[ Page 2849 ]
Routine Proceedings
Tabling Documents –– 2849
Oral Questions
Privatization of highway maintenance. Mr. Harcourt –– 2849
Referral of Bill 28 to Fisher commission. Mr. G. Hanson –– 2849
Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota –– 2850
Indian language training at College of New Caledonia. Mrs. Boone –– 2851
Sale of tree nursery. Mr. Clark –– 2851
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Committee stage.
(Hon. B. R. Smith) –– 2851
Mr. Clark
Mr. Lovick
Hon. Mr. Veitch
Mr. Williams
Mr. Sihota
Mr. Crandall
Mr. Cashore
Ministerial Statement
Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2862
Mr. Miller
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Committee stage.
(Hon. B. R. Smith) –– 2863
Mr. Cashore
Hon. Mr. Veitch
Mr. Clark
Mr. Sihota
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Miller
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Skelly
Mr. Guno
Hon. Mr. Rogers
The House met at 2:11 p.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have a long-time servant of the people of British Columbia, particularly in the municipality of Burnaby, Mr. Vic Stusiak. I would ask this House to bid him welcome.
MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today we have some 90 grade 10 students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School; at the moment we have 30 in the gallery, and the other 60 will be coming along to see us as the day progresses. These young people are accompanied by Mrs. Trimmer, who's a counsellor, and by Mr. Finnegan, who is a student teacher. I would ask the hon. members to make them really welcome here this afternoon.
MR. BRUCE: A number of colleagues of mine here in the House have been wondering why I haven't been making any introductions; they were wondering if everything was all right in Cowichan-Malahat. Today I'd like to tell you that things are as wonderful as they possibly can be in Cowichan-Malahat. Today two of my very good friends, the treasurer of the party constituency, Jim Painter, and his good wife Shirley are here to spend a little time in the House to see all the wonderful work that we do here on behalf of the constituents of the province of British Columbia. I'd ask that you bid them a nice warm welcome.
Hon. L. Hanson tabled the sixty-sixth annual report of the liquor distribution branch for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1987.
MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today is a friend of ours in Victoria, Joyce Heynsbroek, a person who has worked many years as a nurse and who cares deeply about the quality of health care in this province. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her today.
Oral Questions
PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
MR. HARCOURT: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On the weekend he took the occasion to publicly dissociate himself from the position that the former Minister of Highways, first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), has taken on privatization. I'd like to ask the Minister of Environment and Parks whether he agrees with the Labour minister or with the first member for Cariboo.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: A very interesting question. I hear alleged reports of statements made by two members. I haven't seen either statement, so it's very hard for me to comment.
[2:15]
MR. HARCOURT: It's a very straightforward question. Do you agree with the privatization of the highways service — yes or no?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.
MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services and Housing: does he agree with privatization. or is he going to listen to the former Highways minister about the dangers of privatizing the highways?
MR. SPEAKER: Before the minister answers, I would have to caution the Leader of the Opposition that questions must fall within the administrative responsibility of the minister. If the Leader of the Opposition were to ask the minister questions within his own department.... But to canvass the government members as to a statement of another minister.... If he were to check with May, page 339, he would find that it's not in the parliamentary tradition.
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, and they've heard the response of the first member for Cariboo. Thev're not unaware. They can't be wilfully blind, when the first member for Cariboo, ex-Minister of Highways, has made a very clear public statement. I'm asking them whether they agree with that position from the first member for Cariboo. Yes or no? It's a very simple, straightforward question.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition's question is out of order. If he wants to ask the minister a question relating to his own department....
MR. HARCOURT: In terms of clarifying the statements made by the first member for Cariboo?
MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If you want to put that question to the Minister of Transportation, that's fine. But to start canvassing cabinet members on another member's department....
MR. HARCOURT: I think that's entirely appropriate. After all, the advice that the Minister of Highways has had.... The ex-Minister of Highways and three ex-deputy ministers are saying that to privatize the maintenance of the roads of this province is going to harm the public. Does he agree with the ex-Minister of Highways, or is he one of the sheep we just heard baaing over there?
REFERRAL OF BILL 28
TO FISHER COMMISSION
MR. G. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Given the fact that British Columbia has appointed an electoral commissioner, Justice Thomas Fisher, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if he's decided to refer the provisions of Bill 28 to Justice Fisher for his consideration and opinion on this very sensitive matter.
HON. MR. VEITCH: That's future action, Mr. Speaker. I won't offend the rules of the House.
[ Page 2850 ]
MR. G. HANSON: I asked if the minister had decided to refer this sensitive matter to Justice Fisher.
I'll go on to another question. Other provinces in Canada and the federal government have permanent, independent electoral commissions that make recommendations to government with respect to election machinery matters. Given the antiquated electoral machinery in British Columbia, why not refer this matter to Justice Fisher for a fair and impartial assessment, rather than tinker... disfranchising British Columbians of their right to vote, which they have in the Charter of Rights and which the United Nations has conventions on?
HON. MR. VEITCH: This hon. member has a private member's bill before the House. We have Bill 28 before the House. We have a royal commission. He's been around here long enough to know that he ought not offend the rules of this House. His question is completely and absolutely out of order, and I will not honour him by answering it.
MR. G. HANSON: I'm asking the Provincial Secretary why he's afraid to have this handled in a fair and impartial manner.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm not afraid of anything. I just don't believe in offending the rules of parliament.
VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have with me here in the House a report prepared by Brown Farris and Jefferson Ltd. with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's a report that has been kept under wraps by the provincial government for some eight and a half years because of its devastating conclusions.
My question to the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for the stock exchange, is as follows. This report concludes that the odds of losing overall on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are 84 percent — in other words, five out of six small investors lose; that 27 to 37 cents on every dollar spent on the stock exchange ever realizes a venture; and that an incredible 48 cents of every dollar invested on the stock market goes to promoters and brokers on the stock exchange. Does the minister understand that, and what steps does he intend to take to implement the recommendations of this report?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, we dramatically increased the funding to the opposition party's research group so that they could do a more effective job of preparing themselves. If we're going to be dealing, on a subject as dynamic as the stock exchange, with a report that's eight years old which wouldn't recognize all the changes we've put in place, the new act, the new regulations and the new personalities, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand whether the questioner is really serious.
MR. SIHOTA: That was just more huff and puff from the minister of fluff over there.
The report suggests that the system of betting on lotteries and on horse-racing is fairer than the system on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. The report indicates that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is not achieving its goal of raising venture capital for worthwhile projects. The report is suggesting that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is a rigged game; it amounts to legalized theft. Will the minister agree to immediately consult with the drafters of this report with a view to finding out whether they would cooperate with the minister to update the findings of the report?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: The report and the conclusions drawn in the report, by the questioner's own admission, are eight years old. Since the time the report was prepared, we have had put in place by this government a new Securities Act, we have created a Securities Commission, we have brought in new regulations, and we have added significantly to the staff and to the budget of the Securities Commission.
The Vancouver Stock Exchange has been very aggressively working on some of the historical problems — and making dramatic progress in addressing them, I might add. The facts today are entirely different than the facts alluded to eight years ago. I'm very pleased to stand up today and say that we have made significant progress towards the objective of bringing the Vancouver Stock Exchange to a higher degree of maturity, and I refer, as indication of that fact, to all the changes that I've just alluded to.
MR. SIHOTA: The minister obviously does not understand that the new Securities Act does not touch upon the issues raised in this report; the minister obviously does not understand that the new securities regulations do not touch upon the recommendations made in this report; the minister does not understand that some of the changes that have come down with respect to personnel and their mandate do not deal with the provisions of this act and its recommendations. The question to the minister is simply this: has he read the Brown Farris and Jefferson report?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read the report.
MR. SIHOTA: In light of that, obviously the minister cannot say that the new securities legislation, the new rules that have been brought forward by the government with respect to these reports, embraces and deals in any way with the recommendations made in this report. Will the minister explain to this House which of the recommendations in this report have been implemented and brought about in terms of addressing those changes through the new Securities Act regulations? What are these recommendations, and how have they been dealt with in the new Securities Act, Mr. Minister?
Interjections.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I must agree with some of the asides here. The issue of the Vancouver Stock Exchange has been the subject of much sensational news reporting, and has given the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the material for some useful questions. I think it has also provided us with the opportunity to make some explanations as to what we are doing, what our objectives are, and how we are going to get there.
I repeat again that the operating style of the Vancouver Stock Exchange is something that this government is very sensitive to, and it is one that we are monitoring on a constant basis. I also reiterate that in the judgment of this government
[ Page 2851 ]
the Vancouver Stock Exchange provides a unique opportunity for us to use its potential in a way that enhances the development of Vancouver as a financial centre. We are ever cognizant of that prime objective, and everything we are doing in terms of regulations and in terms of legislation is aimed to that grander goal.
For the member from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to use this opportunity in what is obviously a pretty dull question period to further identify for personal gain the situation does a disservice, I think, to the economic opportunities this province faces. This government is prepared to make sure that the Vancouver Stock Exchange fulfils all its opportunities. If the member has any concrete suggestions which might be useful on a daily basis, we'd be pleased to hear them.
INDIAN LANGUAGE TRAINING
AT COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA
MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. Bill Gilgan, your appointee to the board of directors of the College of New Caledonia, has gone out of his way to make critical remarks about the Indian language training. These remarks have been interpreted as racist and damaging to the credibility of CNC. Given your government's support for Indian language training in the throne speech, has the minister decided to reconsider his appointment of Bill Gilgan?
HON. S. HAGEN: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.
SALE OF TREE NURSERY
MR. CLARK: A question to the minister of privatization; I guess that's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I have here a copy of the Buy and Sell newspaper, and next to the ads selling used furniture is an ad selling a used forest nursery worth several million dollars. Could the minister explain the government's privatization ad campaign, and specifically, was the ad placed in the Buy and Sell because it's located in Richmond, or is it a specific market niche, that of used furniture buyers, that we're aiming at?
[2:30]
HON. MR. DAVIS: After I have had an opportunity to read the interesting ad, I'll endeavour to reply to the hon. member.
MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could give us a ballpark figure as to the expenditure of taxpayers' money on ads like those we see in the Buy and Sell.
HON. MR. DAVIS: Inexpensive, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take further notice of that ad.
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: 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.
MR. CLARK: I'm glad the minister responsible for privatization is here, because I managed to look at a clipping from March, 1985, where the minister — before he was a minister — talked about parliamentary secretaries. I must say it was one of the most eloquent arguments I've seen yet against the need for parliamentary secretaries in this House. That was, of course, before he got into the cabinet and followed the lines that the former Minister of Highways has mentioned, and that was also before we had this section of the bill, which deals with unlimited parliamentary secretaries. So the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) goes on at great length in one of the best speeches I've read for a long time in this House, and I'd like to paraphrase some of the things he says.
"Parliamentary secretaries are hired guns who extend cabinet's grip over the Legislature, says..." — a Socred back-bencher; I won't read his name; I guess that's not parliamentary. "The eight newly created secretaries, drawn from the government back benches, will get $3,000 a year in addition to their basic $40,000 salaries.... Davis," — oh, excuse me; I shouldn't say that, I guess — "an outspoken MLA from North Vancouver-Seymour, says the positions are costly perks that have altered the nature of the 57-member Legislature and weakened parliamentary democracy in the province.
"The secretaries were itching to be cabinet ministers, said Davis, and owed their allegiance to cabinet. A parliamentary secretary has to watch his or her step, because they are a hired gun, 'he said in an interview.' They are not a free member. They are a hired gun by the Crown, the Premier and the cabinet. They toe the line. The Premier appoints them. He can unappoint them. The Crown is the Premier, cabinet and parliamentary secretaries, which makes up just over half the House.'"
Now to paraphrase, the member from North Vancouver-Seymour stated that in the federal House, a House of close to 300, they have about ten parliamentary secretaries, but in the provincial House at that time with 57, we were going to have ten as well, and that was a completely different thing — an order of magnitude different from the federal House.
But now we have a section of a bill before us which makes it unlimited, which, as some members have indicated, means there will only be five members on the government side of the House who aren't getting $3,000 more than the basic MLA salary. So all members on the government side of the House will be paid more than all members on the opposition side of the House. More importantly, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, it alters the nature of democracy by creating a two-tiered level of democracy. It means that in fact the cabinet extends its grip on the back-benchers, so that they keep silent in the face of what could be opposition to the kinds of initiative we've seen.
MR. WILLIAMS: Hush money.
MR. CLARK: Hush money; I like that. That's very good. Therefore the only members who have the opportunity to speak out on these matters are those four or five poor backbenchers who don't get a chance to act that $3,000. We know that already one of them — the former Minister of Highways
[ Page 2852 ]
— has made clear his unequivocal opposition to the direction the government is taking them in.
Let me just go through some of the remarks made by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, since he is still in the House. Maybe he'd like to respond. Maybe his views have changed now that he's in cabinet. He's in rather than out, as he was when he made these comments.
"The great debate that has gone on down the years about the survival of parliament has really revolved around the executive as distinct from the generality of members. The executive in the United Kingdom and Ottawa, and most places, has been small compared to the totality of members. Here we have an executive, if you extend it to include parliamentary secretaries, that is over half the House. This is remarkable. This is unusual.
"The secretaries were sworn to secrecy, he said. 'But they are not in cabinet meetings, so they are not totally privy to everything that is going on in government. Nevertheless, they have one limited area of secrecy: aspirations to get into the cabinet. So they are now, through pay and through oath and through aspirations, tied to the Crown'" — and tied therefore to the cabinet.
That is what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said when we were looking at six new parliamentary secretaries. This bill gives unequivocal, unlimited rights to the cabinet to extend their grip on the caucus, to include all but five members of the government side. So rather than being half of the House, as the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, we now have two-thirds of the House, or more, who are basically bound by the oath of secrecy or by cabinet solidarity, or bound to support the government in all its endeavours.
