[ Page 2829 ]
Routine Proceedings
Oral Questions
Heart surgery waiting-lists. Mrs. Boone –– 2829
Heart surgery funding for Royal Columbian Hospital. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2829
Government funding. Mr. Williams –– 2830
National day care policy. Ms. Marzari –– 2830
Private Members' Statements
B.C. Council for the Family. Mr. Rabbitt –– 2831
Hon. Mr. Dueck
Mr. Cashore
Privatization. Mr. Vant –– 2832
Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm
Mr. Lovick
Regionalization versus democracy. ML Kempf –– 2834
Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm
Centralization. Mr. Blencoe –– 2836
Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Committee stage.
(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2837
Ms. A. Hagen
Hon. Mr. Veitch
Mr. Kempf
Mr. Skelly
Hon. Mr. Strachan
Ms. Campbell
Mr. Miller
The House met at 10:09 a.m.
Prayers.
HON. S. HAGEN: It's a great pleasure for me this morning to welcome a group of young men and young women from the Comox valley who are members of the 386th Royal Canadian Air Squadron from Comox. I'd like to introduce at this time Captain Forsyth, Lieutenant Martin and Second Lieutenant Melanca. Would the House please make them all welcome.
HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make a special welcome to a gentleman in the gallery today, Mr. Wayne Sterloff. He's the chairman and chief executive officer of B.C. Film. He's visiting with me today.
Oral Questions
HEART SURGERY WAITING-LISTS
MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday in this House the minister made reference to heart surgery as only a "trendy status symbol" in health care. Will the minister tell British Columbians which of the 400 patients on heart surgery waiting-lists in this province, in his view, should be denied surgery?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear in this House that I did not say that heart surgery was trendy. I did not say that. I said there was a difference of opinion in the medical fraternity. Some physicians are saying.... In fact, I read that article. If you didn't listen.... I did not say that I believed that; I said this is what some doctor's opinion is. I want to make that clear. It wasn't my opinion.
MRS. BOONE: The minister interprets things a little differently from the rest of British Columbians here.
The minister is seeking new laws which give him the right to deny British Columbians health care. The minister has told this House that there is nothing sacred when it comes to health care. By what authority has the minister decided that 400 British Columbians on heart surgery waiting-lists today will not receive the vital health care they need now?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speak to innuendos and to things that perhaps I stated that came from an article, and relate that to the statements I made. I read from this article, and I gave someone a copy. You can have copies and read it for yourself; you can also phone the doctor if you wish. I've also had other doctors tell me personally about the waiting-list and that some perhaps should not be on the waiting-list, but as I explained very clearly yesterday, that is up to the physician and not me. I've said that how many times in the House? It is not my opinion. I don't make the decisions on who should have the surgery now and who should wait until next week.
As far as the waiting-list is concerned, I think I also mentioned in the House yesterday that we allocated funds for 2,200 and some-odd open-heart surgeries last year. That was for a 12-month period. In that 12-month period only 1,700-and-some surgeries were performed. There were many reasons why. There were shortages of critical-care nurses and professionals. There was also a lineup; sonic doctors had a longer lineup than others. There was also a shortage of beds; there was a shortage of many things. But it wasn't just in one area. For example, you take the Victoria hospital: it is only about three weeks in arrears with open-heart surgery. I'm saying that we estimated very accurately the number of people needing open-heart surgery, but the hospitals — for reasons unknown to them at the time they made that prediction and unknown to me — weren't able to perform. That's where the blockage is. We're trying to correct it now, and I'm putting it into the estimates for next year to perhaps open up another open-heart surgery facility.
MRS. BOONE: The minister obviously isn't listening to his hospitals, because the hospitals have told you. Mr. Minister, that their overall budgets aren't high enough to allow them to perform all these surgeries. Surely you can take some of this $8 million that you are giving to set up your statedoms in this province and put it towards health care. Has the minister consulted with his government regarding the $8 million that is used for parties in this province that could be put into health care'?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, as far as not listening to the hospitals, I don't know who visits hospitals more — my opposition critic or myself. I have travelled the province from one end to the other. and I think I've visited just about every hospital. I've been in contact with every one of them by letter or by telephone and so have my people, so you cannot accuse me of not listing hospitals. because I think I've done more.... In the period of time that I've been minister, I've seen more hospitals. more doctors and more board chairmen than any other minister in this period of time.
[10:15]
If you're talking about the $8 million, I think that's silly, and I'm not going to comment on that.
HEART SURGERY FUNDING
FOR ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL
MS. A. HAGEN: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The Royal Columbian Hospital has two operating rooms awaiting government funding to allow them to perform up to 400 heart surgery operations a year. Given the heart surgery crisis in this province, will the Minister of Health provide funding for the Royal Columbian Hospital so that they can get on with this lifesaving surgery? They're ready to go, Mr. Minister. Are you?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to act a double if I have to be up here every day on the double.
The question that was raised about the Royal Columbian is true. However, even now, if we gave them the green light today, they would not be in operation for months down the road. Also, the shortage of critical-care nurses is not addressed just by opening another ward. But I think I mentioned a little earlier that we are considering — and I'm going to put it into the estimates for next year — that we will probably have another hospital to perform that surgery. Just so we haven't got three doing all the operations, it may be better to spread it out over four than three. That's something for the
[ Page 2830 ]
future, and I'm not sure how many dollars I'll get for that or whether in fact that's the plan.
GOVERNMENT FUNDING
MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, the incredible Minister of Finance who says: "It is not a pot of money; it is only $1 million." C.D. Howe was defeated when he said: "What's a million?" This man is saying: "What's $8 million?" Tell me, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — how many coronary artery bypasses would have been funded with this $8 million if it had not been used this way?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm at a loss to understand the reference to the million dollars. If someone could refresh my memory, I might be able to more adequately respond to it.
MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is reported in this morning's press as making this statement. Clearly, what's a million? What's eight million? Mr. Minister, when are you going to bring some guidelines and end the kind of madness and foolishness in terms of spending and parties under the Provincial Secretary and the like? When are we going to have some guidelines? When are we going to have some legality in terms of public spending in British Columbia?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would love to be able to give one of my full and complete answers if I properly understood the source of the question. The press report he refers to deals with a quote. I'm not clear; was I supposed to have made the quote, Mr. Speaker, or some other cabinet minister? And if that's the case, in what context?
MR. WILLIAMS: I might quote, Mr. Speaker. He's quoted in this morning's Times-Colonist: "It is not a pot of money; it is only $1 million." The money was put up front so people would know the government was serious. The hungry school children in Vancouver would like to know if you're serious about them, Mr. Minister — will you put money up for them?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: The reference now, I understand, refers to the creation of the regional ministers of state. In that context, we went through that in a question period a few days ago and I gave a full and complete answer. I'm pleased to repeat it if that's the questioner's desire, although I suspect it isn't.
Dealing with the question of the urgent need for some particular spending in the area of health, the Minister of Health has fully canvassed that. You have been told that funding was provided to do a greater number of open-heart cases in this province than were performed, and he told you why the money wasn't spent for that purpose. You cannot accuse this government of not providing adequate funding for that level of service.
MR. WILLIAMS: The question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. When are you going to legalize this $8 million funding activity that does not yet have guidelines? When are you going to set some proper priorities for these eight rampant ministries of state? Have you prepared the legislation? Have you prepared the means of legalizing your activity to date?
NATIONAL DAY CARE POLICY
MS. MARZARI: The federal government has just announced a $5 billion child care package for the country. It's woefully inadequate, but it does offer some opportunity. Since the Minister of Social Services isn't here and did promise, the last time I asked a child care question, to bring a negotiated package to this House before he went to Ottawa, I'm asking the Premier: are there going to be more new child care spaces in British Columbia with this new package, or are we going to be stuck with the number that we have now, 100,000 short of the need?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we're making great progress in a number of areas, and I'm very pleased to receive this particular question. Let me assure the member that what we're seeing in British Columbia now is growth in a number of areas largely because we're making enormous gains in economic growth, as was provided, I'm sure, to all members by the latest statistics. We've seen the greatest job growth, we've seen enormous growth in all areas of the economy, and it will continue to be this way. With that, no doubt, the demand will come for further day care facilities, which we've already seen and which we're attempting to respond to. We'll await the return of the minister from Ottawa, where he has been meeting with the federal minister to discuss all aspects of the newly proposed program. We'll certainly get a full report then, and I'm sure you'll want to question him in the House.
We will be addressing the opportunities that may exist in the new program as announced by the federal government and expanding on the program in order to respond to the enormous growth that's taking place in the B.C. economy right now, and the growth of jobs and people arriving here from other places and how we can provide further social programs to them.
MS. MARZARI: Is the Premier predisposed, committed, does he have any values that would give us any indication as to whether or not there will be new day care spaces in British Columbia?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we've seen a commitment in the 1987-88 budget to growth in day care. We increased the budget for day care, and we now have a new program to consider which was initiated federally and which obviously will assist and make opportunities available to all the provinces across Canada. As I said to the member, with all the growth now taking place in the B.C. economy, we'll see new pressures, no doubt, because there will be a further increase in population, and that brings with it certain demands. All aspects will be considered when the minister returns. We'll consider what the opportunities are in the federal program. We as a government are committed to providing the strongest economy and the best social programs for those in need of them.
MS. MARZARI: May I suggest that the net amount this province invests in day care at this point is $12.5 million. You recover 50 percent from the feds; so you can say that you invest $25 million, out of a total budget of $10 billion in this province. Mr. Premier, how many people on your side of the House have children under 12?
[ Page 2831 ]
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if it's extremely important to the member and the NDP caucus that we determine how many members here have children under 12, we can do a survey and make these figures available to you at a later date.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave for the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor-General to sit later today while the House is in session.
Leave granted.
Private Members' Statements
B.C. COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY
MR. RABBITT: What I have to say today follows quite closely to the last question that was asked.
In a time of highly controversial subjects being debated in this House, I would like to speak on what I consider an important social issue, that being the family unit. The family unit is the backbone of society; it's a vital cog that supports stability, and a sense of well-being is required.
The costs emotionally, socially and economically of marriage breakdown and family breakup are devastating. Obviously, in today's rapidly changing society, great strains are placed on many families. In the 1985 poll commissioned by Maclean's and Decima
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of order. I'd ask Hansard to stop the time for this member while we listen to the point of order.
MR. CASHORE: The hon. member is speaking on an extremely important subject. I have the responsibility of responding, and I'm having a difficult time hearing what he is saying.
MR. SPEAKER: I think all members should take notice of that. The Speaker was just about to ask for quiet.
MR. RABBITT: A 1985 poll commissioned by Maclean's and Decima reports 66 percent of all Canadians believe that in years to come the family unit will become even more important than it is today. Presently many organizations do a considerable amount of work in helping to sustain the family unit in British Columbia.
One organization that deserves special mention is the B.C. Council for the Family, and I am proud to say that I sit on the board of directors of this fine organization. The B.C. Council for the Family is a non-profit, non-denominational group which was incorporated in 1977. It is the only provincial agency wholly concerned with the well-being of the family.
