanaimo, who claims he was incensed, was talking about the private sector versus the public sector, and trying to pit one against the other. I tell you, one sector is as important as the other. What we're talking about here is the size of those sectors. Whether we like it or not, all people who are engaged in government are engaged in government because the private sector, the wealth and genius of people outside, is able to provide the funds to keep us here and to provide goods and services.

We're talking about the size of government. I'm very pleased to bring forward this piece of legislation, which I know the opposition are going to support wholeheartedly, as they've said they would. It's a move towards fairness, towards equity and towards dealing in a correct and proper manner with those employees who, for whatever set of reasons, may be retiring from the service of British Columbia.

They are good people; they will continue to be great people. They will go on, if they leave, to better things ahead, and I congratulate them on that wonderful opportunity. I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to discharge the order committing Bill 59 for debate the next day and for the House to proceed, by leave, to committee stage of Bill 59 now.

Leave granted.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 59, Madam Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: We had a hurried conversation about this particular matter among our caucus, and we didn't know it was coming up immediately, although we were approached right after question period. We did agree that we could proceed to the committee stage of this bill. We had a little flip and a little lottery about who would speak first, and I lost. So I'm prepared to speak now about these parliamentary secretaries.

I did a little math this morning, and I found that if we take the Speaker's group — the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman in Committee and the Deputy Chairman in Committee — then we actually have three people with special jobs. Then we have all the Whip's big staff — the Whip and the Deputy Whip. That's a couple of special jobs for the government. I looked at the parliamentary secretaries, and if my math is correct, we have something like nine of them plus some others; then we have 18 in the cabinet. I was looking around and I found....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's wrong; there's 17.

MR. ROSE: No, that's not wrong. I don't have the bill before me, but I have a photographic memory. Maybe the number of cabinet ministers has gone down, but the total number.... I know we don't have the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations, and I'm sorry about that because I would love to be a Minister of Intergovernmental Relations with all those trips to Ottawa and Washington, all those junkets every which way.

Anyway, after going through that math, I came to the conclusion that there are only five members in this House on the Social Credit side without special jobs and special salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. ROSE: Just five.

MR. LOVICK: What do they do, then?

MR. ROSE: What do they do? Well, we have the former Minister of Highways. He doesn't have a special job, so he doesn't have any special income. Then we have the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith). He has to get along on an MLA's salary — just the simple MLA sort of backbencher's salary....

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you sure of that?

MR. ROSE: Well, no. He may have a private source of income. I wouldn't want to inquire into that, because I know he has filed his declarations, and I'm certain that they're accurate.

Then we have one of the members for Delta: he doesn't have a special job. I've forgotten the others, but I think there are two more.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Campbell).

MR. ROSE: Oh, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey doesn't have a special job. Now we only need one more, but they get special jobs for the heritage committee and other such junkets around the province.

What I'm saying is that of the totality of the Social Credit members, if you add the cabinet to the special jobs, it seems to me that very few of them are forced to live on an MLA's salary. They have special jobs and special responsibilities. For instance, if they decide as parliamentary secretaries....

Never mind the minister of state. I'm glad the minister of state is here because I mentioned yesterday that probably in his ministry he hasn't got as much to do as he used to. A number of very important parts of the ministry have been gutted and put into another another. I don't know whether the former deputy minister of the Provincial Secretary has anything to do with this, or who was the guttor, but I know who

[ Page 2818 ]

the guttee was. It's the minister over there, the supermayor of the lower mainland — my minister, as a matter of fact. If I need anything at all to assist me in carrying on my work or getting any pork for my municipalities, then I know which chief porker to approach.

He smiles because he's so affable about this, but he's going to have lots of time for this. I will be approaching him, and he knows that. I would like to tell him that the last time I approached him — and I'd like to thank him — he was most generous. If I need to grovel any further, I will just get into my grovelling gear.

Anyway, I looked at this whole group of people, then I began to look at my own caucus. Many of them don't have private sources of income; they are people of modest financial accomplishments. There are some, though, who are fairly affluent and seem to have a knack for making certain that nobody, when they reach their retirement years, will be forced to contribute money into their tin cup. They will not be peddling pencils or anything like that. The point is, though....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSE: I see. That is not autobiographical, that "Hear, hear!" part. I'd like to make that very clear.

I think it's obvious to everyone that aside from the merits of decentralization — and there may not be any merits to decentralization. It might be a pork-barrel scam; it might be a method to relieve other elected people of their responsibilities, people such as school board and regional district officers, and also municipal councils. We're told it isn't. They are saying: "No, sir, this is an addition; it doesn't replace regional government." If it doesn't replace regional government, then how can it not be a fifth level of government?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it replaces Gracie.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know, you think that it's enterprise in new clothes.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's it.

MR. ROSE: Is it? Partnerships in enterprise in new clothes. No more partnerships and no more dancing together. It doesn't take two to tango, just one superminister per district. We're concerned about that. It's not that we're concerned about decentralization; we want decentralized government. But if you take a minister of state from each of nine regions, equip him with an acolyte called a parliamentary secretary, and maybe two, well paid, with all the perks, and then you take that minister of state and put him in the cabinet and the cabinet is presided over by a premier, folks, is that decentralization? I think what it is is decentralization like the ribbons on a maypole: they all lead to the top. And that's where the decisions will be made, because that's where the buck stops.

We don't think that this is in the traditions of our inherited British democracy. We did not go for the United States of British Columbia. We feel that all regions should be treated equally and we don't see why there should be a fifth structure designed to do an end-run around MLAs. That's why we weren't interested in being co-opted.

Now there's nothing wrong with being a participant in an organization that provides communication and input for various groups of people. On the surface it looks fine. But then we heard from the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid). He said: "If you don't vote Socred, you're going to be at the end of the line when it comes to handing out goodies." Now I know the minister over there doesn't feel that way because he's going to be....

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the alderman; the alderman feels differently.

MR. ROSE: Well, you know, some people are very suspicious. They don't know the minister as well as I.