Incidentally, you have other perks that go along with the job of parliamentary secretary, which weakens the role of the opposition. For example, they have the ability to be absent from the House for more than ten days before money is docked from them, unlike members of the opposition, who lose $200 a day if they miss more than ten days. Parliamentary secretaries, like the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat), can therefore be absent from the House, campaigning on behalf of the government, selling the government's message, without any loss of pay.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this offends the very reason for parliamentary democracy. As the member for North Vancouver said at an earlier stage, very clearly this offends the very reason we have parliament, the very reason we have a cabinet as distinct from the generality of members. We should be very cognizant of it and very vigilant that we don't extend that privilege and that power of the executive to all members on the government side of the House. I think, quite frankly, it has dangerous precedents. Those remarks, you must remember, were stated when we were only looking at a very modest increase in the practice of parliamentary secretaries. This offends it even more, because it doesn't even limit it. It doesn't limit it to 15 or to 20. It is unlimited on the part of the cabinet to extend their grip onto the back bench.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stand here and oppose this section of the bill. I think other members on this side of the House will be doing so. I hope to participate in a debate at some later date.
MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. JACOBSEN: Earlier, Mr. Chairman, you introduced the first group of the visiting students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School, the grade 10 students. I understand that the next group is now in the Legislature. On behalf of yourself and myself, I would ask the members to give them a warm welcome.
MR. LOVICK: I'm devastated to discover that my colleague the hon. member from the other side of the House is not speaking to this bill. I was quite looking forward to hearing his words on the subject. So please forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I am not as prepared as I should like to be.
I didn't have the advantage of being in the House for all of the Provincial Secretary's opening comments on the measure, and therefore I have had to take him secondhand, as it were, and read good chunks of the Blues. I have read good chunks of it, and I must confess, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that I'm a little disappointed that I don't see the kind of ringing and eloquent defence for which you are so justly famous. Indeed, I'm a little concerned, because I heard a statement made earlier today, in question period as it happened, when in response to a question from one of my colleagues the Provincial Secretary said: "I just don't believe in offending the rules of parliament." It strikes me that what we have in this miscellaneous statutes amendment to the Constitution Act is a paradigm case of offending the rules of parliament.
I hope that the minister will respond to these suggestions, because I would love to engage him in debate on this subject. I hope he will pick up my challenge.
Let me present to him why that is the case. The predicament we are dealing with here, of course, is that what the measure amounts to is a significant restructuring of government. We are talking about a large expansion of the role of parliamentary secretary. One of the defences that the Provincial Secretary has used quite consistently throughout, Mr. Chairman, is: why should you complain if it's not costing any money? In other words, if individuals are effectively fulfilling the roles of parliamentary secretary, they don't have those rights and they don't have those duties by fiat from the Legislature; but as long as it's not costing us money, says the Provincial Secretary, we should not be exercised or concerned about that. I want to suggest to the Provincial Secretary — and I invite him to respond — that that amounts to a blurring of distinctions that is a retrograde step for parliament. It is not just a matter of money. To be sure, most of the great debates and the great struggles for the supremacy of parliament have been built around the principle of a right to spend the public's money without consultation. But embedded within that struggle and underlying that struggle about money is another one: that governors do not presume to govern until they have the consent of the governed, until they have gone through the correct procedures to create individuals and to create duties, to create functions and to create roles that the people, through their elected representatives, decide they wish to have created.
To be quite blunt about it, the question of whether the individuals are being paid for the duties they perform is quite irrelevant, quite beside the point. What my colleagues have
[ Page 2853 ]
consistently said throughout this debate thus far is that we should not have had these roles of parliamentary secretaries being fulfilled in any way, shape or form until such time as the mandate was granted by this Legislature. That's the fundamental principle.
Rather than burden the minister with 20 different points, perhaps I can stop there and let him respond to that one to begin with, if he wishes.
HON. MR. VEITCH: This has been an interesting couple of days, and I had a weekend in which to do other things. You remember that when we left last Friday I was almost negotiating with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he suggested that if he had a plane ride up to Burns Lake or someplace he would be fully on side with this initiative.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Point Grey got up and, in her own eloquent way, ably defended the proposition of parliamentary secretaries and, indeed, went back a little into history. Then the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) complained that his name was not showing up in press releases and was not on highway signs — at least that's what I gathered from it all. I'm wondering if there is some kind of quid pro quo there that I ought to establish as well. Maybe he ought to be talking with the member for Omineca, and I could take them both up to Bums Lake, and they could put their names on a highway sign or something.
Two or three years ago we went around this country on a committee on private bills, and we talked about re-establishing the rules of this House. At that time, one of the initiatives that came forward — not to a large extent but to some extent from the House Leader at this time.... He told me and the members of that committee what a wonderful job the parliamentary secretary system did in Ottawa at the federal House.
We came to a vote here in this House, and I didn't see one member of that opposition stand up and vote against the principle of parliamentary secretaries. They accepted it 100 percent, Mr. Chairman — and you were chairman of that committee at that time. They supported it 100 percent.
[2:45]
The hon. member over there talks about representation. He suggests — I guess his thesis is — that you ought to represent only the people within your own riding. Is that what you're saying, hon. member, that you ought not to talk to anybody from any other place or any other riding?
Interjection.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, you. If that's what it is, then I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to stay the heck out of Burnaby-Willingdon. Because he comes through there quite often, and he probably does himself more harm than good in the process.
You are elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for British Columbia. The fact that you represent a particular riding doesn't mean that you don't vote here on other issues or do other things. I fail to see the logic of that particular argument. If the NDP were correct in supporting the principle of parliamentary secretaries a couple of years ago, then that principle exists today and is just as valid today as it was a couple of years ago. You can't have it both ways.
I believe the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) was talking about history. The history of parliamentary secretaries goes back an awfully long ways. I read that out to you when I introduced this subject to the House a few days ago. It's a time-tested tradition in the British parliament, and it will continue to be so. As we change the way we govern, as we come into — not the 19th century, we don't have our minds locked into the industrial revolution — this new era that we're in now, the role of people like parliamentary secretaries will grow even more and more important. Government will change. You must change. If you don't want to, you'll stay in opposition all the rest of your life. That's entirely up to you.
MR. LOVICK: I'm almost apoplectic when I listen to these comments, because I recognize that the Provincial Secretary and I are working on parallel streams: we do not converge. I posed a very simple, finite, direct, specific kind of question. Sadly, there has been no effort, it would seem, to answer that question. I'm sorry about that because I do want to focus on that point, which I think is the most significant and fundamental principle involved.
Let me address, however briefly, the point you made about the principle of parliamentary secretary. None of us on this side of the House, as nearly as I can comprehend and understand from my reading of the debate thus far, has said that parliamentary secretaries as a species are the problem. What we are arguing, rather, is the justification for significantly — radically — increasing the numbers of parliamentary secretaries on the one hand, and on the other hand, doing so apparently without legislative approval. That's what my question was about.
My whole question was that you have in effect created these jobs. You've got people apparently stumping the province, claiming to be parliamentary secretaries, claiming to be serving the people, who have no mandate, no right to take that designation unto themselves. Nor have you, Mr. Provincial Secretary — through you, Mr. Chairman — the right to confer those titles and those functions and those responsibilities without coming first to the Legislature. That's the principle I'm enunciating. Once again I offer you an opportunity to respond to that one. If I'm wrong, show me.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to be tedious or repetitious, and I've already answered this question before. By the legislation that exists at the present time, there are ten parliamentary secretaries who have been granted that title by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If there are others who have not, it is the intention that when this bill is fully debated, when it has been given royal assent, when it is proclaimed, those individuals will receive that same designation by order-in-council. In fact, I think I can assure the hon. member of that. So that should put his mind at rest.
MR. LOVICK: Is the Provincial Secretary then telling me that insofar as we have gone through the legal procedure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council minutes thereof, we have addressed all the concerns we need to about legislative approval? Is that, in effect, what is being said?
HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member knows full well that you can't do by order-in-council that which is not already embodied in statute. What I'm telling the second member for Nanaimo is that there are ten parliamentary secretaries established at the present time. They function as parliamentary secretaries. There are others who are intended to become parliamentary secretaries when this piece of legislation that
[ Page 2854 ]
was not heretofore on the books has finally been established in all its form. That is what I'm telling you.
MR. LOVICK: Is it not the case that currently there are individuals who are functioning as parliamentary secretaries to the newly created ministers of state — all of whom have also been created without legislative approval — whether or not they have been paid?
HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member may or may not know that under the Constitution Act any member, even the Leader of the Opposition, may be asked to go to Ottawa, or to a ten-day conference or first ministers' conference, or he may indeed send a designate, as he did with the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). If the government asks someone to do that and the other person accedes, then that person can act in that capacity for the government. When this act is proclaimed, when it has received royal assent, I'm sure, as I've told the hon. member — and I don't want to be repetitious — that there will be some additional parliamentary secretaries. How many I do not know.
MR. LOVICK: I think the answer to the question, then, is in the affirmative. Those functions are now being performed; the only difference is that the individuals have not been formally appointed and have not been paid. I see the minister acknowledging that yes, indeed, that's the case.
The point I am trying to make, and I think it's an important one — I don't think it's a frivolous one; with all due deference, I don't believe it's a frivolous point — is that what we're looking at is a blurring of distinctions, insofar as we are saying that unless it really fits directly into somebody's rather rigorous and carefully circumscribed definition of parliamentary secretary, i.e. somebody who gets paid for a particular duty, then it's really okay to be sort of a part-time, ad hoc kind of parliamentary secretary. I think that's deplorable; I think that's wrong; I think that's a mistake.
What I want to suggest to the minister.... I suppose this is really the point I was trying to elicit. I was trying to find out if indeed I was correct in that analysis evaluation, because I want to suggest that one of the difficulties we have with the government is that that propensity for blurring distinctions is all too apparent here, Mr. Chairman. That in fact is why my colleagues and I have taken this much time on this ostensibly rather small measure in this miscellaneous statutes bill. We want to emphasize, to stress, that here indeed is a blurring of distinctions that ought not to occur.
The minister makes the claim that the role of parliamentary secretaries, of government and of MLAs is changing. The predicament, however, is that we don't respond to change by simply adapting to the change and forgetting the rules of the game that allow us to make changes so we can respond to change. This legislation is coming after the fact. We've got parliamentary secretaries out there strutting and fretting their stuff, playing out their parts to the world, showing everybody that suddenly they have new status, not to mention an extra $6,000 per or whatever. We've got that in place, and then after the fact we're told: "Well, why don't we have a talk about this business of parliamentary secretary?" I'm suggesting quite bluntly that that's putting the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse, and there's something wrong with that. It's a blurring of distinctions that ought not to be there.
In that whole argument, Mr. Chairman, that whole business about saying that we all have to somehow get on the bandwagon called change ere we get lost in the shuffle and in the course of history or some such cant.... That kind of argument, frankly, I find offensive. Because when people start talking in those terms, all too often what they're really suggesting is: "Trust us. Ignore procedure. Ignore due process. Let's get moving. Let's get something done."
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: Yes, they want us to be as bovine and sheeplike as some of the members on the other side of the House we've picked up.
I've just realized that bovine does not describe sheep, does it, Mr. Chairman?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably I can't find too much fault with the choice of words, but in the context of parliamentary language, I can't really accept those, hon. member.
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bovine and sheeplike? Perhaps you could use some other terminology and withdraw those two.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I accept the criticism. Perhaps I can clarify.... I am suggesting that if indeed hon. members opposite respond to contentious issues by saying, "Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full," and apparently not calling into question what they are being asked to do, then it seems to me that the terminology "ovine" as an adjective describing their behaviour seems somehow appropriate. If I give offence thereby, of course I apologize; I don't mean to.
My concern, however, is that we are falling into this trap, one that we have seen laid before us on a number of occasions in this Legislature, of being told that we must get behind a particular measure. I'm suggesting that the danger with that approach — albeit that the lure of activism is powerful — is that we too often, it seems to me, ignore due process and ignore proper procedure. When the Provincial Secretary says before this House that what Parliament might have been and what parliamentary secretaries might have been and what MLAs might have been was perhaps something that was connected to the era of the Industrial Revolution, that is....
HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm talking about what your mindset would be.
MR. LOVICK: Exactly. The mindset and the institutions we create in response to a mindset. I would remind the minister.
When we start from that assumption that we are somehow out of tune with the present, with the contemporary reality, I'm suggesting to the minister that what ought to be said is.... If he indeed believes that Parliament is somehow obsolete, is somehow anachronistic and has not caught up, then it's precisely that kind of measure, that kind of resolution that ought to be brought before this House for debate. Clearly the onus is on those wanting to change the rules to bring in the case and to argue the case, not to come in via some kind of back-door route.
[ Page 2855 ]
I'm afraid that when I read the debate thus far on section 2, the amendment to the Constitution Act — specifically about uncapping the numbers on parliamentary secretaries — and the defence I discover there is that perhaps the old system is obsolete, then what I want to hear is a defence from the minister in terms of why we need a new system, not simple comments and cavalier kinds of utterances to suggest that we on this side are somehow not au courant, not up to date, not contemporary. That's the point I'm making, and perhaps the minister would like to respond to that comment.
[3:00]
HON. MR. VEITCH: I think there's an old adage that if the shoe fits, one can wear it.
I'll reiterate — and I don't want to be tedious or repetitious: back at the time of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, the Premier of this province announced an initiative, an intention of government to decentralize government and to do it in a very bold manner. Part of that process, hon. member, was the appointing of several ministers of state — eight — and nine parliamentary secretaries.
At the first opportunity to bring all these things legislatively to fruition, the government placed on the order paper a piece of legislation; it's dealt with here in section 2 of this miscellaneous stats act. That is the first opportunity to help to bring to fruition that initiative.
MR. WILLIAMS: Where's the rest of it?
HON. MR. VEITCH: If you'd come around, hon. member, and visit some of the meetings and join in the process, you might find out about the rest of it, but you're not going to do it sitting here on your duff — is "duff" unparliamentary? — in Vancouver East.
But, Mr. Chairman, when...
Interjection.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I know the hon. member isn't listening; he seldom does.
...this legislation is complete in all its forms, other parliamentary secretaries may be appointed. You said that I asked you to get behind the measure; I haven't asked you to get behind the measure; I merely suggested that it might be the best thing you could do for your constituents if you wanted to keep up with this bold initiative at this point in time.
The hon. member knows full well that the process is that when you first have the opportunity, you bring in legislation, it's debated, and then, I guess, if the opposition wants to they can filibuster the debate. It's up to them.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, what we just heard from this minister of state is that if we're serious people in this democracy, what we should do is go to his meetings in the lower mainland and southwest riding, and not sit here in the Legislature of British Columbia.