I would like also to point out that it has representatives of every sector of our society and, in fact, every political party on its board. The B.C. Council of the Family is linked in almost every community in the province through individual, family. group members, affiliated agents or contact persons. Membership alone represents over 100 communities.
Our government seriously supports the work of the council by providing a substantial operating grant. Funding for work done by the council also comes through other sources, both private and public. The work of the council is based on the belief that families, through changing and adapting as they have done through history, do have great strengths and if given help when needed can be a major force for the betterment of society.
The council provides various services to support and strengthen families. For example, it provides a forum where responsible representatives communicate with each other, to government and to voluntary agencies. They are concerned about the needs of the family and help in preparing plans and programs to meet society's needs.
The Council for the Family stimulates and helps facilitate self-help projects to support and strengthen families in our province. The council, in association with other bodies, helps to further public knowledge and to promote public concern about the well-being of the family. One area where the Council for the Family does considerable work is in helping to facilitate and promote stable marriage relationships.
The council also has written numerous handbooks on marriage and family life. The council also works with various ministries of government to assist in bringing for-ward even better government programs. A successful marriage is a combination of many factors. Often individuals who are contemplating marriage are unfamiliar with what's involved in sustaining a long-lasting, successful relationship.
As a result they are often in need of assistance and counselling in some form. Marriage counselling is not only for those couples whose relationship is strained; many couples go for marriage counselling when they feel they have struck upon a problem and they just do not have the ability to resolve it themselves.
[10:30]
There is a wide variety of programs to assist couples with their relationships. There are various types of marriage encounter programs sponsored by churches to help couples focus and rediscover the good things in their relationship. As well. couple-communication courses are available through local colleges. Marriage enrichment groups are available through churches and other organizations.
I think all of us would agree that united families contribute to a healthy community and a healthy society.
Nevertheless, in today's society there are disturbing examples of marriage breakup. Teen-age marriages, for example, tend to end up in divorce more often than not. Lack of educational and job skills, along with premarital pregnancy, place severe pressures on such early marriage. Often such individuals can benefit from marriage counselling. Family breakup has become too frequent an occurrence. For example, in 1985 there were over 8,300 divorces in the province. I am pleased to say that this has turned around from 1982, when the figures were well over 10,000. However, I believe that as a government we should be working more closely with groups such as the council in developing marriage counselling programs. Choosing a marriage partner is probably the most important decision one will make in life. Therefore I encourage our government to continue to work with the council to establish a marriage preparation program that is
[ Page 2832 ]
second to none. This program can save society thousands of dollars and make thousands of lives and marriages happier.
I consider the family concept essential in our society and ask all of you in this building to consider and support the B.C. Council of the Family.
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that for just a few moments. The B.C. Council for the Family is something that we support, and since it comes under my ministry, I would like to mention a few things that we're involved in at the present time.
We agree that the trend once again is to a family unit. It has become fashionable once again for two people to marry, stay together and raise a family. This is certainly true for those of us who have been brought up in that atmosphere, that we want to continue in this particular area.
We value the input of the B.C. Council for the Family in various areas of policy-making. They are involved in the policy review that I am now doing on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. The council facilitates marriage stability, and it also helps churches in furthering their committee of counselling. It also provides counselling for the role of mother and father with children. I think this is an area that needs much support and further help. Their support to churches has been known for many years, but I think they're getting involved more and more as time goes by.
We in the government and the Ministry of Health certainly support the B.C. Council for the Family, and my ministry is becoming more and more involved, especially in the programs I just mentioned. I thank the member for his report, and I hope that we can continue working with the B.C. Council for the Family.
MR. CASHORE: The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) and I have often had the opportunity to discuss our mutual concern for family life in British Columbia and our respect and admiration for the excellent work done by the B.C. Council for the Family. I think it would be appropriate to mention especially the work of Dr. Carol Matusicky, the executive director, and the Reverend Rob Lees, who chairs the B.C. Council for the Family.
I would also like to say that it is a worthwhile thing that the government does support this instrument, which helps support an institution under a great deal of pressure in our technological society. Having said that, I think that we need to recognize that the area of concern about what is happening in family relationships is indeed vast, for we are talking here not only about a traditional nuclear family including a mother, father and children, but about the extended family, about the blended family — where two families merge when new relationships are developed — about the single-parent family, and about a unit in society which we could call a single person; yet it is important that that person be recognized in the same way as a family is recognized, as an entity of worth and value in our community.
One of my real concerns with regard to the family is that the work of the B.C. council is not so much to support the family to be a family as it is to enable resources to be available to help those families bring out the best fulfilment they can in their family unit. One of the very real problems we have today is the element of poverty which many families are experiencing. So one of the ways we can support the B.C. Council for the Family is to recognize that they recognize the kinds of pressures that many families are under, as they try to fulfil their responsibilities.
Certainly the importance of marriage counselling and preparation is extremely important, but there's only so much that can be done when we still have a situation in the province that means the gap is widening between the rich and the poor. This can be supported statistically by Stats Canada; this is really the case. As the Christmas season is approaching, there are many families in British Columbia that think nothing of spending $75 or $150 for a toy, and there are other families who are looking at not even that amount of Christmas bonus they will be receiving on their income assistance.
So I appreciate the points the hon. member has made, and I support the encouragement for this government to continue to support the B.C. Council for the Family.
MR. RABBITT: As a government committed to the people, our government provides many programs specifically designed to meet the needs of the family. Our government has in place a women's secretariat, which is responsible for the coordination of all government initiatives relating to women's issues.
The Youth Advisory Council acts as a liaison with groups in communities throughout the province and solicits ideas from young people on common goals, ideas and potential opportunities.
The provincial government is putting $3 million into public schools this year for a family life program; the program operates from grades 7 to 12. The government is also committed to introducing legislation to enforce maintenance payments for abandoned families.
We have a deputy ombudsman for children, who coordinates investigation into services provided for children through the Ministries of Education, Social Service and Housing, Health, Attorney-General, and Advanced Education and Job Training.
The B.C. Council for the Family has taken a positive step forward and, in cooperation with the government, has been helping to strengthen the family unit in British Columbia. I certainly support them and ask all those in this assembly to do so as well.
PRIVATIZATION
MR. VANT: I'm delighted this morning to have the opportunity to speak to the House on privatization. Being a private member on the government side, I'm getting used to hearing all kinds of pink herrings from the socialist corner of the House. This morning I want to deal with some of the red herrings that we've been hearing from them recently on privatization.
We hear from the socialist corner of the House that privatization means giving up control to monopoly suppliers. That's rubbish. Properly managed, it means competition and better services and better prices. We also hear that privatization means putting everything on the block. More rubbish.
MR. MILLER: That's what the Premier said.
MR. VANT: We said we would examine everything, and we will. That process is being guided by six privatization principles that will determine what's on the table and what's not. I could spell out those principles, because if the members in the socialist corner would read them and remember them,
[ Page 2833 ]
they might begin to understand what privatization is and what it isn't. Instead, what I'm going to do is table those principles so every member of the House can read them for himself.
Because we established those principles and because they are the ground rules under which we operate, we are proud of privatization. Of course, there has been this ongoing demand for debate on privatization, and the people in the socialist corner have been saying that privatization somehow is a big, deep, dark secret. That's more rubbish. We couldn't be any more frank than we've been. It has been out there in the open for a long, long time. Indeed, during the last election our mandate was to downsize government and promote free enterprise, so it has been very up front. And the process since the announcement has been as open and as public as possible, including communicating fully with our employees as developments occur; after all, there is the weekly newsletter. I can assure you we'll keep working to get that information to people who are willing to be informed.
Let me now turn to some examples of the kind of misinformation the socialists like to disseminate. The Leader of the Opposition — and also, I believe, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) — said government is selling off Hydro's research and development division in the face of a report recommending there should be no sale. Well, that's wrong again; that's incorrect again. The report doesn't say privatization shouldn't take place, but suggests that work be done to ensure the research and development division's viability as a business. The Thorne Ernst and Whinney report in fact says Hydro could be merged with B.C. Research to become a substantive provincial research entity that could achieve export success and sell services to the private sector. This toothless pit bull gang in the socialist corner of the House has to try to remember that a key to the privatization process is to ensure that the business entity will be viable, whether through a merger with an existing firm or by some other means.
[10:45]
One other point for those in opposition to the plan to place Riverview patients in the community — not overnight but very gradually. Riverview is to be transferred to a non-profit society, and a $77 million annual grant for operating will be given; that's not privatization. You should be aware that the proposal has been fully endorsed by the Canadian Mental Health Association. There's widespread support for this move among those who work with the mentally ill, and I'd like to offer just a couple of quotes.
They held a public meeting to debate this proposal, and an officer of the Friends of Schizophrenics society went on record as saying: "It's always better for patients to live in the community rather than an institution." Chloe Lapp, executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, says: "Moving mental health care into the community rather than isolating it in a large institution such as Riverview is an idea whose time has come." I think that has been well proven by the tremendous success of our initiative to deinstitutionalize Tranquille. We will also provide appropriate levels of service and certainly maintain standards of public safety in all our privatization initiatives.
We recognize that we won't achieve these gains if we privatize badly. That's why our past experience and the mass of experience in other jurisdictions is so important.
MR. LOVICK: You mean BCRIC?
MR. VANT: No, there are many successful.... We will follow the good examples. Many other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world are privatizing successfully. Why" Because privatization is working.
Here's what one government leader said after privatization: "Under our previous system there was a morass of stifling regulations and red tape for civil servants. These are gone now. The economic performance of these privatized operations had been hopeless. They had been suffering terrific losses. which of course the taxpayer was subsidizing. You can't run a country on that basis."
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member has very well stated the policy of government with respect to privatization. Ws a thrust of this government which certainly is already reflected in the economic recovery that is taking place, which is probably beyond what we see anywhere in Canada today. We've seen a growth in employment in British Columbia like nowhere else in this country. We've seen more activity in the manufacturing sector than we've seen in any other province in Canada. This thrust, along with the decentralization, the review of programs, the restructuring of government, will create economic activity that will provide security for our young people, that will open up a whole new field for new industry. That, added to the opportunities that exist with free trade, will provide us with a sound economy for years to come.
I realize that whenever you have these sorts of changes, there is fear — particularly with those who live on fear and who sort of wish to promote the fear for their own political gain. But having put that aside, the long-term benefit is far more important than what we're hearing from the other side as criticism.
I'm very pleased that we've had recognition as well from the largest union in this province, which. Incidentally, has an executive, just as government has an executive. That executive met and made a decision that somehow they would offer whatever moneys required in order to make a bid for this particular undertaking which has previously been government. They too would become private entrepreneurs. They too would be working in an economy where the more you give, the harder you work, the greater the interest and personal involvement, then the greater the productivity, the more you see done, the less it costs and the better off we all are.