MR. WILLIAMS: I know the alderman.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know the alderman, but I think, Madam Chair, you would probably bring me to order about this because actually we have a little trialogue going and I don't know whether antiphonal-type recitation is accepted in this House. But nevertheless my Little Sir Echo is sitting right behind me here. I don't find it difficult dealing with the other side of the House; they're real patsies — with apologies to the former member for Vernon; but it's my own group I find difficulty dealing with on some of these issues. I am much more sensitive, Madam Chair. I don't know whether a chair has any sex, but I think you would prefer to be called Madam Chair, Ma'am or Madam Chairperson. I have no particular or special knowledge in that regard at all about the chair or the table or anything else.

I would like to express my concerns and fears once again about this. It seems to be a superimposition upon the regions of half or part of this House only to oversee and perhaps negate the wishes of the locally elected people. We see it as a proliferation of bureaucrats, if you like, or MLAs that are on the government side, who will be granted, because they're parliamentary secretaries, special consideration on a number of things.

Never mind the special offices, or the trips, or all the other perks that go along with this office, aside from the salary. Focus your mind on this one. Next week the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), and quite properly so, will be attending in Vernon the B.C. Federation of Agriculture convention. Now I don't know if he has a parliamentary secretary, but there is a parliamentary secretary for his region. Now that's a very important event in Vernon's calendar this year. I also, along with my colleague the former Minister of Agriculture, will be attending that convention. But he is on government business and I'm not. So if he misses a day in this House, he's on government business; but I as a critic in that area am not. That's unfair.

This privilege not only applies to ministers to be away on public business, but it also now applies to ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries.

MR. WILLIAMS: A matter for the board.

MR. ROSE: I think it is a matter for the Board of Internal Economy to take up. We are very concerned about this. Where does it end? What this thing asks for is not ten, the way we started when we reformed the rules in '85.... The minister was there on that committee.

[ Page 2819 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I took the idea from you.

MR. ROSE: You didn't take it from me personally, but I will admit, Mr. Minister, that it did find support and appreciation from a former minister from this side of the House who also happened to be on that committee. But never in our wildest dreams, Madam Chair, did we think that it was going to go from ten, which seemed to be legitimate, to.... There's no limit. Now, theoretically, everybody on that side can have a parliamentary secretary's job if appointed by the Premier, and will have all the travel privileges, all the privileges of attendance or lack thereof, all the expense privileges — everything that goes with the job, unlimited. And everybody's got one of those jobs except five on that side. But they could all have it. Once they clear up a few little matters, perhaps they could all have it.

[4:45]

Luther said: "Each man his own priest." You remember Martin Luther, banging things on the door of some cathedral somewhere in an unpronounceable Wurttemburg or Worms or whatever it is. Our Premier said: "Each man his own parliamentary secretary." Oh, do you think that's overdrawn?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's about the size of it.

MR. ROSE: I don't know. There's no end to the size of it; that's the big problem, as I see it.

I think that I've made the case as far as the opposition is concerned, as far as I am concerned....

MR. WILLIAMS: I think you should underline it.

MR. ROSE: You think I should maybe sum up and summarize my.... I'll summarize my main concerns. My main concerns are: that there's no limit on it; that it's unfair because it applies only to the government side of the House; number three, it provides, I think, an opportunity for tremendous additional expense for this Legislature; number four, it takes the place of elected officials already in existence, and it provides for a fifth level of government; number five, it has the potential to replace the decisions decentralized already and put them at the top of the maypole, tunnelling right up the ribbons to the pinnacle or hub, the Premier, which will just have the opposite effect of centralization, and will in fact not decentralize but centralize the government and put the grip and power of government much tighter, square in the Premier's office, than it exists today.

MRS. BOONE: I'm going to ask some questions of the minister, please. Will the parliamentary secretaries have access to extra moneys to set up offices in the various states?

Are you going to respond in the record? The minister responds with a shake of his head, no. Will the minister...?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Madam Chairman, we're extensively using the government agents, 61 of them throughout the province, to help with the ministry of state function, and those agents will help to do any work required by a parliamentary secretary, a minister, a member of a committee or anyone else who happens to be in that region at any given point.

AN HON. MEMBER: An NDP MLA?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, that can include an NDP MLA, and I'll have a little more to say about that when I reply to the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) just a little later on.

MRS. BOONE: Then I take it that no extra offices will be set up in any of the states for any of the parliamentary secretaries in any cities or towns whatsoever.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Madam Chairman, there may be some renovations or something required in some government agents' offices around the province, or some other places, but the answer is no, there will be no special office built for a parliamentary secretary. There may be some renovations done in government agents' offices if they're required, and they're ongoing, at any rate, throughout the province. As a matter of fact, some of the government agents' offices are undergoing renovations to become what we call one-stop shopping centres. There may be some offices available in those areas.

MRS. BOONE: If that's the case, then will there be extra staff available through the government agent's office, or would the government agent be expected to do all of this within the staffing arrangements allowed? Or is the parliamentary secretary going to be hiring more staff for his or her — his, I guess; there are no hers, are there? — offices?

HON. MR. VEITCH: There is a regional development officer, either here or in the field in each area, and a regional development liaison officer. They may require secretarial help in some instances — in most instances — and those people will be available. But normally it will be the staff who are there available to the government agents or others who will be providing any administrative work.

MRS. BOONE: Will these parliamentary secretaries receive any extra moneys to operate within their own offices, any extra abilities? Would there be no extra perks, no fax machines, no such things as this involved in their own offices?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Nothing other than what would normally be in a government agent's office or in a ministry's office, or indeed in a member's office that they may have now. They're not expected to receive anything extra. We think there's ample equipment available, in most cases. In some cases they may require something else to do the job. You wouldn't want to mitigate against them being able to do a job for the people of British Columbia, if they need something. I don't know what those demands would be at the present time, but I don't receive very many.

MRS. BOONE: I understand the government agents' offices have these. Obviously the parliamentary secretaries, in many cases, are going to be a considerable distance away from the people that they are there to serve. Are these parliamentary secretaries going to be given special things, special lines of communication, fax machines, in their own offices, within their own constituencies, in order to communicate to all the government agents' offices that they have to deal with? In many cases those are a considerable number of offices.

[ Page 2820 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Every MLA, I think as of the beginning or the middle of this year, is on the ProvNet system. Some of them have fax machines now; some of them don't. I haven't had any requests — recently at any rate — from any MLA, be it a parliamentary secretary or others, for this type of equipment, but when one comes in, we'll consider it — if and when it comes in.