You talk about mindset, Mr. Minister. Mind set. You bet. That is incredible. Out of your mouth just now you dismiss the Legislature, you show contempt for this process in terms of the parliament of this province, and say: "Don't waste your time here. Don't sit on your duff here. You come to my meeting." What damned nonsense! Come to your Grey Cup party. Come to your bun-fight. Come to your bull sessions. Come on! You think about what you said.
It's as good as we got from that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) last week when he dismissed a million for you birds, you ministers of state. He said: "It's not a potful; it's only a million." When the people of this land heard "what's a million?" from C.D. Howe some decades ago, they got rid of him forthwith, and they got rid of the government that he was part of forthwith. I suggest you think about that, Mr. Minister.
Statements like we got last week from the Minister of Finance are justification for getting rid of a government. Statements like yours are justification for getting rid of a government because it betrays a kind of arrogance. You've only been around for a year with this Premier. You have an obligation. The Premier's lieutenant briefed the press, and they said, "What we're talking about is something more radical than has ever been considered in terms of structure in this province before: a United States of British Columbia."
What's the process here, Mr. Minister? This little bit of legislation gives jobs to the boys — parliamentary secretaries. That's the legislation you bring in. At the very least, you bring in legislation that designates those regions. You haven't done that. You haven't brought anything in here that talks about why the Nechako region is a new state in British Columbia. You've come in with this miserable little thing called "jobs for the boys," and a little bit of a patronage wagon. As the Minister of Finance would say, what's a million? It's not a potful. Eight million. It's not eight potfuls. No. It just tells you something, doesn't it? It just tells you something about what it's all about.
You're saying I shouldn't sit here in this Legislature, that I should attend your 300-person party on Grey Cup weekend, that that's where the action is, and that that's the new democracy in British Columbia. I don't think you realize what you said, Mr. Minister.
Interjection.
MR. WILLIAMS: Even on a Saturday. No, you said that Saturday meeting was more important than meeting here in the Legislature today. Maybe you can unburden yourself and let us know why it was so important and what you achieved. Maybe you can establish this whole new direction that came out of those 300 people. I'm impressed; the chamber of commerce packs more weight than the Legislature. Is that what you're saying? Because you invited every chamber of commerce in the whole southwest region to your meeting. After all, we're all equals, aren't we? They all got elected in a riding in British Columbia, didn't they? No, they did not. All of your friends and lackeys come to the free party. That's in the grand tradition of the member for Little Mountain. All of the people that supported her went to a great party that was very expensive, and you're telling me....
Interjection.
MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, maybe the minister would like to jump into the debate and explain her $500-a-person bun-fight that included so many of her supporters from the Whistler convention. Maybe she'd like to explain that in some detail. But at least you, Mr. Minister, could explain in some detail why you happen to think that it is more important than meeting here in the Legislature of British Columbia.
[ Page 2856 ]
[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]
HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess some of the friends and lackeys that came to the meeting were people like Mayor Baker from New Westminster and Mayor Driscoll from Port Moody. I suggest that they are hardly friends and lackeys of our administration, or anyone else's. If the hon. member doesn't want to take some time on Saturday to go out to a meeting — I don't think that we're really debating the parliamentary secretaries when we speak of this — I take it back; don't come. Take your time on Saturday and do what you do with it, and don't do it. That's entirely up to you.
MR. SIHOTA: What a response! Somewhere between the fact and the principle.... The minister obviously didn't catch the principle and just sort of focused on whether or not people should come to parties. I don't think that was the point the previous speaker was trying to make. But that's not surprising — this minister doesn't seem to catch on to those principles.
I want to talk about something else from a different dimension. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to rise in debate on this section. But you know, an interesting kind of situation occurred in my riding during the summer. I want to talk a little about that incident and ask the minister some questions as a consequence of that incident. It's my submission that the purpose of this section is simply to do an end run around MLAs, around the democratically elected members of the Legislature who happen to be on the opposition side, to try to circumvent the democratic process that we have in this province with respect to the election of MLAs on a region-by-region, constituency-by-constituency basis, whereby people, within their given regions and constituencies, go to the polls — in this case, last October — and make decisions as to who it is from their riclings they want to fight for their interests, for all the local issues that inspire each and every one of us to get into politics, and who it is they want to speak out for them and fight for the larger provincial issues that divide us as a province.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
It seems to me that the current provincial regime simply cannot accept the verdict when it comes down on election day with respect to people on this side of the House. The assistant to the Premier, Mr. Poole, said it very clearly back in September of this year, at the UBCM, which the minister made some comments about earlier on. I don't have to repeat the quote, but the thrust of the quote was essentially that the role of MLAs is "overrated." My submission is that the purpose of decentralization and parliamentary secretaries is simply to do an end run around democratically elected MLAs. If there isn't ample proof in the statements made by Mr. Poole — and we know this is a one-man government, and the person closest to His Highness is Mr. Poole — then there's ample proof in the type of comments made by a minister of the government in my riding during the past summer while the House was recessed.
HON. MR. VEITCH: It wasn't in your riding.
MR. SIHOTA: The minister says it wasn't in my riding. I don't know if he's trying to be funny or not. The point is, Mr. Minister, it was in my riding. The comment was made by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) at a Social Credit Party gathering in my riding.
HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, we are in committee of this House and we are supposed to be debating a section of a particular statute. I'm trying very hard to find what relevance there is in any of these members' statements to section 2 of this particular statute.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. You certainly raised a good point, I must admit, and we would ask that all members.... I wouldn't want to be construed as in any way inhibiting debate on a point which the Chair appreciates is of great importance to all members, particularly members of the opposition. But we do come to the point in time when, under the rules under which we operate.... We do have fairly strict rules with respect to repetition and relevancy. I have a quotation from Sir Erskine May here which I could give you, but I think we're all quite capable of appreciating the fact that these rules are required in order that debate be orderly and that we get the people's work done in this chamber. We are getting to the point now where.... Even though the Chair has perhaps not got the best memory in this assembly, I'm hearing things for the third and fourth time. I just bring this to your attention so that we can all bear in mind the very strict requirements for relevancy, and particularly about repetition when it gets tedious and very, very repetitive.
On that basis, perhaps the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew would like to continue.
MR. SIHOTA: This is the first time I've spoken on this section, so it's difficult for me to repeat myself. But I take it that the comment was meant in a general way.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll clarify that. This is not referring to you individually, but to the general tone of comments being made by all members. Please proceed.
MR. SIHOTA: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to suggest that the minister stood up because he knew exactly where I was going, and he knew exactly why the comment I was going to make was relevant to the section before the House right now, with respect to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, because I said right at the outset....
[3:15]
HON. MR. VEITCH: Don't be cynical.
MR. SIHOTA: I'm not being cynical.
The purpose of this section, as I see it, is to do an end run around democratically elected MLAs.
The Minister of Tourism came into my riding during this past summer in a very celebrated way....
MR. MICHAEL: We've heard this before.
MR. SIHOTA: Well, you're going to hear it again. It hasn't come up in this debate. I haven't brought it up, and it certainly is worthy of coming up again, Mr. Member.
MR. WILLIAMS: It's a potential job; you should enjoy this.
[ Page 2857 ]
MR. SIHOTA: He came into my riding and said — and I will paraphrase — that if you want a highway built.... He was talking about the road to Sooke, which I happen to be lobbying on with the Minister of Highways.
HON. MR. VEITCH: What about the icebreaker?
MR. SIHOTA: We can talk about the icebreaker. I can sure as heck tell the minister that this chap over here did a lot more work on that issue than the minister ever did.
He said if you want a highway built to Sooke, then you elect a Socred member; if you want anything done in any riding in this province, you make sure you have a government member in. That was the thrust of his comment. Now that comment was criticized by all. Editorials were written about it. The Premier criticized it. Certainly I didn't waste an opportunity to chastise the minister for it. I had a duty to do that. In any event, that type of comment was made.
There are parliamentary secretaries appointed for the greater Victoria area. The parliamentary secretary responsible for the greater Victoria area does not reside in the greater Victoria area. I'm not making a personal attack on him, but he's from the Mackenzie area. He is not elected by the people of the greater Victoria area. He is certainly not elected by the people of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Yet the people of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, if I hear the government right, are being told that they must go to that parliamentary secretary because he happens to be the appointed representative, as the new parliamentary secretary, for my riding. That's an end runaround. It's a diversion from the democratic format that we have for electing people.
The thrust of the message that goes throughout the province is: "Ignore your MLA." It reinforces the outrageous point made by Mr. Poole with respect to the role of MLAs. It says we as a government don't care who is supposed to be the advocate for a particular riding and for the interests of people in that riding. It says that we want to bypass the advocate and encourage people to deal with a government lackey, with a parliamentary secretary appointed to deal with that region.
Let me tell the minister something: the people of my riding did not elect the MLA from Mackenzie. They elected me. The people from Victoria elected the two members for Victoria. They did not elect the member from Mackenzie. How dare this government consider that somehow it has got the prerogative to set up a scheme through these parliamentary secretaries to allow for that type of end runaround? How dare you do that? It's an affront to the people of my riding; it's a slap in the face to the people of the greater Victoria area; and, more important than that, it's a violation of the cherished virtues of democracy in this province. That's where this government is coming from: one-man rule with a bunch of barons set up as parliamentary secretaries around the province. It's a feudal form of government. I thought that when we did the Magna Carta in 1295, or whatever it was....
MR. CRANDALL: It was 1066.
MR. SIHOTA: That was the Battle of Hastings, for the member, who wouldn't know any better. We put an end to the type of feudal regime we used to have....
MR. LOVICK: It was in 1215.
MR., SIHOTA: I'm told by my good friend the historian that it was in the year 1215. You've decided to turn back the clock seven centuries, Mr. Minister. You've chosen for the setup of this so-called facade of decentralization — it really is centralization — for the establishment of these parliamentary secretaries, to go back seven centuries. You did it with just a flick of the pen. You do it without even thinking about the ramifications — just like a few minutes ago, when the comment was made with respect to the party in Vancouver, "Come join us in the back rooms, and let's not be involved in debate in the Legislature," without even an ounce of thought.
So it wasn't surprising when the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) came into my riding and said what he said. It was indicative of the mentality on the part of the government. The act of deception may well have been the comment made by the Premier chastising it, because although it dealt with the short-term problem of having a minister say something that was essentially, in my mind, stupid.... You deal with a short-term public relations problem that.... The reality of the government's mentality came to the fore when we saw the announcement made at the UBCM.
Now we have this crazy system of parliamentary secretaries. Does the minister not consider the appointment of these people to be an end run around the democratic process? If not, why not?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, hon. members, I believe the second member for Dewdney would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MR. JACOBSEN: I apologize for interrupting the House again, but now the third and final group of students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School is in the Legislature. I think it's nice that young people be recognized when they come here, so would the House please give them a warm welcome.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I thoroughly enjoyed the impassioned speech from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I'm pleased to know also that he's somewhat of a scholar in British history. I guess with that in mind, I can assure him that parliament has evolved a bit since the time of Cromwell, and that we do have an arrangement now where we have at least two levels of government. We have two levels of elected officials and we have the Legislature, which is there as a legislative body of which we're all part, to vote as a particular member thinks is correct in his mind, and hopefully in the best interests of those people that he or she represents.
Secondly, we have the executive branch of government, which is commonly known as the executive council, the privy council, cabinet or whatever you want to call it. For the last 75 years or so, going back into the British system, we have had either under-secretaries of state or parliamentary secretaries — call them what you want — who have been assigned by cabinets of the day to assist ministers.
Government has a right to govern. Government can have 35 members that the Premier can appoint through the Lieutenant-Governor as members of cabinet, or one member of cabinet, or as many as a Premier wishes to appoint. By that very same token, those ministers can be appointed under our present constitution to serve in any portfolio. So to say that
[ Page 2858 ]
somehow or other the executive branch of government. because it happens to go through an area such as yours and try to do good for the people in that area, to expand the service sector or the economic development sector, is somehow militating against the opportunity you have as a member leaves me absolutely cold. I fail to see your argument.
Parliamentary secretaries are a long-time institution in the British parliamentary system. They are a rather recent institution in this system; and they are evolving, just as government evolves, throughout the Commonwealth.
No one is trying to usurp your authority. If you don't want to be part of the system.... Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to assist the minister, to be aware of the needs of a particular area, region, ministry, whatever it may be. They are supported by a vast network of talent and energy, in this particular case, throughout the region. And they are asked — in fact, instructed — to work very closely with the MLAs within that particular region. If the MLAs don't want to work with the ministers of state, or don't want to work for the parliamentary secretaries, that's entirely up to that particular member. You are elected as a private member. as we all are, and how you operate your business is entirely and completely up to you. But they are two separate and distinct roles: the executive branch and the legislative branch. That's the way it works.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that little lesson in terms of the executive branch and the role of legislatures. We'll come back to that in a minute.
The minister talks about parliamentary secretaries, so that's what the focus of this debate is all about. He talks about parliamentary secretaries. He said: "Well, you know, they've been here all along. They've been here for years. What's all the fuss? We see them in Ottawa; we see them in Victoria; now we see them everywhere else. So what's all the fuss?" I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, what the fuss is. Never before in a democratic society has the mandate of parliamentary secretaries been such as that which is contemplated by this government right now.
Sure, there's a role that each one of us plays. Each one of us has a role. Sure, I'm going to do the best that I can to get the best deal I can get, as a lobbyist for the people of my riding. I don't hide the fact that I've gone and chatted with ministers. In fact, the minister and I were chatting the other day about an issue in my riding. I don't want to use that as the point of debate. But I think it's fair to say that I've talked to many a minister about issues that affect my riding. Sure, we play that lobbying role as well in some cases as much as we play the role we play here. I recognize that. That's part of the democratic system. But through that system I'm the advocate for the people of my riding. It's a democratic system that put me in that role. The minister understands that. So it's an affront when the government says: "Well, that's not good enough. We're not happy with the choice the people made in that riding, so we're going to appoint our own" — I forget what the member for Vancouver East called them — "colleagues to do that job."
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: "Sheep," as someone says. "Jobs for the boys," as I believe somebody else put it.