I'm very pleased that we're seeing a growing interest in privatization. I'm very pleased that we're seeing a response in the economy. I'm very pleased that there's a perception developing not only in this province but across Canada and elsewhere in the world that we have in British Columbia a government that is not afraid to take on change, that is not afraid to work in a world where we've seen a high level of unemployment sort of accepted as the norm. that is not afraid to say: no longer can we continue to spend the money that belongs to our children and their children; we must act responsibly; we must cut the cost of government and the size of government. Support is coming from all quarters for what we're doing, and because of this there's a confidence developing that will see new industry, growth of existing industry, more jobs, a chance and a future for the young people of this province. We, as a government — as was expressed by the hon. member — will build for our province an economy that is second to none anywhere in Canada.
[ Page 2834 ]
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, amidst the rest of that speech, which we heard before at the last Social Credit convention, there were a couple of nuggets of substance. There was actually substance there, and I'd like to deal with a bit of the substance. For example, the Premier makes the point that the GEU is suddenly on side in endorsing privatization. That is simply not the case. Every single statement made by the president of the GEU has said: "We are categorically, unequivocally opposed to the privatization measure." For the Premier of this province to suggest otherwise, it seems to me, is inexcusable.
I want also to remind the Premier, when he gets into that process of saying, "We are not afraid," that fools do indeed rush in where angels fear to tread, and we see the evidence right there. When the Premier talks about the thrust of the new economy, the only thing that comes to mind is that we can see the thrust, all right. We are being skewered and screwed by that particular thrust, thank you very much. The predicament is that the Premier continues to tell us....
MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that time under standing orders is up.
MR. LOVICK: I also regret that, Mr. Speaker; I would I had more.
MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, privatization is spreading around the world, because it works. I continue my quotes of that leader in one country. He said: "We found there was overwhelming support, because the public saw greater efficiency and a lower government payroll." These are very interesting comments, because they came from a dyed-in the-wool socialist, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand's labour socialist government.
We have conceived our plans very carefully over many months. I want to give you an example, too: the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is putting in place special training programs to upgrade the contract-management skills of senior managers in government. You have to agree that a highly developed contract management is an essential component of successful privatization.
Before I table our statement of principles, Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). He is quoted in the Vancouver Sun as saying: "There are probably some very good arguments for privatizing. If, for example, you were going to make something worker-owned and -controlled, bringing it closer to economic democracy, how can you argue with that'?"
Well, it's our government policy to favour the employees, because we want to bank on their expertise and their experience. We are not leaving out our employees. We welcome these employee initiatives.
There has been mention too about a fire sale. Believe me, there's no fire sale. The 12-month time-frame applying to the highway and bridge maintenance is not carved in stone. We're going to proceed cautiously and carefully. Employees know where the inefficiencies lie. Employees of the Highways department have approached me and said that up to 40 percent efficiency can be realized in highway and bridge maintenance. Believe me, they are in a position to know.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure in wrapping up my statements on privatization to table for the House — especially for the edification of the toothless pitbull gang in the socialist comer of the House — our statement of principles so they can read for them for themselves.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: More! More!
REGIONALIZATION VERSUS DEMOCRACY
MR. KEMPF: It's a very boisterous House this morning, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in this kind of atmosphere to talk about a very important subject. The government would call it restructuring, or decentralization, or regionalization. I see it as just the opposite. I see it as a centralization of power — an obsessive quest for total control which is undermining our very democratic process in this province, severing the very purpose for MLAs, the duly and democratically elected members of this Legislature, and virtually depriving them of the opportunity to represent those who elected them.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. KEMPF: Baa-a-a-a! I hear it from the corner over here, Mr. Speaker. The first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) was right.
Interjections.
MR. KEMPF: It is a boisterous House. Mr. Speaker, it goes so far as to make an absolute mockery, in my estimation, of this very chamber — the foundation of the democratic system. The MLAs, the representatives of government closest to the people, vulnerable and accountable to those people for their actions.... As it's been said, the MLAs are the very backbone of the parliamentary system.
[11:00]
Interjections.
MR. KEMPF: No, not at all. Under this new system — and even that is a misnomer, for it isn't new; it has been tried in many other jurisdictions and has failed — the clout of those MLAs and their ability to represent those who elected them is virtually being abolished. They're being reduced — and I've seen it in my own constituency in the last 30 days — to mere puppets who are now, in the words of the Premier's principal secretary, overrated. The people's choice overrated, to be examined as to what they do, and to be invited to join the development groups appointed by the minister of state, invited to sit as equals on a team of non-elected decision-makers in the very regions where they themselves were democratically elected.
How wonderful, Mr. Speaker. How kind they are, these ministers of state, these almighty czars, ruling over all they survey. How benevolent this Premier, with his philosophy of: "I know best what is good for British Columbians." It's scary, serious, undemocratic — all of those things and more. And what's worse, it's being covered by a smokescreen. There's a smokescreen to cover up the consolidation of power in the Premier's office via the centralization scheme — touted mockingly as decentralization. All the decision-making in this province is in the hands of eight. No, not really eight, because one person and one person only has the awesome and total control over those eight individuals. All of the decision making is in the hands of one, Mr. Speaker. History has shown what that kind of power can do.
[ Page 2835 ]
Hon. members, should we, the people of British Columbia, allow this to continue, to happen? The tenure of this chamber and of the entire democratic process in British Columbia is at risk. As Mr. David Poole himself said recently: "And who knows, 15 years from now the political structure in terms of who is elected to do what may be entirely different." I don't doubt that for one minute, hon. members. The truth is that our democratic system is very fragile, very vulnerable and susceptible to indiscretion. While the people of this province still retain the ability to send us here, we in this chamber — on both sides of the House — had better begin to realize what it is that's happening here in British Columbia before it's too late.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke about decentralization is the same member who has often stood in this House and said, "I'm a northerner. I'm from Omineca, the great constituency of Omineca." And each and every time, this was intended to project — and rightly too — that there was something different about Omineca, that each of these constituencies and each of these regions of the province was a precious gem but somehow different from the other, and that the problems of Omineca were not necessarily the same or could somehow equate to the problems that existed in other regions of the province.
I can remember the member speaking out and saying that when the citizens of the lower mainland or Vancouver Island speak about the wolf kill, they don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't spoken, haven't met, haven't seen the people affected in Omineca. There's something different about Omineca, and people down here in Victoria or people in the lower mainland don't understand Omineca. This message was repeated time after time for all of the years that the member has served here, and I commend him for that. But in the last while, when the member crossed the floor away from the free enterprise group in government, somehow with that particular change, or somehow because he's been resident in Victoria so long, his views seem to have changed. Though his views may have changed, Omineca hasn't changed.
Though this member believes that we can continue to make all decisions in Victoria or Vancouver without seeking as much input as possible from the people of Omineca, this government has not lost touch with the people of Omineca or any other region in British Columbia. This government says that we mustn't be afraid to make changes to assure that we give the people of Omineca every opportunity not only to have a voice through an MLA, as they should and always will, but to have even more of a voice by having their views presented directly at the cabinet table because they had input into the process, because they were there as equals at a table expressing their views on the various things affecting Omineca.
We've had overwhelming response from all regions of this province. I intend to visit Omineca soon and to meet with the people of Omineca. Though the member for Omineca has obviously changed his views to be more Victorian, let me assure him that when I get to Omineca, I know that the people I meet will want to express their support for an attitude of government that says: "Be a part of the decision-making process in those things that affect you directly. Be a part of sitting with the MLA, the ministers and members representing various organizations, and giving direct input in order to have decisions made that respect the views you hold in Omineca."
There has, as I mentioned already, been enormous support. There will continue to be growing support as people see the process working more effectively all the time. If we continue as we have been doing, we will see growth happening in the lower mainland, as I'm sure it will, but there won't be similar growth in many of the other regions of the province. In 10 to 15 years, if we don't have the courage to move now, we could see growth. pressure, land being filled with apartments and houses, and job shortages in the lower mainland, while the people in Omineca and such regions go wanting for development, jobs and an opportunity for their children. The children and people of British Columbia deserve this decentralization process, which will give them an opportunity for greater input.
MR. KEMPF: That was quite an interesting tirade. I'll tell you, it must be because of the feeling the Premier has for the people of Omineca — what he calls the state of Nechako — that he appointed someone from Vancouver South to represent that area, together with someone from the South Okanagan. That's a real feeling for northerners. If the Premier hasn't developed a feeling for the people for the northern part of this province, it is about time that someone did.
You bet Omineca is different, as you, Mr. Premier, shall very clearly see, come the next around at the polls. It's been said many times, and it will prove true the next time we seek a mandate from the people of British Columbia: as goes Omineca, so goes British Columbia. Never will there be a more crucial time in this province to watch what happens in Omineca than the next around. The people of Omineca won't be taken in by the rhetoric that goes on in this chamber. I know what the people of Omineca think; I'm in touch with the people of Omineca daily. I know what they think about regionalization.
If you think that I don't believe in decentralization, that is absolutely untrue. I believe that decentralization in some areas is very good for the province. Decentralization in other areas is very bad for the people of British Columbia. We've seen a Highways minister speak out and tell the media, a Highways minister who served in that capacity for 11 years, himself more of a northerner than I am....
You can talk about living in Victoria. That makes very great rhetoric in this chamber. I've got to tell you. If you ever tried to serve a constituency the size of Omineca by living in any one of the communities up there.... I've served my time.
MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up under the standing orders.
MR. KEMPF: We'll continue this at another time.
MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Island seeks leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. GABELMANN: I would like members of the House to join me in welcoming a group of grade 6 students in the gallery this morning. accompanied by some of their teachers and parents. This group is from the Rockland Elementary
[ Page 2836 ]
School in Campbell River. Would the House please welcome them.
CENTRALIZATION
MR. BLENCOE: I also rise today to talk about, I think, an emergency in the province of British Columbia — the state of democracy and the principles of this cherished institution that are being eroded right here, and a Premier that has said that nothing is sacred in the province of British Columbia.
[11:15]
There are some things sacred, Mr. Premier. We have a special warrant issued on October 29 of this year, allowing for $8 million to be spent without authorization from the Legislature. An emergency, it said: the money is urgently and immediately required under this warrant. Yet we knew we were coming back into this chamber within a matter of days.
I want to know whether the Premier or those who signed or authorized this warrant checked with the Attorney-General for the legality of this special warrant under the rules of this Legislature and the laws of the province of British Columbia. It was not an emergency.
Quite frankly it is, in my estimation, an illegal act on the part of the province of British Columbia and this government to pass $8 million without authorization of the people of British Columbia through this Legislature. I call today for inquiry by the Attorney-General into that illegal act. Eight million dollars, and we have the Minister of Finance saying: "Well, it's not a cart of money; it's only a million dollars."
If there ever was a symptom like the Coquihalla syndrome that is spreading like a cancer through this province and a back of a truck for money going out, here we have another illegal act on the part of the province — $8 million without authorization by the people of British Columbia. Eight million dollars — an illegal, illegitimate act on the part of the people of British Columbia.
We know why we're getting no details of this United States of British Columbia — and I'll get into that in a minute — because as soon as this Legislature rises details will come down by order-in-council. They'll be sneaked through the Premier's door. We'll get these notices on our desks that we're going to spend money here — up to $50,000 without authorization of this cherished institution, Mr. Premier.