MRS. BOONE: Are you saying, then, that if I as an MLA requested a fax machine, I could...?

HON. MR. VEITCH: You can have a ProvNet.

MRS. BOONE: I have a ProvNet already. A fax machine, you would even consider that? I'm talking about whether you would be installing them in our offices just as you would be prone to consider them with the parliamentary secretaries. You've just stated that you would consider them for the parliamentary secretaries. Would you consider them for the MLAs who have to deal with their people?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think we'd better address the bill.

MR. R. FRASER: Next you're going to want a government car.

MRS. BOONE: Damn right. You read my.... That's right here.

I see this as really being a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't understand how we are going to be able to function within the area that we have. We've got parliamentary secretaries who don't even live within the areas, in many cases, and don't even live within the states that they are expected to serve. We've got ministers of state who don't even live within the areas they are expected to serve. And yet we are expecting the government agent's office to pick up all the information there. The way I see it, in this case everything will be referred to the government agent's office, rather than going through the local MLA. Whether or not you believe it, I believe that's what the population out there will perceive.

The Federation of Labour recently asked the Minister of Agriculture: "Will you still be the Minister of Agriculture?" He said, "I guess so." He doesn't understand what his relationship is to the area. The Federation of Agriculture is saying: "Who do we go to at this point? Do we go to the local MLA? Do we go to the minister of state? Do we go to the Minister of Agriculture if we've got a problem? Who do we go to?" You are going to be having your minister of state and his or her group of people making decisions on the Land Commission. That's very clear. Part of their mandate is to make decisions on the Land Commission. We've seen how this government likes to circumvent the Land Commission and get things out of the ALR in order to make profits for certain people. This is obviously not going to be giving the local MLA the opportunity to represent his or her constituents to the best of his or her ability.

What it is doing is virtually cutting the feet out from underneath the MLA. Yes, that is what it is doing. The people out there do not know what the levels are. The regional districts do not know how these things are going to work; even the local municipalities don't know how they're going to work. You ask any number of them, and they'll say: "We are not aware of how these things are going to go; we don't know how the power structures are going to go; we don't know where the money is going to come from. Do we go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) for money, or do we go to you?"

HON. MR. VEITCH: Nonsense!

MRS. BOONE: It's not nonsense. If somebody comes to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and asks for something, what is that Minister of Municipal Affairs going to do — go to the minister of state and say: "What do you think about this?" Or are they going to go to the MLA? I'll sit down and let you talk about these things.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) was talking about being able to deal with the members on this side but having a little problem dealing with the members on his own side. It's like Pogo, who said: "We looked for the enemy and we found it was ourselves."

I believe that you're probably reading many things into this because you haven't taken the time to go out and find out about it. You are talking about representing your constituents in a very effective manner, yet you wouldn't take the time to go and find out anything at all about one of the boldest initiatives this government has ever put forward.

I'll tell you something. We had a meeting in Vancouver to which we invited about 300 people. Exactly 282 people turned up, who represented mayors, regional districts, chambers of commerce, multicultural groups — the whole spectrum of thought and enterprise in the lower mainland. But not one member of the opposition, Madam Chairman, not one member of the NDP, who purport to want to represent their constituents, to want to find out everything there is to know about what's happening in government, bothered to turn up, because of a philosophy, a stand that they've taken in their caucus. They never bothered to get out to find out what this whole thing is all about. I find that deplorable.

You stand there, Madam Member, and talk about how you want to serve your constituents. You say that somehow or other this initiative will militate against that. I'll tell you: make some more smoke of your own, and go out and find out what's going on in these regions. Find out what's happening in these meetings. I think that's your duty. I don't want to lecture you on it, but I want to tell you that if you don't find out about it, and one of your constituents comes to you — as they will — and asks you about it, you won't know anything about it except what you surmise and what the other people in your caucus think from talking to each other.

I want to tell you that individuals, mayors — some of whom do not support our particular philosophy — came to us after the meeting, saying: "If we can help you any way in this endeavour, let us know. We'll participate with you." Now I don't expect those people to vote Social Credit in the next election; they probably won't. But I do expect them to do their duty as mayors, and I expect you to do your duty as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. You ought to do that.

Don't tell me how well you can effectively serve your community in Prince George North. You go out and serve them in your own way, but I suggest that one of the ways you'll serve them is by getting involved in the process of government and finding out what it's all about, rather than sitting over there and guessing what it's all about. Maybe you want to read what it's all about in the paper, or maybe you're going to talk to one of these NDP mayors, who'll tell you

[ Page 2821 ]

secondhand. I suggest that you find out firsthand what it's all about. I honestly believe that....

MR. G. HANSON: Point of order. Madam Chair, the minister is not directing his remarks through the Chair at all; he's directing them directly to the member. He should know the rules of this House.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Will the Provincial Secretary please....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Madam Chairman, I appreciate my critic across the way telling me that, and I heed his advice, as I always do. I really do appreciate it.

I would just suggest that at the next meeting we have, we're going to.... As a matter of fact, you talk about communication, about dealing with the local elected officials. That's precisely what we're going to do. My parliamentary secretaries and I, in the region that I represent, are going to get out and meet each and every mayor and the members of their councils. They're going to meet the regional directors — all seven of them — and the regional district people. They're going to meet the citizens and communicate firsthand with them. We invite you and everybody else from the NDP who wants to be there to come along and be part of the process. You'll be part of the solution and not part of the problem. That's an invitation from the government to you, and I hope you accept it.

[5:00]

MR. JONES: I received the invitation that the hon. Provincial Secretary sent out, and I thought about it. I thought: "Well, I really don't think that it would be proper for me to accept this invitation, for a number of reasons." One, this plan was not raised in the last provincial election. This is a new plan that does not have a mandate of the people. It was not brought before this Legislature as a plan that could be discussed with opportunity for full scrutiny by the opposition. The Provincial Secretary couldn't even wait three and a half weeks for the Legislature to sit in order to approve the eight new millionaires in this province.

Probably the thing that made up my mind on his most gracious invitation was the story I heard following the last municipal election in Burnaby, in which case the hon. Provincial Secretary's wife managed not to be successful in that election. At a meeting with other aldermen following the election, the hon. Provincial Secretary's wife turned to another alderman, who had been successful in the election and is well known not to be a particular supporter of the provincial government, and that member's wife said to the other alderman: "Don't look to the provincial government for any help."