That's not acceptable. What's more galling than that is the appointment of these people, with a mandate to do that end runaround. I understand why we had parliamentary secretaries in the past. He appreciates the fact I've got an understanding of history. I understand why that was done before, but never, ever were they given a carte blanche specific mandate to do an end run around MLAs. It's an abuse of the role. It's an exaggeration of the function. It's unleashing all of the constraints and limitations that were put on parliamentary secretaries before. That's what's being contemplated here. That's why we're standing up and opposing this. That's why. And the minister wonders why we get so upset. There are a lot of reasons why we get upset. I've already given you the example of what transpired in my riding.
[3:30]
This reminds me of another instance that galls me. I just came from Sooke the other day. I noticed there was a cheque being handed out in Sooke by, again, the Minister of Tourism, who has this great delight in coming to my riding and doing it. He wants to live out here. The former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Ritchie, used to be the buddy MLA for my riding from the government side in the old days, and he did wonders for my chances of re-election. It used to be funny, because he represented Central Fraser Valley and used to come into my riding. Mr. Mitchell was the MLA at the time. When Mr. Ritchie was dethroned as the party choice for the Socreds in, I believe, Central Fraser Valley — I stand to be corrected on that, but it was somewhere in the Fraser Valley — he indicated that he wanted to run in Esquimalt. That explained why he came to Esquimalt so often. If I look in the crystal ball, I'm wondering whether the same holds true for the current Minister of Tourism. Maybe he knows that the axe is about to fall, that he has lost favour with his party supporters in Surrey, and he's looking for a new place to run. Maybe that's why he has been coming out to Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.
MR. RABBITT: An end runner.
MR. SIHOTA: It'll be an end run, because we'll run him out of the riding faster than the member can say "end run."
In any event, he was there last week.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Did he have his parliamentary secretary?
MR. SIHOTA: I could get you the story about the parliamentary secretary coming too, because I had an interesting chat, if the minister wants to know. The parliamentary secretary showed up at a chamber of commerce function in my riding, which I also happened to attend because I go to all the chamber functions.
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: I have no difficulty as a business person in being a member of one of the chambers in my riding.
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: The minister says: "Don't corrupt them." Certainly that's not the intent. Is it the minister's suggestion that only certain types of individuals ought to be members of the chamber of commerce, or is it okay for those of us on this side of the House also? Chambers have an important function
[ Page 2859 ]
in our community. Sure, it's fine for us to attend their meetings and talk to them, to highlight for them the outstanding programs that we've got with respect to small business.
HON. MR. VEITCH: With respect to parliamentary secretaries.
MR. SIHOTA: Well, the minister asked. What can I say? The minister got me off on this diversion.
Anyway, the Minister of Tourism, after his last gaff....
MR. CRANDALL: Diversion. Surely not a diversion.
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to tell the members over there who love to heckle that this is the first time I've spoke in this debate, and I'm serious. I want to make some points. If they want to hear stories, maybe we can go outside.
So there was the Minister of Tourism this week again, without the parliamentary secretary — we'll talk about the parliamentary secretary in a minute — handing out a cheque in my riding for a historical museum request, one I'd worked with, been involved in and supported; one I'd written letters on and actually talked to staff in the minister's department about. The minister's department had told me it was going to be approved at some point, and I thought that was great. But of course we never found out when it was approved, and we weren't told when the cheque was being handed out. It's like those silly press releases: every time there's an announcement in a Socred-held riding, it's made by the minister and the member. When there's an announcement made in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew or a cheque handed out in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew or a significant development in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, of course they're going to bypass us, because that's the mentality over there — the end runaround mentality. It's the point of view that says: "Let's pretend" — I'm sure somebody is going to have a laugh over this comment — "there are invisible MLAs and visible MLAs. Let's decide that we're going to bypass MLAs elected from ridings held by the opposition." The parliamentary secretary system is an effort to do just that. It's simply another way of furthering that deplorable type of mindset. That's the purpose.
I'm glad to see that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) is here — and he's awake. I think he knows I was born in Lake Cowichan, and I have more than just a passing interest in what transpires in that riding. I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) raised this point, and I should have brought the picture in with me. We have a highway project, I believe it was, and underneath it the name of the minister — I forget which minister was in charge of Highways at the time, but whoever it was — and then the name of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). The largest single highway project on Vancouver Island was in the Esquimalt-Port Renfrew riding. I didn't see, nor did I really want, that type of promotion or advertising — whatever you want to call it — in my riding. But there it was. Someone took a picture and sent it to me, although I had noticed it while I was driving by, and I must confess I can't remember whether it was on the road to Youbou or Lake Cowichan. Someone talked earlier about the same situation in Nelson-Creston and other Socred-held tidings.
Why does the government do things like that — this sort of blatant digging away, this two- and now three-tiered system that the government wants to establish for MLAs through the provision of parliamentary secretaries? After cabinet ministers you have parliamentary secretaries, and you have MLAs.
I just find names on hilghway signs in that fashion in selected ridings, or the leapfrogging of MLAs with respect to the granting of funds that we all work for, the total ignoring of opposition MLAs, highly offensive. I'm glad I'm putting it on the record, because two and a half years from now, when we're government, I'll make sure that that type of practice is not made by individuals on this side of the House. We will not generate the type of disrespect that this government has for democratically elected MLAs. We're not into that type of game, and we will never condone the granting of this type of mandate to parliamentary secretaries.
Does the minister not consider, in light of his comments about the historical role of parliamentary secretaries, the granting of power they are now giving to parliamentary secretaries offensive and certainly beyond the type of power granted to parliamentary secretaries historically, in terms of what he was saying earlier about parliamentary secretaries; and if not, why not?
MR. CRANDALL: I just want to say that I'm really surprised at the incredible feelings of inferiority we're hearing about so many times from the other side of the House. This decentralization program is designed to enhance the economy of the whole province, of every area in the province; it's not designed to usurp the authority of any MLA. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who just spoke.... Incidentally, I want to thank him for that lesson in history: 1066 was surely not the date of Magna Carta. I was wrong. He has corrected me — it was the Battle of Hastings.
I really am concerned about the time we're spending in this chamber debating this principle, when we hear the same thing so many times from different members of the opposition. I know that when my constituents sent me down here, they didn't send me to listen to 12 different versions of the same speech. We had an exceedingly poor question period today, and the debate on this bill isn't any better.
The previous member said that his riding did not elect the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I recognize that, but what we've got here is a situation in which the very able member for Mackenzie has been appointed a parliamentary secretary to help construct the economy in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — and please note that I am remembering the name of your riding.
MR. SIHOTA: Why were you passed over?
MR. CRANDALL: Because I was already parliamentary secretary to two other ministries.
I want you to know that I'm delighted that we've got a parliamentary secretary — the able member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks). to lend some help along with our minister of state, who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I am more than happy to have these two other members of this Legislature come to Columbia River to do whatever we can to increase our economy in that area. I don't feel that they're in any way taking away from my role as an MLA. and I'm sure that the parliamentary secretaries and
[ Page 2860 ]
ministers of state will not take away from the opposition MLAs either.
So I would suggest that all the members on the opposite side should look at this as a benefit, and if they don't, surely, as the Minister of State for the Lower Mainland (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has said, you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
I'm delighted that this past weekend there was a meeting in Creston for the Kootenay region, and it was attended by about 80 people from throughout that area. We're going to have one on December 15 for the Okanagan region. What this is all about is an attempt to improve the economy in this province. It's an attempt to improve every part of this economy.
I want you to know also that I just got a telephone message saying that one of the aldermen in our riding wants to know when the meeting in the Okanagan is, because he's anxious to participate. That's what the people in my riding are saying: they're saying we have two more people to help. I would suggest that that's what we have in all the ridings in this province, including those held by the opposition members.
We on this side of the House are anxious to build and improve the economy in every riding in this province, and that's why this decentralization program has been put forward. We don't have feelings of inferiority; we've got positive feelings. We're anxious to build the whole province from one end to the other.
Yet we are having to continually listen and, I would suggest, waste the time of this chamber hearing 22 people say that they don't think there should be more parliamentary secretaries. Even though this Legislature is one of the most efficient in this country of ours, if not the most efficient, surely our time could be better spent getting on to more germane legislation than in listening to different people continually say the same thing.
Mr. Chairman, I'm for this section of this bill. I know it's going to be a help to this province, and it would be a help to every riding including the opposition tidings if they would participate and want to be of help in building this province. To date they have had a very poor record of attendance at the meetings on decentralization. I would encourage them to attend and help build this province as the people on this side of the House are trying to do.
[3:45]
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, let me share something else with hon. members who happen to be in the chamber at this moment.
You will probably all recall, because most of us have spent some time in the House over the past little while, that when these miscellaneous statutes or omnibus bills, as they're sometimes called, come forward in the House, it is most unusual that they be debated at second reading. Now this particular bill was very well debated at second reading, and what I am finding is that the committee work we're doing at the moment, dealing clause-by-clause.... This doesn't just apply to the hon. opposition members; it applies to all members of this House. In a lot of cases we are back into second reading again. Hon. members, I must say that that is just not acceptable, and we'll have to keep in mind these requirements for relevancy and for non-repetition.
MR. SIHOTA: In dealing with section 2 of Bill 59 and the role of parliamentary secretaries as envisioned under that piece of legislation....
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: Well, those who have no time for debate have little time for democracy, I guess.
MR. CRANDALL: We have little time for a needless waste of time.
MR. SIHOTA: The member says "a waste of time." I'll be very quick on this point, because it's slightly off the mark. If the member's worried about time, there's no doubt in my mind that the time of this Legislature could have been better spent debating the privatization issue, instead of allocating one hour to it. If the member wants to debate some meaty topics, then let's deal with the debate on privatization instead of trying to simply.... Well, let me get back to the point.
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: If the cheerleaders on the other side would settle down, they might learn something. But they're obviously interested in some of the more fringe benefits that will come from the passage of this legislation.
Don't take my comment the wrong way, in terms of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), but it flows from the comments made by the previous speaker. Let me say at the outset that this is not an intent to attack him in any personal way whatsoever. I enjoy the friendly relationship I have with the member for Mackenzie, and I'm sure it will continue on that basis. But let me make it clear: the government side doesn't have a monopoly on the desire to bring about economic reform in this province. All of us have an interest. As it pertains to Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and the parliamentary secretary — who happens to be the member for Mackenzie — the point is that the people of my riding asked me to fight for their economic interests. On shipbuilding, people of my riding and certainly myself have a better reading of what's happening in that industry — I say with all respect — than the member for Mackenzie, who doesn't have a shipbuilding industry in his riding.
I see the minister waving a white flag, so I take it he's not prepared to withdraw section 2. Is that what the minister is indicating? The point is this: the member for Mackenzie doesn't have an understanding of that very vital industry in my riding.
What we've done in the provision of new parliamentary secretaries is simply this: we have created not an effort to try to bring about much-needed economic reform — and Lord knows we need it in this province — but we've just created another layer of fat, another layer of bureaucracy.
As an MLA lobbying for the shipbuilding industry, I guess that now I am supposed to talk to the Minister of Economic Development — I know she's in the House. After I talk to the Minister of Economic Development, somehow she or I — the two of us, one of us, I don't know — has got to go to the next layer, which is the parliamentary secretary, and after that, the next layer, which is the minister of state. What happened to the old system — democracy — the system before this province was brought under the control of the one-term-wonder?
[ Page 2861 ]
What's happening here is not a move to try to bring about efficient economic development through the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. Think about it. We're talking about economic development, and you want to appoint another layer of bureaucracy that all of us have to go through in terms of trying to sell an idea with respect to our ridings. And this comes from the same government that talks about deregulation, about the elimination of red tape, about decisions being made more efficiently.
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: And the private sector is supposedly solving our economic problems. I don't know how members reconcile that.
Interjection.
MR. SIHOTA: That's all you're creating here.
MR. RABBITT: Oh, another government will take care of it. That's what we need, eh?
MR. SIHOTA: That's all you're creating here — another layer of fat, at $3,000 or $3,500 per person. How does that work in terms of efficiency on economic issues? It doesn't, and it won't.
There was a time in this province — and I can remember it as an alderman — when we had this great announcement of Partners in Enterprise, saying: "We're going to put money at the local level so that people can develop their local plans and get on with economic development." All of us in this valley scurried off and utilized the funds to develop economic plans for, in our case, the greater Victoria area. That was only a year and a half ago. Whatever happened to those plans? What happened to all that input? You want efficiency? Take a look at some of those plans.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to read, if I may, without boring you, I'm sure, the section we're debating: section 12.1 of the Constitution Act, RSBC 1979, c. 62, as amended by striking out "not more than 10." With great respect, I'm afraid this member has offended the rule of relevancy over and over and over again, and I ask you to bring him to order.
MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister then is: why an unlimited number?
HON. MR. VEITCH: Because once this legislation is passed, we want to appoint more than ten.
MR. CASHORE: I find this section absolutely offensive.
Mr. Chairman, you have made the point about us having had a debate on the principle. The point I want to concentrate on now I made during the discussion on the principle so that the hon. Provincial Secretary would have the opportunity to research the point I was making and be prepared to respond to it as we go a, long.
I wasn't here when the decision was made to have the ministerial parliamentary secretaries. I did not have the opportunity to participate in that process, and I cannot answer for what happened on either the government or the opposition side of the House. But it seems to me that as the responses are being made to our questions, the hon. Provincial Secretary is not distinguishing between the already-in-place parliamentary secretaries who are secretaries to ministers and what is now a whole new situation — to wit, parliamentary secretaries to ministers of state for regions of the province. Therefore a lot of the arguments — with all due respect — that this minister has given have not really been on target, because they have not dealt with the situation my colleagues have been talking about, the situation that section 2 opens up, which is to have a whole new concept with regard to the scope and responsibility of what are called parliamentary secretaries. I don't think this has been responded to in anything that could be considered a sincere, straightforward way.
We still await some kind of explanation that points out on what basis, given our parliamentary system, this type of appointment would be made on a regional basis. I make it very clear that we're not talking here about a person who is a secretary to a minister who has a provincewide sphere of responsibility. We're talking about a minister who has a responsibility to a region of the province for which people have already been elected. So that's one point: I think there's real confusion in the understanding of the party in power and the cabinet with regard to its responsibility there.
[4:00]
I would like to say that it's very clear to me that this government and this Provincial Secretary have refused to listen to the words expressing outrage that have been heard by at least the MLAs on this side of the House. They've heard them from the public, and they have tried very patiently to communicate them to this minister. I want to ask the minister to just consider again the point I was making during debate on the principle, that it seems that MLAs on the government side of the House are appointed to various kinds of responsibilities.