How dare you on the part of the people of British Columbia? How dare you do that? We know why you're not having any legislation in this House to debate this issue: because you cannot face this Legislature with an offensive, undemocratic centralization that this province has never seen before in its history. You dare not face the people with such an offensive system.
Mr. Premier, you are gutless because you brought in this piece.... Absolutely gutless, Mr. Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please withdraw that.
MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
In my estimation this $8 million through the back door, an unwarranted illegal act, is to undermine the role and the democratic principles endorsed by local government. It's an $8 million spy agency to snoop on local government. That's all it's for.
We already have local government doing economic issues. We already have local government preparing plans, and what were they asking for? They were asking for real decentralization. They were asking for real policies that allowed them to develop their own regions without a new bureaucracy, a costly bureaucracy not endorsed by the people of British Columbia or this Legislature. We have a level of bureaucracy that usurps the role of local government. With government control over the regions, how can we decentralize decision-making?
It has nothing to do with devolving power. It's a cynical, perverted distortion of real democratic decentralization. It has absolutely nothing to do with sharing power. It has everything to do with grabbing even more power for the Premier and his eight governors, to rule this province from the Premier's office. It has nothing to do with the people in the regions making decisions over their own natural or human resources, but everything to do with the government setting the complete agenda for such matters. It has nothing to do with making provincial government decision-making more accessible to British Columbians but is intended to dictate government policy and desires to local government.
In short, it's the work of a Premier who has come back to this Legislature determined to impose those values and those principles that were in the Land Use Act when he resigned from the old Socred government. We all know what that act did. It had more than 50 ways the provincial government could overturn a local government decision. That's what it's all about. This United States of British Columbia is to take over the role of local government, to snoop over their backs and control the decision-making process at the local level.
Never before have we ever had such a cynical, distorted view of how the Legislature can be used to turn local governments into virtual rubber stamps for the provincial government. Puppets of the provincial government: that's what this minister and this government want.
I go back to the 1975 debates, and I quote someone in this House: "The rights of parliament were not won easily. The rights of discussion and debate are the modern equivalent of what people went to war and fought for. It's a freedom that was won, and we will never lose it freely or willingly." And: "Anarchy never, but freedom forever." That was Bill Bennett in 1975, Mr. Premier.
Mr. Speaker, today we are in trouble because of this Premier and this government, and on this side of the House we cannot endorse such a usurpation of democracy in the province of British Columbia.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the member was speaking I was reminded about the position of the NDP only a few years ago when a former member for Prince Rupert stood up in his place and time and time again spoke about the need for decentralization and the fact that innovative ways could be developed which would provide for greater decentralization. Then too, as now, we listened; I listened and certainly consulted not only the member but other people in the province, particularly local government.
In January 1987 we called a conference in Richmond to discuss decentralization. At the conference we had every mayor and regional district chairman from across the whole of the province present to debate, to talk and to give suggestions that could lead to greater decentralization in this province — to develop with local government a process which would permit local councils, regional districts, school boards, chambers of commerce, all associations, to have a greater input into the decisions made about them by the
[ Page 2837 ]
provincial government in Victoria. The process was worked on during 1987, a decision was made and the announcement was made again in front of 1,200 or 1,400 members from local government. The UBCM convention in 1987: local government again was recognized as a part of this process.
Now the member for Victoria calls the decentralization process undemocratic, the opportunities for people in the various regions of this province to have more input. He calls it undemocratic that people be permitted this greater input. They make mention of the fact that we've allotted money to these functions within the regions, money to ensure that the process will provide an opportunity for greater input, They say it was dealt with improperly by the cabinet. I refer the member to the Financial Administration Act, section 21(5), which reads: "The amount appropriated by a special warrant shall be submitted to the Legislature as part of the next ensuing Supply Bill." There will be an opportunity again, according to the legislation, to see this matter debated.
We not only want democracy, we have proven that we are providing a greater opportunity for democracy to work effectively in this province by commencing a decentralization program. People in all parts of this province. be it the great Peace, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the Nechako, wherever, deserve to have greater input, deserve to see a system that allows the differences of the various regions to be recognized properly in the decision-making of government. Decentralization is democratic; it's supported by local government; it's supported by the people of all regions of this great province.
MR. BLENCOE: The Premier is attempting as usual, by puffery and rhetoric, to cover up what he knows local government has the ability to do today. He knows local government has the ability to do economic planning and development. He knows they have their plans in place. He knows they're elected by the people in their regions. He knows those people know their regions best. He knows that sometimes they disagree with Social Credit policies, but he knows that if he's going to control those regions from his office, he has to put into place a centralized state system that's more like the United States of America than Canada. And to do that, whatever he says about quoting from statutes, he is prepared to pass, behind closed doors or in an order-in-council, $8 million for a so-called emergency. I quote to this Premier the words of a former premier of this province, Bill Bennett, who stood in this House and said — and we say: "Not one dime without debate." And we mean not one ten-cent piece.
Whether this Premier and this government are not prepared to work through this Legislature, we are not going to give up on this sacred institution; we're going to fight for it. We're going to go out into every single region; we're going to speak to every single local government official and tell them exactly what you're up to, Mr. Premier. Not a dime without debate, and let's have some law-abiding rules and legislation.
They know what this government has done in this warrant. They know what Bill Bennett talked about, and went out, and we will go out. You don't have the right to break the laws of the province of British Columbia which even Bill Bennett said people died for. You don't have that right. This decentralization is just a coverup for the Premier's desire to control local government in British Columbia.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before proceeding to orders of the day, I note in Hansard of last week that my dear friend opposite asked that ministers be in the House during private members' statements, and I think today we've satisfied that beyond your wildest expectations.
MR. ROSE: It is beyond my wildest dreams. We asked for a whisper from a minister, and we got screams from the Premier. But I do welcome the Premier here for debate. It's nice when he stays home from his visits to China and the fleshpots of....
AN HON. MEMBER: Omineca.
MR. ROSE: You said that; I didn't. I was thinking more of Saanich or some place like that.
But we do still have a problem with this particular rule. I think you'll agree that on some of the debates which come from that side of the House, and the initiation of the statements from over there.... If you interpret the rule literally, as happened this morning, you find that this side is not represented at all. In one instance the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) cut short his remarks so that we would have a brief moment on this side to respond to the excellent statement of the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt). On the other hand, the other ones really didn't reflect the opposition; we were not involved in it at all. There were two others in which we weren't involved. So I think the rule bears examination. But the fact that the Premier is here and engaging in this debate is a good thing.
The rule was intended to give back-benchers on both sides of the House, people who are not cabinet ministers, an opportunity to express the deep concerns of their own constituents and of themselves, when there was no other opportunity. It was supposed to stimulate debate. Well, this morning it certainly did. I think it's working well, and I'd like it to continue. But I'd also like it to be a little more fair when it comes to treating opposite sides of the House for purposes of participation, which are now, if you interpret the rule literally, denied to them.
[11:30]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member makes a good point.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to proceed to public bills.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 59.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4). 1987
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
On section 2.
MS. A. HAGEN: As we closed debate yesterday afternoon. I and the Provincial Secretary were engaged in a little
[ Page 2838 ]
informal dialogue across the table. I would like to start the debate this morning by giving the Provincial Secretary the opportunity to respond to some of the comments I made yesterday, and then I have some additional questions that I would like to pose to him, and some comments I'd like to make.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see you back in the chair this morning, looking so hale and hearty. I also wish to commend the committee and the House for the excellent way the private members' statements went off this morning.
The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned — and I'm sure she's had a chance to check the Blues — that I said that there were specific rules laid out for parliamentary secretaries. No, what I did say.... I'd like to reiterate those for the edification of the member. I said that neither the federal nor the provincial legislation — that of British Columbia — provides a detailed description of the duties of a parliamentary secretary. But I did say that their role varies with the demands on the minister whom they assist. Their role includes carrying out routine tasks in relation to the House, presenting the government position in discussions and committee business, answering questions when questions are directed to them — they can't answer questions in this House unless the question is directed to them and a minister is absent — supporting the government position in committee, and meeting with other members of the public organizations and other concerned bodies on behalf of the minister.
Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that one of the most important roles that a parliamentary secretary can have is that of facilitating communication and the exchange of ideas. The more people we bring into the decision-making process, as the Premier said, the more our government's decisions will reflect the needs and aspirations of all regions of this wonderful province. That's what this is all about: it's having the voice of government extended out into all regions of the province; to listen, to communicate, to bring back ideas from the people who make up the grass roots of this province — the people at the local level.
MS. A. HAGEN: I want to concur in the last statement by the Provincial Secretary, that in every region of our province there are ideas and structures to deal with those ideas. What we are looking at in the clause in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is a move to allow the government to have an open-ended season on parliamentary secretaries to provide for what the Provincial Secretary has just called "facilitating and communicating" in those regions.
The position I want to take this morning is that the task for those parliamentary secretaries is not appropriate in two ways. First, we are asking an individual in each of eight regions of the province — and in the region where the Provincial Secretary bears the title secretary of state, two parliamentary secretaries — to be the conduit for those messages, along with that person's secretary of state. I looked at the thick document from the Premier's office, around the responsibilities that he sees in a decentralized model, and I cannot find any vehicle for the kind of facilitation and communication that the Provincial Secretary states is his goal.
I want to look at some of the substructures these people are going to be working with, and I want to refer to the comments the minister made at a luncheon in Vancouver last weekend, commonly referred to as the Grey Cup luncheon. He noted that there were contacts with over 3,000 people, in beginning to pull together a list, and that something in the order of 300 people attended. I haven't quantified the number of municipalities and regional districts that are represented. When we look at the number of MLAs encompassed in that region, we know that every MLA — with myself excepted, since I represent a constituency which has a municipal boundary that is contiguous with my own riding — represents a range of regions, and we have 30 MLAs in that region.
We are asking these parliamentary secretaries to be the conduits to the Premier's office for the aspirations of the region. That's a totally inappropriate and impossible task to give these people. We have all kinds of committees with whom they will liaise, communicate, facilitate and attend meetings. Those committees are resource development committees and service development committees, and they will have backup committees.
I want to look at it from the perspective of the area that I know best and that I follow closely: the area of social services. We have a committee as yet unstruck that is supposed to improve service delivery. The examples that are noted are not what I would call either earth-shaking or reassuring. One of the examples noted by the minister of the ways service delivery might be improved is that a college and local industry may mutually benefit by closer interaction. Mr. Minister, I have been involved with the college system, and you know people who have been involved with the college system. It's my view that the interaction that exists among those institutions is already very fine. I do not believe that some middle level of bureaucracy — or even the most well-meaning of parliamentary secretaries — can do very much other than carry a message like this, which is really such a minuscule and unimportant idea, given the coordination that exists and the work presently done by colleges to provide leadership and cooperation between areas.
The other area mentioned is that the whole region may benefit from computer-based employment and training programs. Mr. Chairman, we have an example of that in the province right now, also foisted on this House without any notice whatsoever and eating up untold numbers of dollars, which I cannot get a report on because the minister doesn't respond to my requests for information. That is the Hewett Group, which is out doing computer-based employment and training programs. That program presently in the province has no outcomes expected, nothing in the contract that tells us what we are getting from dollars unspecified in contracted out services. If that's the kind of payola that we're talking about with the $1 million for the kind of programs in this region, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that kind of action doesn't leave me feeling very comfortable about the real needs of this province for service and programs.