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order. I don't think it's relevant to this committee or to this House what my wife may or may not have said to someone who may have said something to you. If you want to discuss hearsay, we'll sit down and do it in your office or mine, but we won't take up the time, I hope, of this particular committee.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I myself wondered when you said that if it was really appropriate. You can continue on, or you can withdraw it — whichever you deem the right thing to do.

MR. JONES: I won't withdraw it, Madam Chairman, because the member did not deny the fact that that was said. I'lI go on to other remarks that have been well documented.

I didn't need that particular comment to completely make up my mind. It fell on the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) to clarify the government's view of how much the opposition should buy into this illegitimate process or to try to legitimize it. It was the Minister of Tourism who said: "This decentralization plan will allow the government to freeze out opposition MLAs.

Who is telling the truth? Is the hon. Provincial Secretary telling the truth, or is the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture telling the truth? There are contradictory stories there. The hon. Provincial Secretary says: "Come on, buy into this great, bold, new initiative on the part of the government. We want everybody, regardless of political affiliation, to be involved." I'd like to believe that, but his comments followed those of the Minister of Tourism, who said very clearly that the only way to secure government funds for your area is to vote Socred, that this decentralization plan — which is not a decentralization plan — will allow the government to freeze out opposition MLAs. He said that was the purpose for parliamentary secretaries — which is why we're dealing with section 2 right now. He said: "A local MLA is going to have to get up pretty early in the morning to beat out a parliamentary secretary."

I’d like to ask the hon. Provincial Secretary who is telling the truth. Is he telling the truth, or is the Minister of Tourism telling the truth?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know the hon. member is a new member in this House and may not understand the rules. All members of this House are honourable members, and all members tell the truth in this House.

He talked about freezing out MLAs. I don't know how one freezes out people by inviting them to the party. How does that happen? I'm missing something in the process.

I think you're freezing yourself out, hon. member, and I think the people in Burnaby North may freeze you out next time because you didn't bother to go out and find out what was happening about process in government or the process in your particular region. That's up to you.

We can invite you in; we can't force you to come in. We can't go out into the highways and byways and compel you to come in. You're talking about communication. I suggest to you that what we're doing here with the appointment of parliamentary secretaries and having these parliamentary secretaries go out into all regions of the province and all parts within a region is improving that communication.

We talked a little while ago about the time and place we're in now and the new economies we’re living in in this particular age. In this new era you can no longer rule or preside over a province as diverse as British Columbia from the southern tip of Vancouver Island. This is a sincere and honest — and if you've worked.... Others have, and I know that people are going to work with.... I just know by the number of enthusiastic letters we're receiving. The people are going to accept this readily. They're going to participate in this whether the opposition participates in it or not. And I trust the people.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I wonder if, in keeping with the traditions of this wonderful place we're all privileged to be in, we could stay away from personal attacks.

[ Page 2822 ]

MR. JONES: I'll certainly respect the wishes of the Chair on that point, but I find it very difficult to do that after I've just been threatened with the loss of my seat because I'm not in communication with the program of decentralization in this province or with my electorate. Let me assure the hon. minister that I'm in contact with my constituents every day, and my constituents don't buy into this illegitimate scheme. I don't believe the elected mayors of the region that you represent buy into this scheme, although they may want to keep their options open. From what I've heard, they don't buy into it, and it's not going to be very difficult for me to find a mayor who supports this side of the House, because the vast majority of mayors in your region do not support your party and support this side of the House.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you mean the mayor who lives in Delta?

MR. JONES: I think there was a 37-vote difference there, or something like that.

This particular program suggests, in light of the fact that although we have an unknown number of parliamentary secretaries, we don't have a plan for spending the money via those parliamentary secretaries....

But don't buy my skeptical view of this. Let me quote from the Vancouver Province editorial:

"The money, we learn now, is to be used to stimulate economic development — a euphemism if ever there was one. In fact, the money will be doled out to various business enterprises, making the Premier's eight ministers of state look no better than a bunch of carpetbaggers. The whole thing more closely resembles a patronage package than decentralization of government. The public is bound to be left with the impression of backroom deals and returns for favours going to Socred buddies."

I guess, if the editor of the Province had been invited to the hon. minister's luncheon, where we were to plan the economic development of the region.... I don't know what plans have been forthcoming from the $5,000 luncheon. But don't take my word for skepticism, and don't take my rejection of the invitation personally. I was reflecting the view of probably the vast majority of people in my riding and in the region, and of one of the major newspapers in this province.

MR. SKELLY: Madam Chair, we're dealing here with a change to the Constitution Act that allows the unlimited appointment of parliamentary secretaries. For a moment I'd like to go back to the debate that was brought up by the government House Leader, and that's the concern that from now on the government can virtually buy the private members of the Legislature who are members of the government party. My concern is that it has been a tradition in this House that all private members are equal. One of the ways of maintaining the independence of legislatures from the Crown is making sure that every member is equal, that every private member is equal in terms of salaries and benefits, other than, of course, those who in a limited way are servants of the House — the House Leaders, the Leader of the Opposition, the Whips, that kind thing — who do an actual service to the House by maintaining the orderly progress of debate and making sure that we keep up with our daily agenda. Those are functions of the Legislature that involve the time, energies and efforts of private members and therefore should be compensated.

Parliamentary secretaries are not officers of the Legislature the way they are structured here. The minister, when he was involved in debate on second reading, talked about the tradition of parliamentary secretaries in the federal House — the same person who criticized our second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) about looking towards the future and said that because Robert Borden appointed the first parliamentary secretary back in 1911 we're a little behind the times in the B.C. Legislature. Well, there's a difference in numbers of members and in the obligations and workloads on individual cabinet ministers. In all the times since the office of parliamentary secretary was created in the B.C. Legislature — I've been absent the odd day, no more than ten without reason of illness — I've never seen a parliamentary secretary get up and respond to a question on behalf of a minister in the Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Not so that it justifies the payment of $3,000 a year.

Madam Chairman, we're now going to have an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries, when the existing number haven't demonstrated their worth as servants to the Legislative Assembly. I think we should be reducing the number of parliamentary secretaries in the Legislature because they haven't demonstrated their use to the Legislature. I'm very concerned about that tradition, Madam Chairman, that every private member of this Legislature should be equal.