For instance, some time ago we had the liquor review commission, to which MLAs were appointed to go throughout the province and conduct a study and listen to people all through B.C. When that took place, there was some concern expressed by people on our side of the House about the process. There was concern that this was not being done by independent people who were not elected MLAs obviously having a political bias. There was concern expressed, but the government persisted and went ahead with that process and — I must say, much to my surprise — came down with a report that cautioned against any further privatization of liquor outlets.
We now have the situation where one of the people appointed to the position of parliamentary secretary — and I dare say within the region for which this minister, the Provincial Secretary, is responsible, the lower mainland — is the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), who also headed that liquor commission. What seems to be an extremely confusing thing for the public and for myself as an MLA is whether we have lost any possibility of the role of dissent within the entity which is the Social Credit caucus and the entity which is the Social Credit cabinet, now that this process has been set up. Somebody has said that there will only be five who are not part of this process. It appears to me that in appointing this individual, who was an advocate against privatization, a very dangerous step has been taken, because we now as a parliament have lost his voice of dissent. It appears that this individual has been bought off by paying him a salary and by bringing him into the fold in this way.
[ Page 2862 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the fact that it must be very difficult for all those of you who are speaking to this section of Bill 59 to stay relevant, but relevancy is a requirement of our standing orders. Therefore, since we all abide by our standing orders and are subject to them, it is a requirement of each and every one of us to be relevant when we speak.
I am having some difficulty with the remarks over the past four or five minutes. I think I understand the point that the member is trying to make, but it becomes somewhat irrelevant and it causes me a great deal of problem. I would ask that the member kindly bear in mind this basic requirement of debate in this House, which is that it shall be relevant to the point in question, that section 12(l) of the Constitution Act is amended by striking out "not more than 10."
Please continue, hon. member. Oh, I'm sorry, hon. member; the chair recognizes the hon. Minister for Economic Development.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
Ministerial Statement
HOWE SOUND PULP AND PAPER CO. LTD.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have an economic development announcement to make, which is of great significance to our province, regarding a major investment by a Japanese corporation in our pulp and paper industry. I am pleased to say that this announcement is partly the result of our Premier's recent Asian trip, where he met with principals of the company in Japan, as well as of meetings that he has held in British Columbia with Canfor.
As I speak, both Canfor Corp. of Vancouver and Oji Paper Co. Ltd. of Tokyo — where it is now 11 a.m., December 8 — are announcing a joint investment and development program in British Columbia that could mean an investment of up to $1 billion between now and the mid-1990s. For the people of British Columbia, especially those in the Howe Sound-Sunshine Coast area, it will mean up to 450 construction jobs over three and a half years, in addition to permanently protecting present jobs and creating new ongoing jobs.
Canfor and Oji Paper are to team up fifty-fifty to establish a new company to be called the Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Oji will contribute $307.5 million in cash to the new company, while Canfor will contribute the assets of its Howe Sound pulp and west coast cellufibre division. The new company will carry out a major program of modernization and expansion at the existing pulp mill at Port Mellon on Howe Sound which will be the state of the art in that kind of technology.
The existing 650-tonne-a-day pulp mill will be modernized and expanded to 1,000 tonnes a day by 1990 at a cost of $280 million. A new newsprint mill will be constructed for startup in 1991 at a cost of $355 million, and this new mill will produce 200,000 tonnes a year of high-quality newsprint, mainly for the Japanese market. This initial investment of $635 million is expected to be followed by future expansion in newsprint production, which is likely to push the total investment in the project to about $1 billion.
These major investments being announced here and in Japan simultaneously are still subject to the outcome of discussions between various levels of government. Matters such as the security of the additional wood supply required and energy cost levels still have to be finalized. The parties involved have been assured that our government is available for meetings at an early date so that the program can be implemented with confidence starting very early in 1988.
This is exactly the kind of project and investment in British Columbia that our government wishes to attract. The project not only adds investment and jobs to our province, but it adds value to our wood fibre products that would otherwise be exported from the province in chip form.
Oji Co. does business all over the world — South America, South-East Asia, Europe, North America — but they've never had a Canadian head office. The transaction announced today is also accompanied by their plans to open a Canadian head office in Vancouver.
Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleagues in the House understand that this creates greater security of employment and that the project also expands our trade in forest products. I know that they will join me in expressing the appreciation of our government to the partners in this excellent development program. British Columbia welcomes this initiative, because not only is it good for the expansion of our economy, but the $300 million cash investment by Oji Paper is a clear vote of confidence in our province, in our future and in our economy.
I appreciate very much having the opportunity to make this announcement today.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member standing have leave to make a reply?
Leave granted.
MR. MILLER: At the outset, we on this side of the House also welcome these kinds of investments in our province. Speaking as an old pulp and paper man....
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you that old?
MR. MILLER: No, I'm not that old. But we think that there is a lot to be gained in British Columbia by putting that kind of investment into value-added products. I just came from a meeting on Saturday morning with George Petty of Repap Enterprises, which is also making considerable investment in the province, as are other forest companies. After listening to him talk about getting more value out of our forest products, it's clear to me that that's the direction we have to head in.
Without belabouring the point to any extent, we welcome the announcement of further investment in the newsprint and pulp end of British Columbia.
We have some concern, Madam Minister, over the state of our forests. Without getting into any extensive comment on that, we still think that there is considerable work to do in assuring that there will be a continued fibre supply, so that the forest industry will be the strongest sector of the provincial economy, and we'll be looking for more efforts in that regard as well.
We hope that the cyclical problem that frequently happens with the pulp and paper industry is being well thought about in terms of this additional investment, because, as was noted just days ago by some forestry industry analysts, the
[ Page 2863 ]
pulp industry is cyclical, and we don't know when the next downturn will come.
I think that's enough. Again, to restate very simply, we welcome this kind of investment in the province.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to section 2 of Bill 59. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam continues.
MR. CASHORE: I was just getting to the point that you were asking me to make. I'm referring to an individual who has been appointed by virtue of the enabling motion in this section to that position of parliamentary secretary, and I'm trying to establish the relevance in terms of his role and duty as an MLA, a parliamentary secretary and a person who has chaired a very important commission paid at taxpayers' costs within this province. I'm trying to establish how we can understand the relative relationship between these functions with regard to this individual, and that's why I believe that my points are bang on.
[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]
MR. CASHORE: I want to ask the Provincial Secretary how we can, as MLAs and as citizens of British Columbia, expect that there's going to be any possibility of a voice of dissent from the government side of the House given this kind of a creeping, drifting process that is going on without benefit of parliamentary debate and decision. I'd like the minister to answer this very specifically.
Given that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has gone on record as opposing user fees on museums, does this minister anticipate that we will ever again hear from him publicly with regard to his concerns of that nature? And given that the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen) has delivered a report recommending no further proliferation of privatization in the liquor distribution outlets, can we expect that we will ever again hear from that member with regard to where he stands on issues such as that, or can we only expect that if he does have any private feelings of that nature, those feelings will be heard within the confines and the context and the privacy of that very small, powerful group of individuals?
[4:15]
HON. MR. VEITCH: I know that the former minister had a little trouble sticking to his text, but that's only a diving board from which to depart, never to return again, isn't it? It just gets one launched.
He was mentioning that the hon. member for Chilliwack was appointed to a committee, and indeed other members might be appointed to various kinds of committees of the House, and that through that they derived some kind of independence, and through being a private member they derive an independence. The hon. member, I'm sure, being aware of the parliamentary system, would know that there is government and there is opposition. I don't have to tell you that your traditional role is to oppose, because you do a pretty darned good job of that. No question about that.
You also ask if we will hear from the second member for Cariboo. Well, I want to tell you that you'll hear from that member for Cariboo again and again, because he'll be elected as long as he wants to be, as will the member for Chilliwack. They're good members. They'll speak their mind, and also as parliamentary secretaries they'll also do a good job. You can't tell me, hon. member, that a person has to somehow or other negate his or her role as a member of this Legislative Assemblyjust because they're appointed to executive council or as a parliamentary secretary. I would think more of individuals. The individuals generally rise to the challenge — always rise to the challenge, as I'm sure you would.
I'm sure you'll hear from these members again and again. I don't believe for an instant that the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has anything to fear from someone trying to help his or her region in this province. You'll go on and you'll represent the people of your constituency as you always do. realizing that your role here in this Legislature is that of opposition and not of government.
The government has a right to appoint; the a vernment go has the right to govern. The Lieutenant-Governor has the right to appoint members to the executive council. and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the right to appoint parliamentary secretaries. When this legislation is passed, they will have the right to appoint more if the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council so decides.
MR. CASHORE: You better believe that I have a lot to fear, and the fear that I'm expressing is not simply fear from this one individual but fear being expressed for democracy because of the process that we see going on, limiting the number of government MLAs from whom we might expect to hear with regard to anything faintly critical.
It's interesting that the hon. Provincial Secretary mentioned the second member for Cariboo, saying that we'll hear lots from him in the future. He's right. We heard from him on Friday during statements. and he was reiterating the party line. We did not hear the refreshing type of comment that we heard from him during the time the debate on museum user fees was going on.
Just to make the point a little more more strongly, his fellow-cand I date. the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), has gone on record as being deeply critical of and deeply disturbed by the privatization plan. lt'~interesting to ask why we have not heard from the other member for Cariboo with regard to his concerns on that issue.
I would say. Mr. Chairman. that the argument being put forward by the Provincial Secretary really begs the question, and I don't think it does anything to satisfy the doubts out there in the minds of the people of British Columbia, who are seeina democracv being eroded through this process.
I have one last point I wish to make. with reference to lobbying. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) mentioned that he will lobby on behalf of his constituency. as that is a responsibility that all of us have. What concerns me about this is that.... You may be aware of a book published recently' written by John Sawatsky; it's called The Insiders. It's about the burgeoning lobbying industry in Ottawa. What we have here is a lobbying instrument inside the parliament. brought in like a Trojan horse, in a way that enables a much simpler method for the powerful lobbyists who come to government to have their will done. This again erodes the opportunity for those people we should be standing up for, the low-income people. the people who have nobody to speak for them. This has been a process of setting up a lobby within the parliament, in order to receive those wise men from the east bearing gifts.
MR. CLARK: I actually want to deal with what is more normally the committee stage of debate. and ask a few questions to clarify.
[ Page 2864 ]
I understand that these parliamentary secretaries for the ministers of state have already been chosen, pending the passage of this act. Many of them are actually acting as parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of state...
AN HON. MEMBER: Without pay.
MR.CLARK:...without pay, attending the dinners and the functions, or whatever it is that they do.
I'm glad the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) is here, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state for the lower mainland. I'd like to know about the role of the parliamentary secretaries in procuring a proposal to build a motor-sport complex in the lower mainland. What was the role of the parliamentary secretaries?
HON. MR. VEITCH: That's for question period.
MR. CLARK: I don't agree, because we have here a section of a bill that's asking us to retroactively approve their appointment. I think it's quite in order for us to ask questions about what they've been doing with their appointments, before their being approved retroactively by this House. I would like the minister of state for the lower mainland, who is shepherding this section of the bill, to give us some explanation as to what the parliamentary secretaries that are going to be approved by this section are actually doing now.
HON. MR. VEITCH: When this statute is passed.... I'll repeat, for the umpteenth time, and that in itself is offending the House. When royal assent is given, when it is proclaimed, the role of the parliamentary secretary will be to carry out routine tasks in relation to the House; to answer questions in the House; to present the government position in discussions with the general public and with the committee; to support the government position in committee; and to meet with members of the public and with organizations and other bodies on behalf of the minister.
Neither in the federal House nor in provincial legislation has there been a detailed description of the duties of a parliamentary secretary. Their role varies with the demands of the minister whom they assist. This is future action, and I ought not to be answering it. But that is what they will be doing.
MR. CLARK: With all due respect, I didn't ask about future action; I asked what they've been doing to date. They've been appointed; they've been acting, and pretending to be parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of state, without legislative approval.
Interjection.
MR. CLARK: It doesn't offend the rule. We're asked to vote on this section of the bill. The minister likes to pretend he's in the Speaker's chair or the Chairman's chair. Maybe the minister could answer this question: has there been a decision made to pay the parliamentary secretaries retroactively upon completion of this bill, or are they acting really in a volunteer capacity at this time?
HON. MR. VEITCH: If there was a retroactive provision, it would have been in the bill. I don't see any retroactive provision in the bill.
MR. CLARK: Okay. So the minister is saying.... I'm sure that members in that capacity are relieved to know that they are acting in a volunteer capacity and won't be paid retroactively.
Could the minister do two things for me? First, confirm my understanding of his last answer, which is that they will not be paid retroactively; and second, inform the House whether the parliamentary secretaries, as contemplated by this section of the bill, report first to the ministers responsible and not to any other body. In other words, they don't report to Mr. Poole; they don't report to the Premier's office; they don't report to cabinet. They report, as I understand it, to the ministers whom they are ostensibly being the parliamentary secretaries to. So two things: confirm my understanding of his first answer and inform us whom they report to.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I will reiterate. Neither the provincial nor federal legislation provides detailed descriptions of the duties of a parliamentary secretary; their role varies with the demands of the minister whom they assist. They report to the minister whom they assist. We all have a responsibility to other people in this society. We have a relationship with and a responsibility to the people and the other members in this House. We have a responsibility to the public, a responsibility to our constituents and a responsibility to be relevant within this section — and I wish you would get on with it.
MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister: will the parliamentary secretaries be paid retroactively?
HON. MR. VEITCH: I said no.
MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't hear that. Could the Minister put that answer back on the record?
HON. MR. VEITCH: It's on the record.
MR. SIHOTA: I take it that I heard the minister say no then.
HON. MR. VEITCH: It's on the record.
MR. LOVICK: I want to pose a direct question to the minister, somewhat more focused than the kinds of questions I was offering earlier today and which the minister, it seemed, was somehow reluctant to answer — at least at any length. The question I want to pose is really to elicit explanation from the minister concerning what he meant when he said in the course of this debate the following words. I'm quoting, by the way, if it's any help, from the sitting of Friday, December 4, the morning sitting. The minister, on page 15 of the Blues, is quoted as saying:
"What we're doing here" — in terms of this parliamentary secretary proposition — "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," — which was alluded to earlier — "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."