In this House over the past week we have talked about the problems we face in health care, and I think people on both sides of this House would acknowledge that health care is probably one of the greatest challenges — the minister's just leaving, but I know he'll nod his head — that government faces in service delivery and improvement of services. Not a mention, not a suggestion, but we're going to have a committee that in the service area involves the Provincial Secretary, Advanced Education and Job Training, Education, Health, Social Services and Housing and A-G. And the minister is seriously suggesting that this is a new and innovative way to deal with planning and improvements? I do not believe that
[ Page 2839 ]
the minister — who I believe is a man of sincere intentions — genuinely believes that in his soul. The rhetoric he is providing us is rhetoric. No person with the intelligence and knowledge of government that I know the Provincial Secretary has — no person — could genuinely believe that those kinds of structure, regardless of the number of parliamentary secretaries, are going to provide us with answers to our problems. This government is talking about providing a structure, but it is a structure that cannot and will not deal with those problems.
I could go on, Mr. Chairman, and cite any number of examples. The issue is that we are opening the door for an entirely new and different level of government involvement in the regions with a setup that is not — I repeat, not — constitutionally, systematically or functionally able to deliver any of the very tenuous outcomes. I would submit that it is a vehicle for announcements about a motor-sport complex, which could come from any source, an excuse for us to continue to contract out services without accountability to this House, and a means of showcasing a government rather than dealing with our problems.
I would like to see the grass roots better involved in ways that would tap their energy. Every MLA in this province has been involved in his or her region with those groups, and we know the energy and the ideas that come. We are not opposed to that kind of activity, but we on this side of the House are saying that the model and the goals are not achievable with the system we have in place.
[11:45]
HON. MR. VEITCH: I always appreciate the manner in which the hon. member for New Westminster debates in this House, and I have a great deal of respect for her as a person. We must agree to disagree, though, on our philosophies about how governments should operate.
I've always believed that the government closest to the people is the government that operates the best. I know that over the years, for whatever sets of reasons, we brought into our system a method whereby more and more concentration of power occurred, I think that was done for a set of reasons — whether good or valid. We came to a point where we got to believe — or at least we accepted the concept in many parts of the world — that government was all-knowing, and that somehow or other, if we centralized everything, we'd have a better government in the province. We're talking here about the very converse of that particular argument.
The member mentioned a conduit. A conduit is a means of transmitting something, and one of our conduits — there are several of them — is the MLAs. The MLAs say people come into their offices whenever they're there. In a steady stream, with a whole myriad of problems and opportunities. You'll continue to deal with this and to do your job, I'm sure. But what we're doing here is offering you a new opportunity in a new era to expand the role and the usefulness of Members of the Legislative Assembly to those very same constituents who you purport and, I know, wish to serve very well. We're offering you a new vehicle — a vehicle that doesn't fit the time of the Industrial Revolution or something back beyond that. We're offering you a vehicle that fits this new decade, this new century, that we're entering into.
As I said many times before, the government that was right for the province from 1952 to 1972, and worked so very well to build the province, is so very different from the kind of government and administration that we need here today.
The time of governing from the southern tip of Vancouver Island throughout all the vast regions of this province is long, gone, and thank goodness for that. What we're doing here is, giving the opportunity for members of this Legislative Assembly, who have the opportunity through legislation to be appointed as parliamentary secretaries, to expand that conduit, to expand the lines of communication, to reach out into all parts of this province and to be able to bring information back to Victoria so that it can be dealt with at the various highest levels — and that's the cabinet office.
I guess if there are differences in philosophy, they could best be summed up by the socialist idea that everything works better if you centralize it, bring it in; that somehow that all knowing body of people who happen to be elected, or bureaucrats who happen to be placed in a high office somewhere. know more about what's happening to folks out there than the folks do themselves. You see, we don't think that way at all, Mr. Chairman. We believe that are more good ideas out there in the regions than there ever are in this House or in Victoria. That's what it's all about.
If you say this is new or partially radical, I say yes. It's time for that. It's time. Madam Member, that we held a rummage sale for some of this garbage that clutters up our mental attics, and filled them with some ideas, and were willing to accept some new concepts. That's precisely what this is all about. We're providing parliamentary secretaries who will be able to work with you if you'll allow yourself to work with them. Now that's your decision. You can be part of the process; you can be part of the problem or you can be part of the solution. That's entirely up to you. What we're doing is offering you a challenge to be part of that solution in this new process that is right for this time in British Columbia.
MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has just noted that this idea is new and radical. I don't think he has any licence on the idea that people are the sources of ideas and communities are the ways in which ideas are put into practice. I don't need a lecture, Mr. Chairman, on working in the community; I don't need any lectures in that regard at all. Nor do I need any lectures from the minister about how I will do my job or how I will get to know about what's going on in the province.
But, Mr. Chairman, I have not taken unto myself any delusions of grandeur such as are being accorded to the parliamentary secretaries. With all due respect to those men and women.... I think they're all men, come to think of it. That is interesting; that is very interesting. I must at some time have an opportunity to discuss that with, perhaps, the member for Langley. It would make an interesting discussion over tea in the afternoon in the legislative dining room.
With all respect to those worthy gentlemen, I do not believe — this was the point of my earlier comment, and I want to make it again very simply — that this is either new or radical. It reminds me a lot more of ward bosses, patronage and pork-barrelling. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I am not given to using that language very often in this House, but truly, that is what it reminds me of.
I tried to comment earlier that the ways and means by which all of those parties, for instance. In the human services could begin to do anything constructive — even through the most brilliant of communicators or conduits. who had as his title parliamentary secretary — are beyond my ken, I being a reasonably intelligent and energetic member of this House.
I want to note also, in terms of the minister's comments about the centralization of government....
[ Page 2840 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: Decentralization.
MS. A. HAGEN: The centralization of government. Please don't put words in my mouth, Mr. Minister. I will conduct my own speech or comments, and when you wish to respond, I will listen with great care.
About the centralization of government. There are many ways in which government, through its ministries, can go out to the public. This government has in fact exercised some of those and — regrettably, I think — it has exercised them without any involvement of people on this side of the House: the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson), in his consultation about Bill 19, which — unfortunately for him and without his knowledge — was simply ignored; that same minister, in terms of the liquor review, which I will say on the record I think produced good results, although regrettably there was no attempt to involve people from this side of the House; work that happens among the bureaucracies of ministries like the Ministry of Health, which has been doing an extensive review on continuing care. So there are vehicles, Mr. Minister, for good things to happen that go out and tap the regions. And there are many other models that would achieve the goal of tapping the energy and ideas.
The position that I have taken on this clause in the amendment of the Constitution Act is that it isn't parliamentary secretaries; it's not going to be achievable or possible; and you snow us with your silken words and your continuing rhetoric. You snow us when you try to persuade us that that will happen. The record will show for itself. We may in fact find that this is a way to get around the agricultural land reserve, that this is a way to get around environmental kinds of controls, that this is a way to provide some kind of contracts to friends of government. But I'm not looking to this as solving the problems that we in this House have responsibility to solve in terms of the economic and social wellbeing of the people of this province. Unfortunately, there is nothing that I have heard that gives me confidence. It is only a repetition of the bumf and the rhetoric. I regret that, because I think the minister would honestly like to do a job — there's not a lot left in his provincial secretaryship, and this is a challenge. But it's not the route to go.
MR. KEMPF: It's very interesting to listen to the Provincial Secretary talk so glowingly about the way in which parliamentary secretaries can better communicate with government than can the duly elected MLAs.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I didn't say that.
MR. KEMPF: Oh yes, you did. I sat in my office listening to the monitor, and that's exactly what you said. So I've got to ask you the same question I asked the Premier the other day in question period and failed to get an answer to. That question is: do you or do you not subscribe to the philosophy of the principal secretary to the Premier with respect to the role of MLAs in this chamber? I know what he thinks about the role of, parliamentary secretaries, and I will quote his own words. And it's no wonder that the Provincial Secretary comes into this chamber and says what he does in speaking on this bill.
I'll quote the questions that were asked and the answers that were given. I quote the question: "If you want something from the government, do I go to my MLA, my regional parliamentary secretary, my regional cabinet minister, or the minister in charge of that area?" I now quote the response: "If I was going to get something done, I would be going to the parliamentary secretary assigned to the region." Next question: "More than my MLA?" Answer: "Probably yes." That is the whole philosophy behind the need for additional parliamentary secretaries and the regional concept, the regionalization, the forming of the United States of British Columbia in this province of ours. That's exactly it: to do end runs around those who were duly and democratically elected to represent their constituents.
What's better, having 69 representatives to report to government or 16? In your estimation, Mr. Provincial Secretary, what would be best — I mean, given a situation where the government is listening to the elected representatives? I grant you, if the government is not listening then it's probably better to have 16 than 69. But if the government is listening, if they are actually communicating — as I heard the Premier say in this very chamber this morning — which is better, 69 representatives or 16? That's the question here this morning. If the government were to listen to all the elected representatives — the others in cabinet, those on the back bench of government, those on the opposition side of the floor; there are 69 of us.... Well, there are 68, excluding the Premier. If he were to listen to those who, I think....
I've sat here for 12 years. It will be 12 years in a short week from now since I was first elected to this chamber, and I've listened to some very good representation by members in all corners of this chamber of the people in their constituencies. Now we have to have a new system? Now we've got to have super ministers? We've got to have czars supported by parliamentary secretaries?
[12:00]
I agree with the parliamentary secretary system — I was a supporter of it from the very start — but not if it's used to do end runs around people who were duly elected to this chamber. I will never agree with that. I got a letter this morning.... I've heard in this chamber for the last couple of weeks that we're going to be invited to sit on these regional committees. How very nice! What's the purpose, if the Premier's own principal secretary says: "Don't go to your MLA if you want something done in government; don't go to your MLA whom you've duly elected" — in my case, four times? Don't go to that MLA. Go to the parliamentary secretary.
If you think that the parliamentary secretary isn't going to have a good opportunity to do end runs around the MLA, then I ask you to consider this: a meeting is called for one of these regional committees.... The Provincial Secretary should recall such a situation, in which I was denied a seat on the government aircraft to attend a function in my constituency.
Interjection.
MR. KEMPF: It's in writing, Mr. Member; it's in my file. I made sure that it was in writing. I was turned down — riding on a government aircraft on which there were three empty seats; a trip that would have allowed me to attend that function in my constituency.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you go up?
[ Page 2841 ]
MR. KEMPF: Because to go commercial would have taken me a day to get there, a day to attend the function and another day to get back, and this House was sitting.
MR. SKELLY: Why didn't you put him on the flight?
MR. KEMPF: Mr. Provincial Secretary, why?
You think it isn't going to be a simple situation for not only the super ministers but also their parliamentary secretaries to do end runs around the MLAs? Not at all, and that, I suggest, is the reason for setting up this system in the first place. When we've got 69 members who represent every minute region of this province of ours, why do we have to have yet another level of government consisting of eight super ministers and their parliamentary secretaries?
HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for Omineca for his speech to the committee this afternoon. Yes, he is a very experienced member. When we first came into this House, I moved the first Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the new government in 1976 and he seconded it. This fellow and I have fought the war together. We haven't always agreed, but we haven't always disagreed.
He's absolutely right that every member of this Legislative Assembly has not only a right but a duty to serve his or her members and serve them in the most effective way possible. Each one does it in a very different way. And the government from time to time extends an invitation to all members who are not part of the executive council to be involved. We have extended an invitation.... I don't want to get too far off section 2 of this bill, Mr. Chairman. An invitation has been extended by the minister of state to this member to participate. Now whether he participates or not is entirely up to him. The way he chooses to serve his constituents in Omineca is completely up to him.
I'm not talking about enlightened self-interest when I want to go for a ride on a government aircraft or something of that nature. What I'm talking about is serving the people of this province in a very new way.
I remember how that hon. member and I — and I won't break any confidence in saying this — used to sit down and talk about our fear of seeing government centralized, seeing government run from Victoria. Hon. member. we're making an honest, sincere attempt to fulfil the aspirations that you had back then, when you thought very differently than perhaps you think now — to decentralize this government and to take government out to the people; yes, into Omineca; yes, into Vancouver South; yes, into North Peace River; yes, into South Peace River. Every part of this province in this new era that we're in deserves to have a conduit: a way of getting their people, their ideas and their expressions focused at the very highest possible level. I'm sure the hon. member would subscribe to that.
We're not doing any end runs on anybody. Someone said to me that if the job doesn't bring honour to you, then you bring honour to the job. You do whatever you want to serve your constituents in any way that you want and in your own manner, and I expect each and every one of the 69 members of this Legislative Assembly to do exactly the same thing.
But what we're doing here is offering a new vehicle, a new conduit, a new service, not only to the hon. member for Omineca, whom I respect very much — not only to your constituents but to you, and to help you do your job in a more effective way. You're invited on board. Whether you accept that invitation or not is entirely up to you. I would let that decision rest with myself and trickle down your memory for history. When you look back in many years, hon. member, and you see how well the people of British Columbia respond to this government initiative, you'll be sorry you didn't get on board.
MR. KEMPF: I didn't get an answer to my question. However, it did give me some other food for thought.
The Provincial Secretary has said in this chamber that I'd be welcome on board. Does that mean, Mr. Member, the government aircraft when a parliamentary secretary is going to attend a regional committee meeting in my constituency? Yes or no? Does it or does it not? You're great at not answering, the same as the Premier was the other day, about the philosophy of Mr. David Poole, the second most powerful person in this province, which seems to be a philosophy of having a distaste for duly elected members of this chamber.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Sit down and I'll answer you.
MR. KEMPF: You'll get a chance. I hope you do answer me. But the first question: will that mean welcome on board the government aircraft when a parliamentary secretary or a super minister is going to attend a regional committee meeting in my constituency?
Yes, we sat and talked about decentralization in years gone by — I agree with the Provincial Secretary — and they were great meetings. The Mortlach was fantastic — faaaantastic, Mr. Chairman.
I ask another question: do you really believe, and do you really think you can make the people of British Columbia believe, that it was necessary to have eight superministers together with their parliamentary secretaries? That's what we're debating in this section of Bill 59: the need for additional parliamentary secretaries. Do you really think that it was necessary to have this regionalization concept, to have decentralization? I don't believe so, and I know many, many people who agree with me.
It's interesting, Mr. Chairman. that the Provincial Secretary should talk about what the parliamentary secretaries will have in order to represent the people whom I am duly elected to represent. But I guess the key question this morning is: will other members of this assembly have the same offered them. In order that they might better.... If that's the philosophy behind the Provincial Secretary's comment that parliamentary secretaries can better represent the people of British Columbia. Certainly that's the philosophy of David Poole.
I'll be asking the Premier questions in question period down the road, hopeful to find out whether he adheres to that same philosophy. It's quite apparent from what I have heard the Provincial Secretary say this morning that he does, but I'd really like to know whether or not the Premier does as well. Are the members, the duly elected representatives, the MLAs in those areas, doubly covered by superministers or their parliamentary secretaries? Are they going to have the same recognition in order for them to better serve their constituents?
HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member for Omineca asked me — I think rhetorically — if I think people want
[ Page 2842 ]
better ways to communicate with the government, and without equivocation or mental reservation of any kind, the answer is yes. He asks if other members will have the same offer. This government has made an offer to every member of this House to better represent, through these regional committees, the people they represent. Unheard of; it's never happened before in any place that I've ever known, certainly not in this Legislature. Regardless of whether you're a socialist or a free enterpriser — or whatever you are at this point in time, hon. member — the government has given you that offer to work with members of government, with the cabinet, with parliamentary secretaries, and take your ideas directly through to be part of the process and part of the solution in this new era in this province.
You're asking me, I guess, if.... I'm going to have to ask you. Are you saying, hon. member, that if I give you a ride on a government airplane up to Omineca, you'll be part of the process? Are we negotiating something here? I don't know.
MR. KEMPF: No negotiating.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Then what is it you're after? It seems that the quid pro quo you're looking for is a ride to Omineca or Burns Lake or something on a government aircraft, and then you'll be part of the process. I wouldn't call that being part of the process. I'd call that enlightened self-interest.
MR. KEMPF: I'll call the Provincial Secretary's bluff. Yes, if I'm allowed on a government aircraft on which a parliamentary secretary or a superminister is traveling to my constituency to attend one of these committee meetings, I will be part of the process. I call the bluff. It would have been nice if we'd had such an agreement which would have allowed me to attend the opening of that provincial government office in Bums Lake at the time, but it wasn't so.
Interjections.
MR. KEMPF: Be part of the process. The process is one of political patronage. We saw that in the appointment of Mr. Barrie Carter from Smithers. We saw what kind of a pork barrel this regionalization plan can be — political appointments to your friends. That person who the superminister responsible for the State of Nechako said had the qualifications.... He hasn't shown that to this House yet. He vowed to bring that information to the members of this House, but he hasn't done so. That person is starting off at a salary far exceeding that of an MLA and has been given an expense account far exceeding that of an MLA, and you don't call that political patronage? You don't think the regionalization plan can be a political pork barrel when that sort of thing happens?
I rest my case.
[12:15]
HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think we're finally getting somewhere in this chamber on this particular section of this particular bill. What the hon. member for Omineca has agreed to do.... I don't like negotiating; I'm not much of a negotiator, but what he said is that if I give him a ride on an airplane somewhere with a parliamentary secretary, he will be part of the process and come on board. Isn't that interesting? We're not talking about what we are; we're just haggling over the price at this point. It's interesting how our principles will change.
The hon. member knows in his heart of hearts that the parliamentary secretary process is a good process, and I'm very pleased that he has now agreed to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I want to thank the hon. member for that.
MR. SKELLY: I know there are other members who want to speak on this issue and have other benefits to negotiate. I think the member for Omineca made some excellent points during his speech.
Interjection.
MR. SKELLY: No, there is an issue there, and I think it's unfortunate that it has been made fun of. There is an issue there as to the equality of private members in this Legislature, and I've brought this up during the number of times that I've participated in this debate, because I think that this is a key issue that's being ignored. I think that's what the member for Omineca is referring to when he talks about the ability being given to some members to participate in functions in his constituency, and in my constituency and those same benefits — whether they are transportation or additional member services — being denied to other members if this particular section 1s passed.
I notice that the Provincial Secretary always speaks from the government point of view. It's very clear that he has never sat in opposition in this Legislature and doesn't really understand the role and function of a private member in this Legislature. I think that's part of the problem. I think another part of the problem is that he realizes that the government has made up its mind on this section. You can tell when the government has ceased to use their ears and they've kind of dug in, and they hope that the opposition is going to give up before Santa Claus comes.
So it looks like we're not having any debate on this section of the legislation. The government has simply decided to dig in on it. They know that at some point down the line, MLAs are going to want to break for Christmas, and the parliamentary secretaries are going to get their three grand. That's what's happening here and it's unfortunate.
I mentioned that the Provincial Secretary really has had no experience as an opposition member, a private member in the Legislature. He has always been....
Interjection.
MR. SKELLY: I know you've been a back-bench government member, and I've been one too. I won't quote the member for Omineca on that part of it, but I think that there is a problem here. Perhaps you have been a minister for too long and that's the reason you don't understand the problem we're trying to get at.
I notice that in your discussions you said that the government should really be getting closer to the people of the province. You're absolutely right. But the Legislature is not the government, and what should be happening in British Columbia, and what has been the problem in British Columbia, is that the Legislature has not been close to the people of the province for the last ten years.
[ Page 2843 ]
Several years ago, Premier Bennett, who was quoted here today by another member, shut down the select standing committees of the Legislature, those instruments that the Legislature used to get in touch with the people of this province under W.A.C. Bennett — and because it was done under W.A.C. Bennett many years ago doesn't mean it was a bad thing. There are some good old things that are connected with this Legislature as well. And it was done under the Dave Barrett government. The legislative select standing committees were used to hold hearings on important issues that were quite divisive in the province, issues where we needed the benefit of public input. For the last ten years this Legislature has not had the opportunity to go out and meet with the people of this province on a bipartisan basis through select standing committees to hear what their concerns are and to translate those kinds of concerns into legislative action and ultimately into government action. That's the problem with the Legislature, Mr. Chairman. I don't doubt that that's a problem at all. We've been trying to identify this as a problem to the government for the last many years.
The government has been developing all sorts of mechanisms to make the government closer to the people over the last ten years, as you know. It has appointed millions of PR people and people who travel around the province; it has set up information centres in government agencies. All of those are good things from the government point of view, but we're here as legislators in the Legislature. Government operates quite apart from the Legislature. It's a separate system altogether, and what we're concerned about on this side of the House is giving the Legislature more eyes and ears so that we can receive the information we need in order to make this Legislature function better.
Paul St. Pierre, who is a combination journalist and has been a member of Parliament for a coastal area of British Columbia — the kind of area that I represent — came to interview me one time when I was a back-bencher and he said: "What do you think of this institution?" I said: "The Legislature is very much like the old Zulu kingdom in South Africa." I don't know if the minister knows this at all.
Interjection.
MR. SKELLY: There are probably some other reasons. I tried it through the back door last election. It didn't work that way either.
The system of government in this province is very much like the old Zulu kingdom in South Africa. The Zulu kingdom, as you know, is very tightly regimented. When young men in the old days were required at a very early age to go into barracks and were tightly controlled by the king, the king's word was law. He could put one of those young men to death if he chose, at his whim. He was the strongest, most powerful creature in the Zulu state and the state was tightly regimented. Every state that operates that way has to have some form of accountability. Once a year there was a festival at which the king had to strip himself naked and run through the streets. Women, who would otherwise have had to remain in a separate street from the king, or else bow their heads so low they couldn't see him or be seen by him, were allowed to yell obscenities and throw cow dung at him on one day of the year.
Our Legislature operates in precisely the same way.
HON. MR. VEITCH: We do it every day here.