The member for Prince George North was asking questions about the benefits and perks and services the government will make available to the parliamentary secretaries. Do the parliamentary secretaries have a right to use government aircraft, and on what basis? Do parliamentary secretaries have a right to receive accommodation expenses from the government, and on what basis? On the same basis as other private members of the Legislature? I know, Madam Chairman, that when I go up to my constituency and meet, for example, with one of the municipal councils or an Indian band or whatever on legislative business, on business relating to their relationships with the government, that is counted as a day's absence from the Legislature. I have to consider it a day's absence from the Legislature to go to my constituency to meet with my city council at their inaugural meeting coming up on December 7. If a parliamentary secretary goes to that meeting, that is considered government business; if I go, even though it's a municipality in my constituency, that's considered a day's absence from the Legislature. If I have 11 such meetings a year, then I'm fined $250 for my absence from the Legislature for the eleventh meeting.

That is unfair. That is treating private members on the government side differently from private members on the opposition side. That's making it more difficult for me as a private member of the opposition to do my job as a legislator than it is for a government member to do the same job, even when that government member is going to meet a city council in my constituency. That's unfair. It's an attack on the traditions of this Legislature; it's an attack on the fundamental basis of the British parliamentary system, which is that this Legislature should have some independence from the Crown and all members should be treated equally. That's the part of this that I find offensive.

[ Page 2823 ]

[5:15]

The Provincial Secretary said that this new scheme of eight states and ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries attached to the ministries of state is a great, bold and new initiative. It reminds me of the function of the bureaucratic mind to say that this is a bold new initiative. I used to work for the prison system of the government of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I used to be a guard. I want to make that absolutely clear, although just prior to my attachment to that system, there was a Social Credit cabinet minister in residence....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, I think he deserved his 50 cents a day. Mr. Chairman, the bureaucrats who ran the jail system were always thinking up ways to improve communication with the inmates because, after all, we wanted to serve those inmates and make sure that their lines of communication with the warden were quick and effective. So the bureaucrats came to us and said: okay, here on the bottom of the scale are the guards, the turnkeys, the guys who have the direct day-to-day, face-to-face contact with this inmate. When an inmate has a complaint or a suggestion, that inmate should go to the guard. The guard should then go to the correctional officer; the correctional officer will go to the assistant deputy warden; the assistant deputy warden will go to the deputy warden; the deputy will go to the warden; and within a week all of the results were supposed to be filtered back through the same system in reverse direction, and the inmate was supposed to have some results delivered to him. Somebody must have gone to the jail service and stolen their system of communication. A bold new initiative it is.

From the inmate's view, he said: I'm not here voluntarily and therefore I don't have to fit in with the line of communication, so to heck with the guard. I'm going to go directly to the warden. That's the problem with these bureaucratically drafted systems of communicating with constituents. They don't recognize that the person out there in the field should be able to deal effectively with the problems he finds out there. There shouldn't be this complex, skewed-up line of communication.

Madam Chair, the way we elect people in the province of British Columbia is designed so that the MLAs are connected with those constituents intimately, live and operate in the constituency, and know their constituents and the municipalities and the problems, so that these elected officials can go right to the top, right to the people who can have some effect, and make the changes required to improve that constituency. What this does is try to circumvent that system — and it does.

Now the minister wants to assure us that it's not going to happen, but we hear conflicting signals from the government. On the one hand, we hear the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) say: "What we're going to do is set up a system where those members of the Legislature who are New Democrats, where a majority of people voted New Democrat in the last election, are not going to get anything." The government isn't going to listen to those people. We heard that from the Minister of Tourism. He was at a meeting with the Minister of State for Vancouver Island (Hon. S. Hagen) — the superminister I'm supposed to report to in this jailhouse system of communications — and the Minister of State for Vancouver Island has not to this day said that that is not the way things are going to happen.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), I understand, invited.... Perhaps it was the people from the lower mainland. I got a Xerox of the invitation, but I didn't get....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I've never been invited by my minister of state.... Do I have to stand and salute when I say that? I've never been invited by my minister of state to attend any kind of meeting, but I can report on a meeting he had with the North Island College in my area. This addresses the problem of how representation is going to take place for individual members of the Legislature under this new jailhouse scheme of communications that you're developing through the parliamentary secretaries and the ministries of state. This is why we are concerned, as private members of the Legislature, about this new Section 1n the Constitution Act; it is going to change and limit our effectiveness as private members.

The minister of state, the member for Comox, came down to North Island College in Port Alberni. I might add that at North Island College, the chairman of the board was a Social Credit candidate who ran against me and was defeated. They didn't want her to represent them in Port Alberni, but she was appointed to the North Island College board and was chair of the board. Another representative from Port Alberni, vice-president of the Social Credit Party, is also on the board. I can tell you that our lines of communication don't operate all that well. I was never consulted in the appointments. I felt that I could probably have improved on the ones that the Social Credit government made. At least I should have had the opportunity to comment. If you want to improve the effectiveness of MLAs, then maybe what you should have done was simply ask the local MLAs for their comments on college board appointments. That would have helped immeasurably, and it would have saved $8 million in ministry of state budgets; it would have saved $3,000 a year for an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries which are absolutely useless. What would have been more effective is that the government could have used the private members in the region and consulted with them. It wouldn't have cost the thousands of dollars that it cost you to put on a big luncheon. All you had to do was pick up the phone.

It's not members on this side who are refusing to participate in the process by not going to your lunches or by not being involved with these little committees. It's you who have refused to participate in the process that has been established all along; that is, consulting local members when appointments are to be made and paying attention to the local members who have useful things to say about their constituencies.

You don't need this $8 million, you don't need these parliamentary secretaries. What you need is a more open approach to the existing members of the Legislature and the existing structure, and you need to pay much more attention to the fact that well over 50 percent of the people in 23 ridings voted to have New Democrats represent them. The day after the election, that party affiliation shouldn't count at all, from

[ Page 2824 ]

your point of view, and consultation should take place between you and those private members of the Legislature who, after the election, happened to end up on the opposition side. You don't need your $8 million effort; you don't need all those parliamentary secretaries. What's needed is a bit more openness and respect for the system that we enjoy here in the province of B.C. I think we should vote against this section of the bill.