[ Page 2865 ]
Now in the climate in which we are now living, Mr. Minister, I would suggest that some people might look upon that statement as the parliamentary secretaries being given a role of intelligence-gatherers, to go and find out what's happening in those constituencies not currently represented by government members. I'm wondering if the minister would be good enough to explain in somewhat more detail precisely what he intends by that statement.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that probably one of the most important roles of the parliamentary secretary is that of facilitating communication and the exchange of ideas. The more people we bring into the decision-making process, the more our government decisions will reflect the needs and aspirations of all regions of the province.
I don't believe — and I'll say it again — that you can govern this province at this time in our history, as we approach a new century, from the southern tip of Vancouver Island. You must decentralize. As the Leader of the Opposition has said many times: get out into the regions of the province. The parliamentary secretaries will act as a conduit for the exchange of ideas, to bring information and ideas back from the people. For after all, in a democracy, the people really are the government.
MR. LOVICK: The rhetoric sounds impressive, and I want desperately to say: "Yes, yes, Mr. Minister, this is indeed your intention, and we shouldn't be suspicious. God help us, we shouldn't be cynical at all." However. the point is that the question I'm posing is not getting answered. Moreover, the predicament is that with this cant about decentralization, we're ignoring certain realities: that if you expand the people who are reporting directly to cabinet and put that kind of authority into a structure or system that reports directly to the Premier, paradoxically you are imposing a more centralized model, not a less centralized model. If we want to talk about decentralization, then surely what we ought to talk about, in terms of economic development initiatives and regional initiatives, is to make use of all-party committees of the Legislature, not simply to expand the cabinet.
[4:30]
The use of parliamentary secretaries. the way we're seeing that plan unfold here, Mr. Minister, looks to us on this side of the House like simply producing a kind of minicabinet or a cabinet with training wheels, or some such thing. We wonder again then whether in fact one of the purposes of this initiative is to be an intelligence-gatherer. When the minister talks in the Blues — and I assume those are indeed his words; he's certainly not denying them — about reporting to cabinet on what's going on out there, then I have to wonder whether in fact the motivation is not so much to be a conduit in the sense of going two ways, but rather information going one way, which government can then use to serve its own ends rather than the people's ends.
I would again offer the Provincial Secretary the opportunity to respond, because with all due deference, I don't think my original question was answered.
HON. MR. VEITCH: I can assure you that each and every one of the people who are proposed to be appointed as parliamentary secretaries will gather information intelligently. Not only that; you can't have a democracy without two-way communication. Again, the role of parliamentary secretary — indeed. the role of minister of state — is to facilitate communications, to bring government out to the people, to bring those ideas back to the decision-making centre, which is Victoria. It will work well in spite of you, hon. member, whether you're part of the process or not.
We had some 280 people in Vancouver — most enthusiastic. This week in Chilliwack and in New Westminster we'll have more enthusiastic people. More and more people will come on board, more and more people will join in this decentralization process, and the parliamentary secretaries will be part of that process. In fact, they will be vehicles in ensuring that government is brought closer to the people and that the ideas are brought back to Victoria.
You have nothing to fear, my friend, but fear itself, whatever that happens to be. If you're worried about someone usurping your role as a MLA in Nanaimo, I wouldn't worry about it. I think you'll probably continue to do whatever it is you do in Nanaimo.
MR. LOVICK: That kind of smug and self-satisfied stuff does not impress, I'm sorrv. What we're talking about here — and again, we've tried to say it a number of different times — is the simple point that the minister's side of the House does not represent all people of the province. You're suggesting that we on this side of the House somehow forget that we were elected as opposition, with all the duties inherent in that job, and suddenly become part and parcel of your extension of cabinet via parliamentary secretaries.
When the minister says to me and to others on this side of the House that it is somehow our loss and we are letting down our constituents by not going to the party, or some such thing, I want to remind him that the enthusiasm for the party was manifested only because those individuals who attended the party were afraid they wouldn't get in on the $1 million that was going to be made available. What choice do those individuals have?
The predicament, as I've said before, is that we on this side of the House do not want to buy into a process that we regard quite clearly — and I think quite defensibly — as a corruption of the process. You might have come to the House and said: "This is what we're going to do. This is our intention. Vote on these measures. Change the system of parliamentary secretaries so that we can achieve the~e ends." If you had come to us and further said,"Here's what's wrong with the existing system, here's why you need to make these changes," then perhaps we could meet you; perhaps we could agree with you. But when we come via this back door kind of route, obviously we're going to be suspicious. And obviously our suspicion is not going to be allayed or assuaged when we listen to the kinds of comments we've had in response to our questions.
That's our point, and that's why we've taken the stand that we have and — I admit it — have extended the debate thus far. I think we're entirely justified and legitimate in doing that, and I make no apologies for having done so.
MR. MILLER: It's a pleasure to see the competition on our side of the House get to the mikes to raise some serious questions with this minister. Despite the comments from the cheap seats over there, very seldom do we get anyone asking detailed questions about what this system is all about. Perhaps that's because they're on the payroll.
[ Page 2866 ]
Interjections.
MR. MILLER: I seem to raise the level of conversation in this House whenever I get to my feet. I don't always want to do that. Sometimes it's worthwhile, but sometimes I just like to ask some questions. Specifically, with regard to the parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of state, do they report, as you said on Friday in Hansard, to the cabinet?
HON. MR. VEITCH: I said they'd bring ideas to cabinet. You should have listened.
MR. MILLER: I'll quote Hansard, Mr. Minister. It's for these people "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." So they're going to be reporting to cabinet?
HON. MR. VEITCH: Parliamentary secretaries report to cabinet ministers; cabinet ministers meet in cabinet. That happens to be the highest level in this province.
MR. MILLER: The parliamentary secretaries then, for clarification, will be reporting to their respective ministers of state. Would the parliamentary secretaries have any powers in terms of approving spending under this new proposal you're putting forward?
HON. MR. VEITCH: Any member can suggest that something be done. In fact, you often do suggest that something be spent. The parliamentary secretaries wouldn't necessarily be asked to make recommendations based on their findings. But as far as approval goes, the answer is no.
MR. MILLER: I raised the point on Friday with regard to that fear that is obviously being expressed about the role of MLAs. I'll refer to one specific document and a quote. One is a letter that I received from the minister of state for region 6, saying, in effect, that the role of the MLA is an important one and there is no intent to abrogate that through the system. I contrast that with the quote from a "senior government official" at the time this announcement was made. When the question was put to this person,"If, as a person in the region, I was going to get something done, would I go to the parliamentary secretaries assigned to the region more than my MLAT' the answer he gave was: "Yes." I have yet to be satisfied on this point, Mr. Minister. There appears to be a conflict in what various cabinet members and government officials have stated with respect to the role of the MLA. Given a possible conflict between a position an MLA might take in regard to his or her region and a position a parliamentary secretary might take about his or her region, which advice would the government listen to?
HON. MR. VEITCH: We're dealing here with the appointment of parliamentary secretaries and the striking of 1110, 11 and I don't intend to deal in hypothesis.
MR. MILLER: Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, you either fail to recognize or simply don't want to recognize that central to the debate is the government's program to restructure our system of government. It's an undeniable part of this bill. To stand up and say we're simply dealing with the addition of parliamentary secretaries, and "I'm not going to answer any questions," does not do you any good. I just came from my constituency, where I met with two of the northern mayors who, quite frankly, Mr. Minister, are baffled. These are people — one of them is the mayor of Prince Rupert — with many years of experience, and they have yet to understand in their own minds what is being proposed. The only advice I could give them is to go to a meeting that is being called next weekend and ask questions.
You've claimed that this is a great program, that the mayors in various communities are all in favour of it and that they support it. Yet here I have two mayors of some standing saying: "What's this all about?" It's central to the discussion of the addition of more parliamentary secretaries, because the parliamentary secretaries that we're talking about under this legislation are the parliamentary secretaries that presumably are going to be the conduits, the pipelines, for these regions. Yet you refuse to answer a question about a possible conflict between an MLA and a parliamentary secretary. Again, that's central to the debate.
I don't know why you won't answer the question. If there's a particular issue in a particular constituency, whose advice will the government heed? Will it be the person who was elected by the people of that region, or will it be the person that this government has appointed in that region'?
HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member gave the correct advice. If the mayor didn't understand, the mayor or mayors should ask someone who does. They came to their member and the member said rhetorically that he didn't know anything about it, so I suggest that the advice was absolutely correct. The mayor should go to a meeting and find out.
If the hon. member wants to find out more about it, he won't have to change his relationship with his caucus in any way. I'd be happy to sit down and write him a whole thesis on it and tell him what it's all about, and then he can give a copy of it to one of his mayors or he can read it himself, so that they won't have to ask anyone else in the future.
I'm sure that these parliamentary secretaries will be very knowledgeable in this area; they are very knowledgeable now, and they'll certainly help. There are always going to be conflicts between individuals in this House. That's the nature of the parliamentary system.
MR. MILLER: I never went to university, unlike the minister, so I don't have too much familiarity with theses.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: These.
MR. MILLER: Or these, as the House Leader says.
But I do know a straight answer from one that doesn't give me the information I want. The only experience so far in my region with decentralization has been where the provincial Parks ministry has come in and said: "We're going to decentralize. These two parks that we used to take care of in your constituency we're now going to give to the municipality, and they're going to pay for it." That initial experience with decentralization cost them money. I don't know what the others are going to cost them.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Didn't they want them?
MR. MILLER: No, they didn't. Without getting into specifics, in a general way what I say is quite true. Under decentralization the Parks ministry came in and said to the
[ Page 2867 ]
municipality of Prince Rupert: "We're going to abandon these parks that we have been responsible for for many years. It's now your responsibility. Aren't we great guys? We're decentralizing."
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think you will recognize that the Chair has allowed a lot of deviation from the subject at hand. I would request that you pay slightly more attention to the thrust of the amendment to section 2 of Bill 59.
[4:45]
MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've tried to ask a number of questions about the role of these parliamentary secretaries. Is there, Mr. Minister, a substantive difference between the role of these parliamentary secretaries to be appointed as part of the decentralization scheme and the parliamentary secretaries that currently exist with line ministries?
HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question.
MR. MILLER: Is there a difference between the role of these parliamentary secretaries to be appointed to ministers of state who basically really don't have any guidelines, despite what you have said, as opposed to the parliamentary secretaries that are appointed to ministers who are responsible for a line ministry where there is a very clear set of responsibilities in terms of the administration of various acts and policy and the rest of it? Is there a fundamental difference between the two kinds of parliamentary secretaries?
HON. MR. VEITCH: The role of the parliamentary secretaries varies upon the demands of the minister whom they assist, whether the individual would be a parliamentary secretary to a line minister or to a minister of state. Necessarily, if one were dealing only with Agriculture and Fisheries, the role would be quite different. If one were dealing only with Education, the role would be different. If you're dealing with a very broad spectrum, such as that of a region, then of course the role would be more intense and different, and they would be expected to accumulate at least a broader knowledge of many more subjects.
MR. MILLER: More specifically, then. It seems to me there is a fundamental difference, at least in the tradition of parliamentary secretaries, as I'm aware of it. As a parliamentary secretary to a line ministry, you clearly have a role: to be, in some sense, a backup to the minister. Without any clear definition of a minister of state'sjob, it becomes even murkier when we talk about the role of a parliamentary secretary. It seems to come down to almost a political henchman. who will get into the region and keep this ear to the ground, find out what's going on and report. So there is a fundamental difference.
With regard to a specific issue that may be dealt with under decentralization — that is, the agricultural land reserve — if the government follow through with their intent to deal with this at a regional level, is it their intention to advise parliamentary secretaries to ministers of state that there is a government philosophy that must be adhered to in dealing with this issue? Or are these people simply going to go out and deal with it ad hoc in the various regions that they purport to represent? As much as decentralization as a concept is worthwhile in terms of the reizions having a greater say in what happens in their areas, in terms of resource development and those kinds of things. It's my opinion that because they have a vested interest in the area. fundamentally over the long term we'd probably make better decisions about the use of a particular resource. Nonetheless, when we're dealing with some questions. clearly there must be a government philosophy.
The specific question is: are there instructions to parliamentary secretaries dealing with that particular issue? Are they compelled to follow some provincial guidelines or philosophy, or are they simply going to go out and develop their own in each particular region?
HON. MR. VEITCH: It is the philosophy of this government to take decision-making out to the regions; and to aid and abet in that process, we will be appointing parliamentary secretaries to assist the ministers of state. If you say that it's a good thing for people to have a say in what occurs in their region or in their area. elected officials and others.... If you agree with that. then you must agree with the intent of having parliamentary secretaries go out and provide a conduit, to bring those ideas back to their ministers, who will indeed take them to government.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
MR. MILLER: Could the minister advise if what he is saying is that, under our present system of government, it's impossible for this government to be responsible for listening to the regions and actina on the advice of people in the regions? Are you simply unable to do that, Mr. Minister?
HON. MR. VEITCH: No. Mr. Chairman. But this process will make the process more modem: it will make the process more responsible- it will simply make it better. Are you against things being better?
MR. MILLER: I've received some criticism from the other side of the House for my questions. but I must say that that wasn't a particularly brilliant one. Am I against things being better? Of course I'm not. What we're trying to ascertain from this government is: are they making things better or are they going to make things worse" So far, we really haven't got a lot of answers from the minister. who simply repeats himself with regard to the role of the parliamentary secretaries.
I asked a specific question: does the minister find it impossible. at this point in time, for his government to be responsive to the regions? Is there a glaring problem in terms of being responsible to the regions? Can the minister cite some instance that coloured his thinkiniz and made him realize that we had to have parliamentary secretaries in the regions" Perhaps the minister could give us the benefit of his wisdom in this regard. Was there a particular problem in the area that he represents. where issues that were important to his re-ion were not being brought to the cabinet table? Perhaps the minister could give us some insight into his thinking.
HON. MR. VEITCH: There is always an opportunity for Members of the Legislative Assembly who happen to be part of government to improve upon what they're doing. I believe
[ Page 2868 ]
this is an improvement in the process. We're talking here about the appointment of parliamentary secretaries. I don't know whether these additional parliamentary secretaries will all be appointed to ministers of state or whether they will be appointed to the Minister of Agriculture, or Health, or whatever. But whoever is appointed you can be assured will rise or fall by their own actions, and they will be judged by us and by other people as to how well they do their jobs.