MR. SKELLY: No, not every day, because this Legislature has met as few as 54 days in a single year.
But every government must have a time at which it is accountable to the people of the province through the elected members of the legislature, and that's what we're saying is missing from this section of the bill.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why?
MR. SKELLY: I'm getting to it. That's missing from this section of the bill because what isn't there is the bipartisan aspect that makes government accountable.
HON. MR. VEITCH: You want to be a parliamentary secretary.
MR. SKELLY: No, I don't want to be a parliamentary secretary. My concern is about this Legislative Assembly and making the government more accountable in this Legislative Assembly. You don't get the government to be more accountable by setting up a separate pay scale for government members. You get the government to be accountable by having all members of this House on an equal basis and using all members of the House as if they were equal. That's not happening. In fact, that is being changed by this section of the statute. That's why you have such opposition to this section of the statute. Mr. Provincial Secretary.
I, as an individual member, am absolutely in favour of this a government getting closer to the people. If you wanted to appoint ten more staff members to get your information out to the public and information back from the public, I'd stand up in this House and support that. But to pay Social Credit members of the Legislature on a different pay scale than opposition members of the Legislature is a perversion of the fundamental principles of this Legislative Assembly, and I'm not going to vote for that under any circumstances. I can't and still have respect for this institution.
What we want here, Mr. Chairman, is to get the Legislature closer to the people of the province. The only way to do that is through the bipartisan approach of select standing committees, a way that's been demonstrated to be successful in the past. If it has been successful in the past, why did we toss it out?
At one time I was the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of the day referred an extremely difficult problem to us that was of concern to all the people in the province, and that was how to manage forests in watershed areas with respect for other resources, such as water quality, fisheries and wildlife — as the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will agree, a very important concern to this day. We, with Liberal members, Conservative members and Social Credit members, travelled around the province, including Prince George, Prince Rupert, and to other areas of the province. We got the input of almost all affected groups who were willing to come before that committee, and we heard from thousands of people in the province of British Columbia.
HON. MR. VEITCH: What did you do about it?
MR. SKELLY: We filed a report with this House. I'll tell the minister that that report had an impact on decisions that were made by the government of the day; but not only by the
[ Page 2844 ]
government of the day but by the succeeding Social Credit government, because their members had participated in the drafting of that report. That was why it was so effective to have committees operating and solving problems on a multipartisan basis — or on a bipartisan basis, given the current structure of the Legislature. That's where we should be investing our bucks, if we're going to spend additional bucks in this Legislative Assembly, not in creating a separate pay scale for Socreds and opposition members. That's not going to do it, and you know it.
Interjection.
MR. SKELLY: The member wants to respond. I can recall his last response. He said: "Well, the NDP voted for parliamentary secretaries." We did, on a limited basis, because we've seen how parliamentary secretaries function in the federal House of Commons, when the minister is absent from the House and there's a need for some accountability, in terms of answering questions or participating in debate. When that minister is absent, the parliamentary secretary is there and available to respond. It's worthwhile on a limited basis, but at no time has it ever been suggested in the House of Commons that every government member be entitled to get a parliamentary secretary's wage — at no time. That would not improve the system, in any case; it would destroy the system. It would not only destroy the system of parliamentary secretaries but also undermine the fundamental equality that we need as private members in this House, in order for this House to function appropriately.
Parliamentary secretaries also have a function out in the riding. I can remember when I did a visit to the B.C. penitentiary when the Liberals were in power, back between — whatever it was — 1974 and 1979, and the federal minister who couldn't be on that tour, after a serious riot at the B.C. penitentiary, sent Art Lee, who at that time was the parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor-General. It was important to have Art Lee on that tour, in order that the federal minister's position could be represented there. It was important to do that. But there were a limited number of parliamentary secretaries who were assigned to assist, in the House of Commons, ministers who were busy and required the services of those secretaries. What we're talking about here is a limited number.
[12:30]
Mr. Chairman, the reason I stood up is that the minister seems to have a distorted view of how the people should relate to the government and to the Legislative Assembly of this province. We have absolutely no opposition to the government becoming closer to the people of the province of British Columbia. What we're concerned about is that this process does not result in that happening, and that it also undermines the ability of back-bench members of the Legislature, private members of the Legislature. It undermines our ability — if we are not Social Credit members — to represent our constituents as effectively as we might, because we don't have the same kind of benefits and privileges as do parliamentary secretaries on the Social Credit side. That's our concern.
If the minister came in with an amendment to this section of the legislation that said that it would be limited, that it would be to assist ministers who require that kind of assistance in the House or in carrying out the duties assigned to them under their portfolios, we'd vote for it, because that's a legitimate use of parliamentary secretaries. But we cannot support an unlimited appointment of parliamentary secretaries, which simply amounts to setting up a separate pay scale for Social Credit MLAs and to destroying the fundamental equality of private members in this House.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief. The member for Alberni expressed some concern with respect to the different pay scales that exist in this Legislative Assembly, and that was the thrust of his argument as recently stated. I'll advise the Legislative Assembly and the committee that there are many different pay schedules used that are at a different level from other members: the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition House Leader.... If it's the suggestion of the member for Alberni that we eliminate all those special salaries, be it parliamentary secretary, opposition House Leader, opposition leader, we may consider that.
MR. SKELLY: I know the member for Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) would like to speak, Mr. Chairman. But that's an inane suggestion, and I pointed out in my last speech.... I hope it's not a threat, because that's the very thing we're talking about. If you can give $3,000 per Social Credit member, you can also take it back at your whim in order to buy their acquiescence to government legislation, in order to buy their silence when they have a different opinion from the government.
I said in the speech I made previously in this Legislature that the House Leader — whether government or opposition — has a service to this House. Not a service to the government, but a service to this House, a service that is appropriate, that needs to be done and that involves additional energy and work expended by that member and the requirement of additional services to that member — whether it's the Whip, the Leader of the Opposition, or the parliamentary secretaries, in a limited way — providing the service that parliamentary secretaries provide to ministers in this Legislature.
You're the ones who compare our House and the federal House; there are a limited number of parliamentary secretaries in the federal House. This provision isn't a back-door way of creating a separate pay scale for government members, which undermines the independence of members in this House and buys their acquiescence to government programs. Don't threaten the members of this Legislature....
MS. CAMPBELL: I'd like to participate in this debate, which I think is an excellent one. I would like to compliment the members on both sides of the House for raising some very interesting issues. I'd like to suggest that the hon. member for Alberni's conception of what parliamentary secretaries should do in this House — based on the standard in the federal parliament — is not a complete discussion of this issue.
The issue he raises is an important one, and it's very appropriate to be discussed in this House. But I think that many of the problems that we're talking about today with respect to this section of the bill really relate to the size of our House and the implications of certain structural changes that we make in this House with respect to the size, which is very small. In other words, we have a House where the government side consists of 46 members. We have a relatively small cabinet now, but there have been times in this parliament when the cabinet has been 22 or 23.
MR. BLENCOE: You have eight.
[ Page 2845 ]
MS. CAMPBELL: I'm talking about members of cabinet, not parliamentary secretaries or ministers of state.
MR. BLENCOE: Eight superministers.
MS. CAMPBELL: Oh, forgive me. I haven't stood up for a day or two; I've been out of the House, and I must be losing my touch by not picking up on the irony of the hon. member for Victoria.
We have a situation where, in theory, if every minister had a parliamentary secretary, that would certainly employ a large number of the government back-benchers. Therefore the concerns the hon. member raises are legitimate and real ones to be considered. The problems created by the size of our House reflect on a number of things that have been discussed; for example, the activity of legislative committees.
I chair a legislative committee of this House to which business was referred in the last session. In fact, we had a great deal of difficulty in convening the members of that committee, because members of the Legislature are extremely busy now — even back-benchers, even opposition back-benchers. Our schedules are very full, and it is very difficult to staff committees on a continuing basis. But it is easier to staff committees now in this House with 12 more members than existed in previous governments. That is why I have every expectation that the legislative committees will function more and have more business referred to them, because there are more bodies. It is a more realistic approach.
With respect to the role of parliamentary secretaries, I would suggest that the issue is much less clear than the member for Alberni suggests. I have been rereading recently the diaries of Richard Crossman who was a cabinet minister in the Labour government of Harold Wilson from 1964 to 1970. I see the member for Nanaimo laughing. It's a great pity, because they are among the best....
Interjection.
MS. CAMPBELL: Well, they're not too esoteric for me, hon. member. I do have an IQ in three digits, and I'm prepared to stand up in this House and discuss these things. The hon. member's intellectual condescension is often very hard to take, but it may surprise him to know that I do read those diaries without moving my lips and I am able to understand them. I don't even run my finger along the lines as I read them; I'm actually able to read and comprehend them. They are a brilliant exposition of cabinet government.
But I would point out that in the British parliament, for example, when Richard Crossman was the Minister of Housing and Local Government, he had two parliamentary secretaries. Those parliamentary secretaries were actually assigned by him to specific areas of his responsibility in the ministry. In other words, he delegated great responsibility to them. They met with interest groups, lobby groups and local groups around the country. They traveled around Britain and met with him in London. They functioned very much as junior ministers, although they weren't junior ministers and didn't have cabinet status.
Interjection.
MS. CAMPBELL: Well, there are many hundreds of members in the British House, and therefore it is very interesting to see how the parliamentary secretaries functioned, because they have a large cabinet and a large parliament.
The point is, I think what the hon. member raises is an important issue and one worth discussing, but the issue in this particular section of the bill is whether there should be a limit to the number of parliamentary secretaries who can be appointed. That raises the question as to what the conceptual basis for that number is. Should every minister be entitled to a parliamentary secretary, or should only some ministers be entitled to a parliamentary secretary? Should a parliamentary secretary work for two ministers, or should a parliamentary secretary...? And I would point out that the financial emolument to parliamentary secretaries is, in my view, very modest and hardly an incentive to take on a job which would double the workload of most MLAs.
I think what we're really getting down to here is the point that the government has asked the House to authorize the possibility of an increase in the number of parliamentary secretaries. There are ministers in this House who I think could be well served by having a parliamentary secretary of their own. I would respectfully suggest that the way parliamentary secretaries are functioning in the current government is not out of phase with the way parliamentary secretaries function in other parliamentary systems, and that this a perfectly appropriate piece of legislation for the government to bring in.
I think the other issues we're discussing about how the Legislature functions and the role of parliamentary secretaries in general are best discussed on another occasion in another forum. I think they might well be discussed through the committee on internal economy and some of the other structures that we have set up in this House to discuss these particular issues.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 2, the member for Burnaby North — I'm sorry, the member for Prince Rupert.
MR. MILLER: The confusion on the Chair's part I think mirrors the confusion on the government's part when it comes to the parliamentary secretaries. I was really interested in the remarks of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey with regard to the system of government and the need for parliamentary secretaries. I must confess that my IQ is perhaps not large enough or doesn't have enough numbers in it to figure out what she was saying. Perhaps some of the members on the other side of the House might be suffering the same fate at this moment.