We have supported a limited number of parliamentary secretaries doing a service to the Legislative Assembly, by making it possible for ministers to get out and around the province and do the job they were appointed by the Crown to do. I think it's legitimate to have parliamentary secretaries do that kind of work. We didn't agree to have an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries, the appointment of whom is simply a means of raising the salaries of Social Credit private members in this House so that they can play an unequal, superior role to members elected to the opposition party. I think that is an affront to this House; it is an affront to parliamentary traditions; it is an affront to the institutionalized opposition, which is a very important institution in the British parliamentary system.

MS. EDWARDS: I'd like to begin by addressing a question to the Provincial Secretary. I'd like to know — considering the fact that the funding for these parliamentary secretaries that would be provided for in this amendment was not brought through the Legislature — whether in fact these parliamentary secretaries have already been appointed or whether you expect this legislation to be retroactive.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sure the hon. member will be able to ascertain that parliamentary secretaries' salaries are paid through the administration of the Provincial Secretary's office, through the comptroller in that particular office, and that's how they would be continued to be paid.

The answer is that whenever there is a special warrant or anything of that nature, for the first time, I think a couple of years ago at the time the ten parliamentary secretaries were appointed, this government brought forward a provision where that would be debated in a subsequent year. So you'll have ample time to debate anything that arises by way of a special warrant. Parliamentary secretaries are paid for under that particular vote, and it is administered through the office of the Provincial Secretary.

MS. EDWARDS: I asked that question, Mr. Provincial Secretary, because I know that the designate provincial secretary for the Kootenay region has named himself as parliamentary secretary, and I'm curious to know at what point these parliamentary secretaries have been officially named parliamentary secretaries and whether they are being paid from the time that they began to call themselves so, or at what point does this become a matter of official and formal appointment?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The parliamentary secretaries that have been appointed by existing statutes are now appointed. The other ones are designates that hopefully will be appointed when this legislation receives royal assent and proclamation.

MS. EDWARDS: Is it correct, then, to say that anyone who would be a parliamentary secretary over and above the ones that were already here, the ones who would be parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of state, are not so far officially parliamentary secretaries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Parliamentary secretaries that have been appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under the existing statute are parliamentary secretaries. Additional parliamentary secretaries, I presume, will be appointed under the auspices of this particular act when the act is debated, given royal assent and proclaimed. Up until that point in time, any new parliamentary secretaries, anyone who has been given the name of parliamentary secretary and is not presently a parliamentary secretary under order-in-council, does not receive salary for that particular position.

[5:30]

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to make some comments and ask some more questions about the unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries that would be allowed under this amendment. I am curious to know whether the intent is to allow a parliamentary secretary to be allowed to hold only one of these secretaryships if in fact he is a parliamentary secretary to a minister of state. I ask this question in reference to the fact that many parliamentary secretaries currently hold two secretaryships. When you get to the end of the caucus, do you then go on and have parliamentary secretaries hold three secretaryships? How is this going to work?

I'll leave it at that, for the moment. How many parliamentary secretaryships? Is there going to be a difference between the number that one MLA can hold to a line minister, as I've heard them called, as opposed to the superministers, the ministers of state?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe ten parliamentary secretaries were appointed before. Those are still appointees to those particular ministries. I can't look forward to future action, as to which parliamentary secretary will be appointed to which position, other than to tell you that there will be at least nine parliamentary secretaries — that's what has been indicated — appointed to ministers of state. All regions of the province, with the exception of the Lower Mainland-Southwest, which is the biggest region in terms of population, will have one parliamentary secretary; that's the indication we have at the present time. At this point the indication is that there will be two for the Lower Mainland-Southwest region. But, Madam Member, the statute remains. Those ten individuals who are appointed by order-in-council remain appointed until that order-in-council is cancelled or changed, or a new order issued.

MS. EDWARDS: I hate to fall back on this again, but I am a new member, and I am not quite aware of how to fit the idea that's being put forward into the idea that already exists as I understand it. We have parliamentary secretaries who currently hold secretaryships to two ministers. Now we have parliamentary secretaries appointed two at a time to superministers. This is an attempt to reduce bureaucracy. When you want to reduce bureaucracy, you give two parliamentary secretaries to an extra minister, instead of an extra minister to a parliamentary secretary, which occurs in the regular process.

I'm not sure why the parliamentary secretaries are needed. It goes on, of course, to the issue of what in the world they are going to do. I think that it's very important to

[ Page 2825 ]

establish what they're going to do in relationship to the MLAs who do not hold parliamentary secretaryships or any of the other special positions. My colleague the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) made it very clear that there seems to be some unfairness if all of a sudden there are some special perks, equipment or services allowed to a parliamentary secretary who is supposed to be representing the very area that that MLA is supposed to be representing, when that MLA is not allowed that kind of support service. I think the whole thing brings us down to trying to know at whose direction the parliamentary secretaries operate, and how this whole thing works.

In fact, we begin to wonder.... The parliamentary secretaries are supposed to do what the superminister says they should do in relationship to that region. As we understand it, the people in the region should go to the parliamentary secretary — or, of course, the superminister — if they want something done, because the superminister can see that the minister can make that happen for their area. Does that happen the same way for mayors and municipal politicians, Mr. Provincial Secretary? If this superminister can direct that something happens to a ministry, can he also direct that something happen through a regional district or a municipality?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member wants, I'll send her over a history of undersecretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries — the whole evolution of the system, which goes back a long, long way in British parliamentary democracy. It's not something new; it's not something that was invented here. As a matter of fact, it was something that was broached by M.J. Coldwell in the House of Commons many years ago when he urged Mackenzie King to appoint certain parliamentary secretaries to assist ministers.

If you're saying that somehow or other a parliamentary secretary or someone else gets extra perks by having two or three jobs and only being paid for one, I don't see that as being a special perk in any way. I see that those individuals should rather receive accolades for the service they are extending to the community and the province, rather than have someone try to put them down. I don't quite understand that.

You seem to have a lot of worry, and you seem to try to legitimize that concern as to whether or not anyone is going to come to your office. I would suggest that where the job wouldn't bring honour to you, you bring honour to the job. I'm sure that if you serve your constituents well, they're going to come to you. If you're a successful MLA and serve them the way I hope and know you will, then you'll probably get elected again at some future date. If you don't, the people won't elect you.