It's my opinion that those who are appointed to ministers of state will improve the communication with the region. They'll improve the process of government. That’s what it's all about — improving, modernizing, taking government out to the people.
MR. MILLER: In response to a specific question.... Because the minister doesn't want to answer the question or just keeps saying that things are going to improve, it's safe to conclude that for some good number of years — at least since 1975 — this government has been unresponsive to the needs of the regions of our province.
I'd ask the minister whether or not, in terms of the administration of a government, he has any concern that in fact he is creating another layer of government that could make it more difficult. I would just cite an instance: in the application of policy of a particular ministry, clearly there have to be provincial guidelines in terms of the operation of the ministry and of the philosophy of the government of the day. In that regard you develop a civil service that is capable of carrying out these guidelines and philosophies, and hopefully they do it very well and very efficiently. We will now embark on a situation where these ministries presumably could be interfered with at various levels. The minister of state, for example, who I presume is responsible for everything in a particular region, would be responsible for the Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Highways, Ministry of Tourism — all of these different line ministries. So there you are going to have two influences outside of the ministry itself.
Number one: does the minister not think that just in terms of simple administration and setting up an administrative system that works, this would detract from it? Because a line ministry, as I said, would be receiving representations from a minister of state and a parliamentary secretary to the minister of state, and therefore the administration, I think, could suffer.
Secondly, would it not lead in some real way to some kind of internal problems in the operation of a ministry? For example, if someone were to advise you as the minister responsible for the provincial secretaries: "We don't like the policies you have in this region. You've got to change. We don't like the way you're running things...." Don't you see how that kind of conflict is going to happen between the various ministries?
Thirdly, I wonder if the minister would have any concern about this system that he's bringing to this House if he were sitting on this side of the chamber. It's a question, as I think I said on Friday, that all members should ask themselves. Are we setting up a system that seems to benefit our party politically because we're in power, or are we setting up a system that is really of benefit to the people of British Columbia?
There are three questions there, and I would appreciate it if the minister would try to answer them.
HON. MR. VEITCH: First, in 1972 a government was elected to this province that believed in centralization. It was the most centralist government that has ever been in this province or probably will ever be again. We don't believe in centralization. This whole debate is about decentralization — though perhaps it ought not to be because we're dealing with parliamentary secretaries. We're not talking about another layer of government at all. In fact, just the converse is true. We're talking about going out and talking directly with the elected officials at the municipal level.
AN HON. MEMBER: You do that now.
HON. MR. VEITCH: We've always done a good job; this process will make it even better, hon. member. Could I live with it if I was on the other side of the House? The answer is that it would depend upon the government of the day. If I was sitting on the other side of the House and this government were in power, I think I could; although, praise be that I wouldn't be in that position.
MR. MILLER: I can certainly agree with part of your last answer. It does depend on the government of the day, Mr. Minister, and a government that unfortunately makes an announcement of a program and then quickly tries to put one into place to match the announcement certainly does not foster a lot of confidence. I think if the minister would admit that.... That is really out there in regard to this program. He can choose to say that anything we say in the House is partisan and therefore he's going to ignore it. But the real signs are out there, and I think the minister has been around long enough to recognize them.
To get back to the question that I asked previously, while we were the government from 1972 to 1975, we established for the first time a minister of northern affairs; I'm not sure if that was the exact title, but nonetheless that was the intent. The intention there was that there would be a minister who would have as a specific responsibility the interests of people in the northern part of our province. In that respect, he really — as I said earlier — crossed over the line in terms of dealing with the other line ministries. People in the north would go to him and say,"We have a problem with highways, or a problem with forestry or a problem here and there," and he would attempt to go into those ministries to add northern representation in terms of how they were operating.
The system didn't work, quite frankly, Mr. Minister. I think what happened was that they set up an impossible expectation in terms of what a particular minister could do. It seems to me that you may in fact be doing the same thing with this system. By saying,"This system is great and the regions from now on are going to be heard," you're going to put .pressure on these people you're appointing, and there will be dissatisfaction — believe me, there will be. They won't be able to deliver all of the demands that people in the regions have. Therefore the system could ultimately fail, because people will be saying — and I can hear them saying it — that there's no sense going there because it doesn't work. "It doesn't get us anywhere."
Does the minister have any concern about that, that if this system.... ? I suspect it isn't really carefully thought out and put into place in terms of guidelines and all the rest. The backfiring of the thing not working will be even worse, and you'll have some kind of chaos in terms of the regions; in fact, it will do some irreparable harm to the whole concept of decentralization.
[5:00]
[ Page 2869 ]
HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I'm confident that the government will be able to carry out its decentralization program effectively, and that the addition of parliamentary secretaries to help ministers in that process will indeed be beneficial for the people of British Columbia.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things to say before I put something to the House. The new superezar for the lower mainland said he's bringing government closer to the people of the lower mainland. I'm sure many people would like to have the ability — which this government seems to have — to utilize and bend the rules of this Legislature and pass $8 million by special warrant to fund this organization, the United States of British Columbia. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, as you can tell from the extensive debate on this side of the House, we are very concerned about the current direction of this government and the offensive methods it is using to do the people's business — quite offensive, in our estimation.
We have, I think, canvassed the issue extensively. Unfortunately, we would like to have before us legislation that would outline the entire operation of the Premier's so-called decentralization, which basically is centralization. We would like to have that legislation before us. and so would the people of the province. We certainly would like to have in proper form the funds to fund the millionaires. We'd like to have a proper form for the accountability for the funds to be used in those regions by those new millionaires. We would like to have the terms of reference for how that money is to be spent, and how the parliamentary secretaries are going to use that million dollars.
We have our suspicions, Mr. Chairman, but we would like to have assurance from this government and this Premier that the money to be used by the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers of state is not going to continue in the fashion that we've seen at the federal level. with the Mulroney approach to government and public funds — the kind of patronage that all Canadians have been deeply offended by, and for which the federal government will feel the wrath of the electorate in the federal election. [Laughter.]
Of course, we have the laughter from the cabinet ministers and back-benchers as we try to get this government to rethink its policies in terms of its offensive use of this Legislature and the rules that have governed us in this province for many years.
We would like to have the details before us. We can only see, so far, that the system being put in place — and it's been enunciated by this side of the House — is basically to go around the democratic institutions that have governed this province for a long time.
MR. R. FRASER: That's right.
MR. BLENCOE: That member from wherever he.... That back-bencher over there from the Social Credit side says that's right: they are putting in place a system that will navigate around the institutions that we have struggled to perfect in this province and in this country for a long time.
The only way we've been able to debate this issue i's to discuss section 2 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987. It is the only way we've been able to address some horrendous attacks upon the system as we know it — cabinet government as we know it. Mr. Chairman. so far it's culminated with a special warrant, supposedly for emergency reasons, for this government to spend $8 million and allow the parliamentary secretaries and the ministers of state to hand out money. It would appear, wherever they want through unelected committees across this province.
We cannot accept such a blatant attack on parliament. And in that interest, I am going to move an amendment to this bill. I move that section 2 be amended by striking out "not more than 10" and substitutina the words "not more than 11.11
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair hasn't decided yet whether the amendment will be accepted. Perhaps the second member for Victoria. If he has not concluded his speech, would continue and give the Chair just a moment or two to study this amendment and to come back with a ruling.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to put forward in this chamber this afternoon what we consider to be a positive agenda in terms of decentralization. It relates to the utilization of the parliamentary secretaries. We don't believe those parliamentary secretaries are going to be used for real decentralization; rather they're going to be used to take away the traditional role of local government and put it into the hands of these eight superbosses, these new millionaires, and into the Premier's office.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has looked at this amendment, and it appears that it doesn't negate what's been put forward in section 2 as it stands. It just amends the number from more than ten to not more than 11. Therefore I find that this amendment is in order. and we will proceed to debate the amendment.
On the amendment.
MR. SIHOTA: I understand that the amendment indicates that the number should be not more than 11 instead of ten. Having sat through the debate that Fve been party to this afternoon since about 2:30 or 3 o'clock. I must say that I concur. It shouldn't come as a surprise. particularly to a veteran member of the House such as the minister opposite.
We've sat back and heard the debate. We've heard the minister indicate over and over auain why he thinks there ought to be parliamentarv secretaries in the system. To some extent there's validity in the argument — as far as it goes within the confines of the historical role these individuals have played in the past. Having said that, the validity just doesn't seem to be there for the increase in their number as contemplated by government. After all, if the regime is as efficient as suggested. then clearly it could do the job with 11 instead of 14, or whatever it was that was originally contemplated.
Surely it can allow for a smooth operation of government with a limited number. Surely it doesn't need a carte blanche. Surely there aren't so many jobs for the boys begging in the system as to warrant an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries under the system. Surely the government would agree that there must be some type of control on the ability of Government to issue cheques to back-benchers on the government side. Surely the government acknowledges that there must not be an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries in the system. Surely the government recognizes that that allows for an abuse of the process. Surely the government understands that 11 is a comfortable num~er to work with.
[ Page 2870 ]
Surely the government recognizes that, given the numbers it's had in the past — you've had up to ten before....
MR. LOVICK: It's one less than the Apostles.
MR. SIHOTA: Yes. And where's the case that savs you need more than ten? Where's the evidence?
I haven't heard the back-benchers saying: "Golly, gosh, gee, we're looking for jobs." I haven't heard any of the backbenchers complain. We've already heard evidence a few minutes ago about the fact that to date all these back-benchers have been doing this on a purely voluntary basis, that they haven't been paid, that they're quite happy to do this on a pro bono basis. For members who don't understand Latin, I'll get the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) to explain pro bono a little bit later.
Clearly, with respect to the amendment, if members of the House on the government side have been quite willing to do this without pay, on a purely voluntary basis, recognizing that it's part and parcel of their duties as elected members of the government side, that's great. Let's keep it that way. Why change it? They're happy. I haven't heard any back-bencher stand up just begging to have a job as a parliamentary secretary. I haven't heard any of the back-benchers complaining that they do too little.
AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been to their caucus meetings.
MR. SIHOTA: I see. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that they've been coming up to you privately and saying: "Gosh. I'm looking for a job"?
MR. SKELLY: "Just give me the money."
MR. SIHOTA: "I'm working hard. I need a little bit more money. The free grand would kind of help. And then when I do my regular mailing to my riding, I can tell them that I'm one of the new feudal barons the government set up, that I've got a title and it's parliamentary secretary. Yes, your backwoods MLA is heading towards the esteem of cabinet — he's halfway there."
Interjections.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm just trying to quieten things down for you, hon. member. I want to hear how relevantly you speak to the members.
MR. SIHOTA: He or she is halfway to finding a secure place in cabinet. Is that what they're coming behind the scenes and saying? If they're as content as the minister contends, if they're content doing work on a voluntary basis, why do we need to increase the number? Worse still, why do we need to make it an unlimited number?
[5:15]
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: Even the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), who sits closest to us....
AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't he get on?
MR. SIHOTA: Did he not make the list?
AN HON. MEMBER: No.
MR. SIHOTA: Even the second member for Kamloops may have a function. The point is that from the answers the minister has given, there's no need. The minister has conceded that there has been no financial commitment to date. He's indicated on the record, as I heard him, that there'll be no retroactive pay, nothing lost. Surely those upstanding backwoods back-bench MLAs on the government side don't want to get involved in a system of pork-barrelling, do they? No. Those honourable, outstanding members don't want to get involved in a scheme to hand out a million dollars to friends of government.
1, for one, cannot believe that some of my good friends, particularly on this side and on the back benches, would want to engage in that type of scheme. So I would venture to say that they would want to stay clear of that type of program and those parliamentary secretary appointments. I'm sure that we're going to have their full support for the amendment that my good friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has introduced. I'm sure they're going to support it, because they don't want to be associated with pork-barrelling. They're happy with the job that they're doing; they're happy with their rate of pay; they're happy to do it on a volunteer basis. Why upset that wonderful house of happiness on the other side of the House?
I think that this is simply a brilliant amendment by the second member for Victoria, who has followed this debate carefully, analyzed it in a rather rational way, and fully understands the essence of the debate, which to date has revealed that there's no need for additional parliamentary secretaries. I must say that he's shown a little bit of flexibility by allowing the number to be 11, and recognizes those historical factors that the good minister referred to earlier on.
I think it's a commendable amendment. I think it deserves the support of all members of the House, and I'm sure that the good minister himself will recognize the reasonableness, the integrity and the honour behind the motion, and the valiant effort of the second member for Victoria to maintain some level of democracy within our current system, to make sure that there is no scuttlebutt, no end run, no abuse of the process, no slap in the face to voters of ridings who happened to elect members from the opposition. It certainly is a valiant defence of democracy on the part of the second member for Victoria.
I'm pleased to see the amendment, and as I look over to the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), I'm sure that I'll have his support on this matter, because I know that he and the second member for Victoria see eye-to-eye on most issues most times. Accordingly, I certainly look forward to the indulgence and support of the House with respect to this motion.
HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased with the historical perspective he's giving, especially the use of the number 11. That's very important in this House and very important to British Columbia. If you want to discuss the number 11 just about five days from now, just 12 days after December 11, 1975, it would probably have a little more historical perspective, if we got around to that.
Now you want to appoint 11 parliamentary secretaries.
[ Page 2871 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: That's it.
HON. MR. VEITCH: That's what you want to appoint. You're wondering what they're going to do. You want to appoint 11, and you won't come out to find out what the process is all about or what they're going to do. Interesting. But you would have come out and you would have accepted the process if your caucus hadn't told you not to. Some of the members on your side wanted to come out and be part of the process, but you won't do it now, you see.
You were talking a little while ago, my friend — you're very young in this House, and I understand that — about some of our members over here being trained seals. Well, I'll tell you something. You're not a trained seal, but you're a seal in training. You're coming along very good, and you're going to learn. You're falling into that old NDP party line. You don't deserve it, my friend; you're far too intelligent for that.
No, this is enabling legislation that we brought forward. I must reject the amendment out of hand.