In fact, there is such a hodgepodge of parliamentary secretaries responsible to so many ministers, and ministers of state, ministers for this and ministers for that. that they all might require the IQ of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey to figure out exactly what their job is. Certainly we are having some difficulty fully understanding what the government's intent is by lifting the ceiling on the number of parliamentary secretaries in this new approach to the regions of our province. My experience with government is that you appoint a cabinet on a number of considerations. and I would hope that talent would be one of the foremost. From time to time, without casting any aspersions on the opposite side, people are revealed for their lack of talent and are subsequently removed. Certainly a premier, in making up his cabinet, also
[ Page 2846 ]
looks at the regions that various members come from, because he's cognizant of the fact that there has to be that kind of regional representation in the makeup of the cabinet, so that all British Columbians are really represented.
I might note that for a good number of years there have been — and I'll stick to the north; I won't deal with other areas of the province in my address — at least two.... Sorry, there are three members in the cabinet who represent the regions of the northern part of this province. Adjoining my own constituency we have the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) from Skeena, the hon. House Leader from the Prince George area, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) from the Peace River area. One would logically conclude that these very able gentlemen are able to represent, with some conviction at the cabinet table, the interests of the northern part of this province. Given that consideration, I'm wondering why they have to appoint ministers of state. Why does the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers) have to be appointed to represent the Nechako region? Is there some failure on the part of the northern members of cabinet to carry forward the arguments for and representation of the northern part of this province? It could be interpreted as an admission of failure.
At the federal level there have been parliamentary secretaries for a number of years. In fact, I did some hasty research and got a book that doesn't require a three-figure IQ to read. It's by Norman Ward: Dawson's The Government of Canada. It makes some references to parliamentary secretaries. I just want to briefly quote some of them and try to put them in the context of the debate we're having today. I had to go to my colleague from Nanaimo to get the meaning of a particular word. I'll just cite the sentence here.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: No, my dictionary is in my office, but I didn't have time to go and get it.
"From time to time one or two members would appear in the ministry — that is, chosen by the Prime Minister to be his advisers — who were not in the cabinet and, since the Second World War, a fairly large, penumbral group of parliamentary secretaries." Well, I understand the word "penumbral" means shadowy. A fair number of shadowy people are being given a job in this bill. They're going to be flying up to constituencies they don't represent, to represent the people in those areas. And believe me, I think the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has spoken with some passion about his feelings there.
HON. MR. VEITCH: He's on board now.
MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Minister, in relation to the open negotiations you had with the member for Omineca, I wonder whether you are giving him a ride or taking him for a ride.
[12:45]
HON. MR. STRACHAN: He'll find out.
MR. MILLER: He'll find out, and I can assure you, it might not be pleasant.
We also have to look at our experience to date with this government in terms of their argument that really they want to have a better voice for the region; they want to listen. When we talk about listening, I guess we talk about a poll that says there's some 61 percent opposition to the privatization of highways maintenance, which the government doesn't want to listen to. The BCGEU doesn't like it, Mr. Minister, and I don't think you can make a convincing argument that they do like it. It's a pretty sad day when people have to resort to that sort of thing because they fear for their jobs. People shouldn't have to buy their jobs, Mr. Minister.
It's interesting that the federal Department of Fisheries has just brought in some regulations so that fishermen don't have to buy their jobs on fishboats. It's too bad this government wouldn't pay attention to that.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: I'm against people having to buy their jobs, Mr. Member.
I wonder why the government, in the spirit of listening to people, chose to ignore the recommendations of a committee that toured this province, went the length and breadth of this province, dealing with liquor. Yet the members — 90 percent of whom are, if I'm not mistaken, on the payroll — can quite easily dismiss a report from their own colleagues recommending against an action of the government. That's another important point when we come to the whole issue of parliamentary secretaries, because another very important feature of government which this rookie back bench has learned all too quickly is solidarity. We never hear them speaking out with any kind of conviction in opposition to government initiatives. It's only the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) who has the conviction to do that.
I listened with interest to the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), who's a parliamentary secretary. I listened with interest to his remarks this morning, because I've always liked to pay attention to that member since I heard his maiden speech, when he proudly proclaimed that he'd worked eight months without a day off. I wondered then and I'm still wondering, Mr. Member.... The topic of your speech was the commitment of government to downsize government. Don't you think that applies to the cabinet and the parliamentary secretaries? Man, you've just upsized it in this bill. Ninety percent of you are on the payroll. Why aren't you up speaking against it, Mr. Member, if you're in favour of downsizing? Or is it one rule for the people who sit in this House on the government side and another rule for the people of British Columbia?
I also have some deep concerns in relation to my job. I was elected to represent the members of my constituency. I want to tell you that I do that regardless of the political stripe of people who approach me for assistance. I can't say, unfortunately, that the same attitude exists on the other side of the House. I recall, and I'm sure other members recall....
Interjections.
MR. MILLER: It's unfortunate that the level of din in this House is so great. It must indicate that the members don't want to listen to what I'm saying.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.
MR. MILLER: I recall vividly the last election. The reason the person who ran against me lost is that the only argument he put forward was: "Vote for me, because if you
[ Page 2847 ]
don't have a member on the government side, this constituency will not get anything." That was the sum and substance of the argument used by the Social Credit Party during the last election. You're the same Social Credit Party now presenting a bill in this House saying: "We want to listen to the people; we want to have regional representation."
Perhaps the Provincial Secretary will respond to some of the specific questions I'm raising. Is that the reason why, when there's a press release when a minister goes out and makes a grant in some particular constituency, and those press releases roll across our desks, when it's in a Social Credit riding the name of the member is on the press release, but when it's in an NDP riding it's not? Is that something that's going to convince me that this government has some honest intent in terms of the role of the MLA? Should I believe the letter I received from the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker)?
MS. CAMPBELL: You objected to having your names on the press releases.
MR. MILLER: I never objected, Madam Member. We'll get into that. In fact....
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's have some order, please. You know, I must say that although the impassioned debate that's been going on here for the last hour has thoroughly impressed me, I'm having difficulty in finding relevancy in some of the things that are being said. Maybe the members would quit embracing while I'm....
There is another rule we have here — I don't think it's been brought up in this session — with respect to repetition. I would be the last one to stifle debate in this House, but I feel compelled to remind members of these two things, as we do from time to time.
If the member for Prince Rupert would like to continue, I would be pleased to hear what he has to say.
MR. MILLER: Am I constrained from repeating what other people have said, or just what I have said?
Nonetheless, I think the point the point I'm making.... It's difficult to determine the principle in terms of this bill. It's obvious to me that the intent of the bill is to lift the ceiling on the number of parliamentary secretaries to accommodate the government's restructuring in terms of appointments of ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries in regions of this province. I thought I was dealing specifically with that, in terms of my concerns that the actions of the government to date belie what their stated intention is. I think I am to the point in raising those concerns relative to this debate.
Before I was interrupted by the members opposite who don't like to listen but like to follow orders. I was talking about my concern that as an elected member for my constituency, I can now cite several instances where my involvement in the process, whether in terms of grants for a theatre in my constituency or other issues, has been ignored and, in fact....
HON. MR. VEITCH: No, no, no.
MR. MILLER: We'll discuss this, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I don't want to depart from the principle of the bill, so don't interrupt me on that point.
My efforts as an elected member for my constituency have been subverted to some extent by the actions of the government. It's clear if you look around the province. Just another example: there are highway signs up in this province that have the MLA's name on them. Is it not a curiosity that those only exist in Social Credit constituencies?
Interjections.
MR. MILLER: Well, the member for Point Grey.... Do you have any highways, Madam Member?
When I look at the system the government is proposing, I have a great deal of trepidation about what they want to impose on the system that we already have. I've stated a number of times that if the government would only try to make the system we have work better. we could probably have better and more reasonable government in this province. I said quite some time ago that there's been a lot of lip service paid to the concept of parliamentary committees. We haven't seen a parliamentary committee system really take hold yet. I was on a committee system that toured the Gulf Islands. I was pleased to be part of it. The members from both sides gained a lot of information, and eventually we'll be making a report. It may even be a unified report: I can’t say at this point. Nonetheless, it works.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry to remind you that your time limit is up under standing orders, and unless someone can stand up and say something, you'll not only be the penumbral member but the penultimate one as well.
MR. ROSE: Well. I was so fascinated with the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Rupert that I left my office, where I had the squawk-box on, and I was pulled almost as if through a kind of magnetism, to this chamber. So I would greatly appreciate it if I could defer my speech at this time, so that we could hear the concluding remarks of the hon. member.
MR. MILLER: Thanks to my colleague, who just took up a couple of minutes of my speech time.
Going back to a number of questions relative to the system, whom do the ministers of state report to? Whom do the parliamentary secretaries report to? Again, my understanding of the parliamentary system is that the cabinet is bound by solidarity; I would think that the parliamentary secretaries would also be bound. In other words. the interests of the cabinet and the government come before the interests that they particularly represent. That is undeniable, and you will find that out. You've already found it out, because none of you stands up and speaks with any conviction against the government. Your first commitment is to the cabinet.
Interjection.
MR. MILLER: I've differed with my party, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). So far, the only one on your side I've seen, and the one you won't pay attention to, is the member for Cariboo.
In other words, as parliamentary secretaries attached to the cabinet in some respects, your priority and your commitment are to the cabinet, not to the region. My commitment is to the region I represent.
[ Page 2848 ]
The last Trudeau government — because they never had any members west of Ontario — used senators as their regional voices. I recall a less-than-flattering handle that a good friend of mine once hung on Senator Perrault. It was Frank Howard, who was no stranger to this House, who once referred to Ray Perrault as "the hon. the empty pork-barrel from Burnaby-Seymour." Because his job in the Dawson's reference bears this out; he's supposed to act as a spokesmen, advocate and dispenser of patronage. This brings in another fear that I have: that you're setting up an elaborate system of patronage dispensation that will allow you to have a patronage system in this province that has never been seen before, that will make the Maritimes look like pikers.
Interjections.
MR. MILLER: Well, I don't know. I think it has been proven; unfortunately, it has been proven in court.
I think I've provided some fairly good reasons; I'll just put another one into the record. It's been talked about before: the rather foolish notion that somehow a member who represents one region of the province can travel, whether it's to the Peace River.... I can assure you, Mr. Minister of Education, if we were proposing this, and we were the government, and we were going to send somebody from Vancouver Island up to your region, you'd be on your feet yelling.
I think it is a foolish notion that, because you don't have enough elected members in every region, you've had to resort to appointing members from — for example — Vancouver Island to come up to my constituency and the Minister of Forests' constituency. You have members from Okanagan South who are going to go up north and somehow represent the interests of the people of that region.
I can assure you that the parliamentary secretaries are going to have a very difficult task, because I don't think they are going to be able to just walk in and chair — or be vice-chairmen of — regional committees and have the people in those areas respond to them or take them seriously.
[1:00]
I can assure you — and I'm looking at the member for Cowichan (Mr. Bruce).... Come on up to Prince Rupert, and we'll give you some advice. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I see the time is almost up. So it's with some reluctance that I move we end this debate.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's been a great debate, punctuated at times with relevancy.
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 1:01 p.m.