Somehow or other we seem to confuse the job of Members of Parliament or Members of the Legislative Assembly with that of government. Parliamentary secretaries are there to assist members of government. Certain members of government have been given an expanded role so that they can offer more services, so that they can cease and desist ruling completely from the southern tip of Vancouver Island and get that interface out into the community where it rightfully belongs in an open democracy, in a democracy that fits this new century we're coming up to now. I would suggest that those parliamentary secretaries will be assisting those members of government to take that message out to the community, to interface with elected officials in the community. Rather than to take away from any of these people, as you may think, it's to bring that decision-making here to Victoria, so that there are ideas and opportunities, and so that the genius that those people have can be brought directly here to Victoria.

Now they can do that to you, hon. member, if they want to speak with you. I don't suggest that you're going to tell any of your constituents who they should address. The hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) talked about communications with inmates. and suggested that at one point in his great career he was a guard. I can't help it if that member has a guarded mentality and won't break out of that, and won't broach any new ideas or concepts. I would suspect that a member who has been here for as long as this member, who was once Leader of the Opposition and was rejected by millions of people in British Columbia, may think that way. But you're new. You can be part of the fresh start, you can be part of the new ideas, and I give you that challenge, hon. member.

MR. JONES: I just want to go back to a question that my colleague from the Kootenays asked a few minutes ago. As the hon. Provincial Secretary mentioned a while back, I am a rookie and I have a lot to learn in this Legislature. I wonder if he could perhaps help me understand the process here. It seems to me that we have the Constitution Act, which limits the number of parliamentary secretaries to ten. So we have an order-in-council. subsequently, that seems to be contradicting the Constitution Act — and I suppose some people would call that unconstitutional, if it contradicts the Constitution Act — and increasing the number of parliamentary secretaries.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

MR. JONES: Well, we have a news release of October 7 announcing these positions. They are not described as "designate."

HON. MR. VEITCH: They're unpaid. Some of them are unpaid.

MR. JONES: Yes. that leads to my point. It seems to me that we have a limit in the Constitution Act. We have an order-in-council. We have a press release. We have these parliamentary secretaries sending me invitations to luncheons to plan economic development in the Mainland-Southwest region or state. So we have this Constitution Act that limits these things, we have the order-in-council, we have this appointment and we have all this activity on the part of these people, but it seems to me that why we're debating this point now is not so much to increase the number — because they've already been increased, as we see in terms of the press release — as to legitimize the expenditure which was not approved in the last budget.

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Well, that's my interpretation, and I hope the Provincial Secretary will clarify that for me. I see the operation up until this vote is approved as being unconstitutional. So we have a greater number, and after this vote — I assume it will be approved by the government side — we will have as many parliamentary secretaries as the government wishes, and it will be legitimate to pay them, because it has been approved by an amendment to the Constitution Act.

[ Page 2826 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess it's rather hard to.... I don't feel much like a teacher, so I don't want to dwell on this too much longer.

The ten parliamentary secretaries at this time are still appointed, as anyone would be appointed, by order-in-council, until that order is rescinded. When this act is addressed in this House and in this committee, and when it's given royal assent and proclaimed, the government then has the right to appoint more or less or no parliamentary secretaries.

Now if someone is doing some work.... The two parliamentary secretaries to which you referred are presently parliamentary secretaries by order-in-council and continue to be unless that order-in-council is rescinded. One is a parliamentary secretary by order-in-council of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and another ministry. The other is parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and to the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson). They continue. It doesn't limit the amount of work you can do because you happen to be elected as the member for Burnaby North. If somebody from my riding happens to pop in — I hope they don't, but I get some from yours — you're not going to send them away and say: "No, you just get out of here. You came across the 49th parallel, and I don't want to see you any more."

If someone is doing more work, that's fine. If one of these individuals to be appointed as parliamentary secretary — when this legislation receives royal assent and is proclaimed — is doing work and not getting a parliamentary secretary's pay for it, I really don't see where your complaints are. I think the public is getting a darned good deal.

MR. BARNES: Will they be paid later?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think you'll be paid later as well, hon. member. I hope you are, and I hope you're well paid.

MS. EDWARDS: Madam Chairman, I've had people in my office asking whether the parliamentary secretary to the superminister for the Kootenays is in fact the parliamentary secretary, or is about to be the parliamentary secretary, or what the position is. I said: "No, he's not yet authorized to be a parliamentary secretary." I see by a release that came out that their parliamentary secretaries are authorized. You have just told me that they can't be yet, so I assume that you meant to say that they will be in the future.

HON. MR. VEITCH: If he's not getting paid, what's the difference?

MS. EDWARDS: It was a formal appointment, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that seemed to be a matter of some interest to people who are being asked to make representations to someone who is in a certain position. That position was named, and the release that comes out from the government says.... I'm asking you whether that's the case or not.

I'm also asking for some clarification on a point you just made. I believe you said the parliamentary secretaries are paid through the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The administration is done that way.

[5:45]

MS. EDWARDS: As I understand it, the $8 million special warrant is administered by Finance. In fact, where's the money coming from? To me it is not clear. It seems to me that there is considerable mixup. It seems to me that there's considerable jumping ahead before the work is done. Unless the Provincial Secretary is able to say that this is so or this is not so.... I am asking the questions and I've got the answer, and I assume the parliamentary secretaries are not currently parliamentary secretaries and that they can't be until this particular legislation is passed. I don't know yet where they will be paid from when they get paid or how the $8 million is going to be spent.

I wanted to say, when we were interrupted...to get into this some more with no more answers than we began with. I take your first answer, Mr. Provincial Secretary, on the appointments of parliamentary secretaries. What I want to talk about is the whole business of.... The Provincial Secretary has talked several times in this debate about the government wanting to rule British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I didn't say that. I said we don't want to rule British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: You said you didn't want to rule it in a particular way, but you said "rule" several times, and then you said you want to get the whole business of decision-making quickly into Victoria. I would like to suggest to the Provincial Secretary that I can certainly avoid bureaucracy, if it's bureaucracy you want to avoid. I have no problems with constituents coming into my office, and I could certainly take those problems and go directly to the central decision-maker, if that were going to be the way to go.