MR. SKELLY: As the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), my own MLA, has suggested, this is an extremely reasonable amendment: reasonable from the point of view that we look at the government actions to tell us how far they're willing to go and what they consider important. If the government felt it was necessary to appoint an individual parliamentary secretary to each cabinet minister, then we on this side of the House would accept that it was necessary with those kinds of limitations. Or if the government had suggested in their press releases that they needed an individual parliamentary secretary for each minister of state, then we thought that that might be a reasonable limit to impose on the number of parliamentary secretaries appointed. But, in fact, the government itself has suggested that there should be a limit, that the job of a parliamentary secretary is not so onerous that you have to have an individual parliamentary secretary for each minister of state. As I read through this, some of the parliamentary secretaries who have been announced for ministers of state are already doing a parliamentary secretary's job for individual cabinet ministers. So, clearly, the job for a minister of state, Mr. Chairman . Is not so onerous that the parliamentary secretary to be appointed can't do another job for another cabinet minister at the same time.
I look at the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who sits quietly in this House doing work on behalf of his constituents — or possibly mine, although nothing has materialized so far — and who is the parliamentary secretary for the Ministers of Forests and Lands and of Environment and Parks. Again, he's appointed, on top of that, a parliamentary secretary to a minister of state. So clearly it's not a full-time job. Those ministries are very busy ones in the province. This gentleman here, Minister of Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan), House Leader, is a man who clearlv needs a parliamentary secretary, yet the government only appoints one-third of a parliamentary secretary to this cabinet minister. Clearly the government itself does not believe that parliamentary secretaries are full-time positions, that in fact some ministers may have one-third of a parliamentary secretary and even then can't find enough for them to do.
Mr. Chairman, the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen)....
Interjection.
MR. SKELLY: They all look the same to me.
... Is the parliamentary secretary to that extremely busy Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Yet they're also appointing the same person to be a joint parliamentary secretary to the minister of state responsible for the lower mainland. Clearly, it's not a full-time job, yet you would think that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Economic Development would have full-time employment with the Minister of Economic Development, if in fact the parliamentary secretary's job was a real full-time job, not just an excuse to ay some Social Credit back-bencher an p, additional $3,000 a year,
I wish the Premier were in the House today debating this measure, because I think the Premier, who occasionally is a reasonable man, would have stood up in this House and said: "Right on, Mr. Second Member for Victoria. There should be a limit on the number of positions." He may not have agreed with 11, but being a reasonable man.... You'll recall that this is the Premier who wanted to consult and cooperate with the opposition, to conciliate, negotiate and get us all working together. He would have said: "Well, maybe 11 is not enough." But in the minister's own announcement a few months ago setting up these secretariats of state, he suggested that only four new parliamentary secretaries were required. They were the members for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks), Cariboo and Okanagan South. The Premier himself. In making the announcement setting up these ministries of state. only seemed to indicate to this House that four new parliamentary secretaries were required.
Remember that the principle we're talking about here is the principle of whether this number of parliamentary secretaries should be unlimited or whether it should be limited. We're not arguing about whether ministers need parliamentary secretaries or not: we are talkinE about a limitation on the number.
As we've said before. the reason for that limitation is so that the government can't buy private members, buy their acquiescence, buy their silence, buy their votes in this Legislative Assembly. That's why we feel that there has to be some limit on the number of parliamentary secretaries appointed in this Legislature. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) says there should be one. and I agree with him. The Premier says there should be four. and he tends to exaggerate quite a bit. So looking at the Premier's suggestion that there only be four parliamentarv secretaries and the second member for Victoria's reasonable suggestion that that be one, I would have thought that the Provincial Secretary.... I get my secretaries mixed up. If you're not the private secretary, you're the parliamentary secretary or you're the Provincial Secretary. This bureaucracy is getting so loaded with lard and lead, it's hard to tell which door to knock on. That's the problem here. and that's the problem we're trying to avoid.
What we're suggesting to the Provincial Secretary is that we increase the number of parliamentary secretaries from ten to not more than 11 — give it a try. see how it works. I can see some acquiescence already from the former practical, principal secretary to the Premier. There is some receptiveness in your own back bench. Mr. Provincial Secretary, to the sug, ~estion that the number be limited.
MR. RABBITT: Sixteen.
[ Page 2872 ]
MR. SKELLY: You can make a subamendment. A subamendment is possible. If you would stand up in this Legislature and move that the number be limited to 16, I think the second member for Victoria, who is a very reasonable member, would say,"Well, that's a friendly amendment," and would probably go along with it. Remember that the principle we're talking about here is limiting the number of appointments so that the government can't buy every Social Credit back-bencher in the House, can't buy their silence, can't buy their vote, can't buy their acquiescence.
I would hope that the minister would reconsider his bullheaded, blind refusal not to go along with this reasonable amendment, stand up in the Legislature and say: "Yes, limiting this number of provincial secretaries...... I think he is rethinking it right now. I would hope that the Provincial Secretary would seriously reconsider appointing an unlimited number of parliamentary secretaries and, in fact, establish a reasonable limit on it.
I would suggest that if you cannot go along with the second member for Victoria, you consider the number of parliamentary secretaries that the Premier announced in his announcement setting up the ministers of state. That would be a limited and a reasonable number, and I am sure that members on all sides of the House would be prepared to accept a reasonable limit on these positions.
[5:30]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 16
| G. Hanson | Barnes | Harcourt |
| Skelly | Boone | Gabelmann |
| Blencoe | Cashore | Guno |
| Lovick | Williams | Sihota |
| Miller | A. Hagen | Clark |
| Edwards |
NAYS — 29
| Brummet | Savage | Rogers |
| L. Hanson | Richmond | Parker |
| Michael | Loenen | Crandall |
| De Jong | Rabbitt | Dirks |
| Veitch | McCarthy | S. Hagen |
| Strachan | B.R. Smith | Couvelier |
| Davis | R. Fraser | Chalmers |
| Mowat | Ree | Serwa |
| Vant | Campbell | Huberts |
| Jacobsen | S.D. Smith |
Section 2 approved on the following division:
YEAS — 29
| Savage | Rogers | L. Hanson |
| Richmond | Parker | Michael |
| Loenen | Crandall | De Jong |
| Rabbitt | Dirks | Veitch |
| McCarthy | S. Hagen | Strachan |
| B.R. Smith | Couvelier | Davis |
| R. Fraser | Chalmers | Mowat |
| Ree | Serwa | Vant |
| Campbell | Huberts | Messmer |
| Jacobsen | S.D. Smith |
NAYS — 16
| G. Hanson | Barnes | Harcourt |
| Skelly | Boone | Gabelmann |
| Blencoe | Cashore | Guno |
| Lovick | Williams | Sihota |
| Miller | A. Hagen | Clark |
| Edwards |
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I rise under standing order [8: "No member is entitled to vote on any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest." I would point out to the chairman that certain members of this House — the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks), the member for Cariboo and the member for Okanagan South have been listed already as parliamentary secretaries. Therefore today they have voted in a pecuniary situation. I also quote Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 398: "This interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and separately belonging to the persons whose votes were questioned, and not in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects, or on a matter of state policy." —
HON. B.R. SMITH: This is really elegant procedural gamesmanship; that's all it is. The members know that the inclusion of parliamentary secretaries in a bill, just the same way as the inclusion of members and their salaries in a bill.... You would never pass any salary change bills; you would never pass any taxing bills in this place. Everyone in this House has an interest in a taxing bill. I have to vote on iniquitous tobacco taxes, and I'm a pipe-smoker. I could claim that I had a conflict of interest. That is not what "direct pecuniary interest" means. These members who are being alleged to have a direct pecuniary interest in this matter are members of a group, parliamentary assistants. They don't have a direct pecuniary interest in this legislation. They're Dot someone doing business with someone involved with the government in respect to this matter. They are members of a group who would qualify for that salary.
Mr. Chairman, this is a sophistry argument, really. If it's correct, then all the salary increases they voted for and the changes to the Constitution Act are invalid, and so on and so forth. We can't pass tax statutes either, because we all have pecuniary interest in those.
[5:45]
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General's point of order is very well taken, hon. members, and I so rule.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled now, hon. member.
Interjection.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it might be helpful if I recognized the member for Alberni, then you'd be heard. The microphone wasn't turned on.
MR. SKELLY: What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that these are members of the Legislature who, because they were appointed by the Premier in advance of this section passing, stand to benefit directly the minute this section becomes law. And for that reason, if they had no.... They should have
[ Page 2873 ]
excused themselves, because they had a direct pecuniary interest in this section, quite apart from all Her Majesty's other subjects, as Sir Erskine May says, who do not benefit directly from this, the general class of people in the province. These four members will benefit directly the minute this section 1s voted upon by members of the Legislature. They receive $3,000 annually effective this section 1s passed, and for those members to sit in the House and vote on this section 1s a direct conflict of interest. They have a direct pecuniary interest in the passage of this section, and they should have absented themselves.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I thank you very much.
A ruling was made by the Chair. Those of you in this chamber who have read the rule book will know that the amendments that came through to the orders of this House in 1985 — and they were agreed to by both sides of this House — said that the Speaker's ruling should not be challenged. What has happened now is that the hon. member for Alberni is trying to debate a ruling which is already made, and the Chair just cannot accept that.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
MR. GUNO: I alluded to this in my speech during debate on the general principles of this miscellaneous bill and spoke of my concern about this amendment. The First Citizens' Fund provides practically the only source of provincial funding for native people in British Columbia. Until now, as I understand it, these funds have been disbursed as grants. This amendment will allow funds to be disbursed as grants or loans. If we're turning it into a loan-granting type of funding, I would suggest that it's somewhat inconsistent with the Premier's recent statement about funding economic development for native people. In Monday's debate, the November 30 debate on privatization, the Premier said: "Remember the Port Simpson cannery near Prince Rupert. Remember Ocean Falls. Remember the Burns Lake native cooperative, where yearly we pumped in money that should have gone to social programs for the people." I want to ask if the Premier was suggesting that we put a higher priority in social assistance programs than in economic development assistance programs which would take these people out of that kind of dependency. I'm concerned about this government's indifference to the plight of the native people in British Columbia.
B.C., which has the second-largest Indian population — second only to Ontario — has probably the least in terms of the kinds of resources which are available to native people for economic development programs. This is the only source, and it does attract a lot of applications. Last year something like $1, 973,000 was given out in grants. There is a severe competition for the funds available under the First Citizens' program.
I would like to elicit a response from the minister as to whether the government would contemplate setting up a new and separate fund for making loans available to promote native economic enterprises, rather than simply increasing the competition for the existing funds.
HON. MR. ROGERS: I'd like to speak on this particular section for the members' benefit.
In my meetings with various native groups around the province, one of the things emphasized to me time and again is the great difficulty native people with an economic development opportunity have. While they can qualify for some grants federally and provincially — especially for on-reserve expenditures — it is almost impossible for them to get a loan. In many cases the activity they want to get involved in is a perfectly viable activity that would have the ability to repay a loan, even a forgivable loan. In some cases they have said to me they would rather have borrowed and repaid the money and had more people benefit from it than just by the straight grant. I would hope that the total funds available would grow, but in the meantime this gives us some flexibility.
I anticipate the majority of the expenditures from the First Citizens' Fund will still be by the way of direct grants. but in those instances where people wish to have it as a loan, I think that's an option we should have. I would like to think we can do them both under the same umbrella. We have some experience with some revolving fund loans under other pieces of le-islation, but in this particular case it would just offer us the flexibility to grant to first citizens of this province the ability to have a loan from the fund as well as a direct grant.
Some of the people who are applying for grants would tell you that if they were applying for a loan, they didn't feel they would be qualified because they would be going ahead of somebody whose need mig-ht be greater, but they would like to proceed on a revolving loan basis.
Mr. Chairman, I think I've explained the reason why we want to have this Section 1n here.
MR. MILLER: I want to deal with the point raised by my colleaaue for Atlin. the concern that now exists in some native communities as a result of the Premier's remarks in the privatization debate.
The Premier said very clearly in the debate that the money put into developing a fish-processing facility in Port Simpson and the money put into the Bums Lake Native Development Corporation, in terms of their participation in a sawmill development. was money wasted, and it should have gone to social programs. In other words, they should be on welfare instead of workina in those enterprises, as they are now. I can tell you that I've received calls from Port Simpson in my constituency, because over the last few years they've had a pretty successful season. That raises another issue in terms of processing some of that Alaska salmon, which hopefully we will not see lost because of the GATT ruling — but not to get into that. The difference in that community, Mr. Minister, is overwhelming. There is a heck of a difference when people have jobs and pick up that paycheque after doing that work for a week or two weeks — a heck of a difference between that and the system of welfare that was set up many. many years ago and has really created some of the worst conditions in existence.
It's fundamental, and I think it's appropriate in asking the minister questions on this section to ask whether or not there has been a fundamental shift in the government's thinking. Specifically. did the Premier say in his remarks that this government will now not fund economic development initiatives such as the Port Simpson cannery or the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation. so that native Indians can have a piece of the economic action, be involved in what's happening and have jobs' Is it now the government's policy that they will not fund those kinds of enterprises, but instead prefer to see native Indians receive welfare?
[ Page 2874 ]
HON. MR. ROGERS: If there is a question of policy, it certainly shouldn't be addressed under this section or this bill. I think I was articulate to your colleague from Atlin when I told him earlier that all we want to do in this section 1s expand the terms of reference so that the First Citizens' Fund committee can, on receipt of its applications, make a choice — and in some cases the choice is applied for. People have come to us and said: "We don't want a grant. We would like a loan because we believe that this particular enterprise or endeavour has the ability to repay that loan. We would like to be able to do that." That's all this particular section does. If you have a policy question you wish to address to the Premier, I would think the appropriate time to do it is either during question period or during his estimates, but certainly not at this time.
I am the House Leader, and unless this vote is going to pass right now and you want to pass on.... In the absence of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck), I would just advise the members that should this section pass, we will proceed to the committee rising and reporting progress. I will wait and see what the member has to say.
MR. MILLER: It may be appropriate at this point to adjourn the debate. I have several more questions relative to the section, particularly in terms of.... I don't have a substantial quarrel with the idea, but I think that it should be done in a different way and not as is being proposed under this amendment. Given that consideration, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, an apology. I was remiss in not advising the House last week that we will be sitting Wednesday this week. I accordingly advise the House now that we will sit Wednesday.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.