The way that I work is through the people in the bureaucracy first, because these people are there to administer what's going on. If it can't be done, then we go for a political decision. And I even go to ministers; I have even written and spoken to the Premier about issues. Why is it that all of a sudden I am incapable of doing that? Why do we need parliamentary secretaries to go around — as I've been invited to do — and meet all the mayors and the politicians in my area? Let me tell you, I already know all the mayors and municipal people in my area. I don't know why you're suggesting that a superminister can come in from outside my region and get a parliamentary secretary from outside my riding, and all of a sudden they are going to have to go around and meet the mayors and all the provincial politicians and do exactly the work that I've just done.

Now if that isn't a time-waster and so on, besides the addition to that bureaucracy that is coming with this whole business, I don't know what is. I'd like to suggest that the municipal politicians are wondering what in the world there's any need for that kind of stuff for again, unless it's going to be the straight political rule of the province, not governing with the people, listening to the people, using a democratic system to get the work done that should be done in the province. It's a ruling, and a tighter, straighter pipeline to the ruler. I would suggest that this amendment to the act is going to allow that kind of thing to happen. It's very clear that the whole decentralization system is put that way. I think there's a major danger in it, and I have every confidence that it will not last very long, because it's going to be total chaos. I would like to say that I intend to vote against this section.

[ Page 2827 ]

MR. DIRKS: I wasn't going to enter into this whole debate, but.... [Applause.] One hand clapping.

Madam Chairman, there seems to be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to clarify it. I think I'm the cause of that misunderstanding.

I recently made a trip to the riding of the hon. member opposite. As a courtesy to let her know that I was coming into her riding and certainly to talk to her, give her some ideas of how I saw her role and my role fitting together and how we could work together, I thought it was only courtesy to ask her to join me when I visited the mayors and the other elected officials in her riding.

MR. R. FRASER: No sneaking around by our guys.

MR. DIRKS: No, it was wide open. I was right up front, and that's the way I want to keep it. There is no way, Madam Chairman, that I would dare usurp the responsibilities of my good member opposite in her riding. I have enough to do as an MLA in my riding. But certainly I think it a courtesy when you go into anyone's riding that you notify them that you are there. That's simply what I was trying to do.

If she had accompanied me to those meetings, I think she would have a much better understanding as to what role she can continue to play and should play, that we're not going to usurp any of her rights and responsibilities, that we're not taking away any lines of communication between the mayors and the regional districts and the various ministries. We're not going to stand in their way. We're there to help them. I hope that clarifies it for my good member opposite.

MS. A. HAGEN: Madam Chairman, I might just comment in respect to the remarks of the member for Nelson-Creston, that perhaps our concern can be exemplified in a situation that occurred in his riding recently. I heard about it from some people whom we met when members of our caucus's human services committee visited his riding and other ridings in the Kootenay this fall. That was very useful to learn more about some of the other areas of the riding, and I certainly concur that all of us in this House need to know a great deal about what is happening, not only in our own ridings but in the province as a whole,

The provincial Cabinet Committee on Social Policy visited the riding of the member, and there were hearings through the day, as is wont with a group of people going in. There was then an invitation to members of the community who might want to meet with that particular group in an informal way. I think we all recognize that it's impossible in the course of a day, even for a large committee, to hear from everyone. There is a lot of value in informal opportunities to meet and discuss issues. But the only way in which those people were in fact able to meet with the members of that committee was to pay a fee to a fund-raising function of the Social Credit Party. They were invited to meet ministers, ministers who represent all of us in this government. As the Provincial Secretary has noted, government does represent all of the people in the province. Quite truthfully, you say you as government are responsible to represent all those people. When you go into a riding as representatives, as members of the executive council in committee, then I think it does leave us questioning the role of party and government vis-à-vis the interests of the people.

That is what we have been raising here, what we have been questioning — whether people have access only by attending a party function. I recognize that that has not been the case with the activities so far of secretaries of state. But I just want to give an instance of perhaps some of the concern that we have that there may be a bypassing and a cutting off of people having access.

Let me proceed with the particular clause that we are debating today, which is the addition of parliamentary secretaries. The first thing I want to note is that that addition is totally open-ended. It would allow, for example. the government to decide that in addition to the parliamentary secretaries that it has appointed, or is in the process of appointing once this particular piece of legislation has been amended — that number is ten — there is the potential for 18 parliamentary secretaries, one to each cabinet minister, perhaps, rather than their being shared as they are among cabinet ministers.

So in this particular clause we are really giving a totally open-ended right to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. And I think that in that regard we are perhaps doing a disservice to the very traditions that the hon. Provincial Secretary outlined to us in considerable depth in his initial comments when we were talking about the principle of the bill. It is an honourable tradition and one that I don't have any quarrel with in principle, and I think the hon. Provincial Secretary did us some service in noting that tradition. I think this particular clause has the danger, in fact, of diluting that tradition very significantly, because it does allow governments the opportunity to misuse and abuse the tradition.

I want to again hypothesize a little about the size of the particular region that the minister will himself be responsible for. It is a huge region, and we could have any number of parliamentary secretaries. That kind of open-endedness is not something we should be seeing. If we looked at a modest change. I think I would be much more comfortable with it than with this particular amendment, which leaves no limits whatsoever on the number of people government can appoint.

The other thing I think was a part of the Provincial Secretary's earlier comments was some of the reasons that parliamentary secretaries are appointed. It was noted that they had a clear job description. I've had some discussion with people who are presently parliamentary secretaries, and quite honestly....

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I never said that.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Minister, if I have misquoted you, I would be quite prepared to hear you comment on that when you respond today or another day, as we're getting close to adjoumment.

Pursuing this particular issue, because the clock is getting close to six and I probably won't be able to ask some of the questions I would like to.... I hope to have an opportunity to pursue them tomorrow. I have discussed with some of the parliamentary secretaries what their roles are, and quite candidly, they have drawn a blank in their answer to me. These are people who are presently parliamentary secretaries, and they have given me the indication that their roles are minimal and certainly very unspecifically defined.

I know I'm going to be asked in a moment to adjourn the debate, but I want to move to some discussion of the roles of these parliamentary secretaries. however many there may be. But I think at this point it would be appropriate if somebody

[ Page 2828 ]

would instruct me about the course of action to move adjournment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll look after it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will reserve further comments and discussion and look for the minister's reply tomorrow.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.