Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1992

Volume 4, Number 14

[ Page 2547 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have an introduction to make. In the House this morning is the Minister of Environment and Lands and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women from Newfoundland, Patricia Cowan. Would all members please give Ms. Cowan a warm welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure to introduce a delegation visiting us today from Saanich South: there are 17 students representing the students' council for grades 3 through 7 at Craigflower Elementary School and their teacher Mr. Woods. I would ask the House to join with me in making them welcome.

R. Neufeld: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce someone from my constituency -- from Fort Nelson, the northernmost community in British Columbia, Mayor Frank Parker. Will the House make him truly welcome. Private Members' Statements

COMMUNITY

F. Gingell: I rise today to discuss the concept of community. This is a subject dear to my heart, because I care about community, and I care about my community. In my humble opinion there is no community more attractive or livable than Delta. I recognize that loyalty to one's area is surely a trait shared by all members of this assembly, and that is as it should be. B.C. is, after all, the most varied and interesting province in Canada, and every constituency has its own unique attributes. However, I still maintain, amid all this beauty and variety, that Delta holds a special place.

Community is defined as a unified body of individuals or people with common interests living in a particular area, or even the area itself. So community can be a number of different things -- it can be as small as a group of four people who meet twice a week for a game of bridge or golf, and as large and diverse as the city of Vancouver. Civilization is community. Community ranks second only to the family among the oldest and most basic human institutions, so as far back as we can imagine, the community has been a part of us, and we a part of our community.

The history of society includes a decline in the importance of community. Large numbers of other institutions have taken over some of its functions, including schools, corporations and governments on a regional and national scale. However, all communities have strengths and they all have problems. We are just beginning to realize that the most effective way to deal with and solve these problems lies in involving the communities themselves. This means turning the focus away from large institutions to a smaller and more personal definition of the community. This is particularly important in an age when we are moving from an attitude of unlimited possibilities for growth to a more responsible and responsive pattern of preservation and caring.

Whether we are members of a community by birth or by choice, what counts is that we are members. As members we are equal partners with others in the nature and the future of our communities. It is only through a dedication to our communities that they are enriched and that they flourish. Members of a community are linked by a number of bonds, which can be emotional or physical. Once the members of a community no longer care or take an interest in the physical or social aspects of the community, it starts to break down. Our communities grow stronger because of the individual concerns of members and their way of resolving differences to build a better community.

Delta is known for its proactive stance on environmental issues. In fact, in the longest public hearing in Canadian history, the citizens of Delta, in 1989, turned down a massive development plan for the historic Spetifore farm in Tsawwassen, now commonly known as Southlands. This legendary public hearing was not the end of the story, however, as the municipal council in Delta is now considering another planning option: the Tsawwassen area plan. Old -- and new -- arguments favouring the development or preservation of these lands will be dusted off and heard again next week at a public hearing. The community is ready to make the best possible decisions for them. Regardless of the perspective, the degree of energy and caring taken by virtually all members of this community is to be commended.

The physical aspects of a community often shape its character. Is it scattered or compact, flat or hilly? Does the layout affect or reflect the community social structure? Ladner and Tsawwassen are unique in their physical characteristics: bounded by the ocean, the border at Point Roberts and by farmlands. This community recognizes their very separateness. With an ability to recognize the importance of the land use issue and shared resources, the people of this area are learning to cope. The farmers themselves are seen as a very valuable resource, as their activities not only produce food for other people and animals, but also preserve the habitat needed to sustain other wildlife forms. The community supports their farmers and recognizes their concerns for irrigation and traffic patterns that impact their operations and for protecting their lands against the pressures of development.

The community of Delta now recognizes these pressures and looks for slow, careful development and population growth. There's a downside to this, however, in that the revenues of industrial and commercial operations are lost. The commercial sector suffers as well from the seemingly irresistible draw of cross-border shopping. Local merchants are taking steps to make their businesses more appealing to shoppers, in an effort to keep them shopping in our communities. I applaud the programs developed by groups such as the local chamber of commerce, which highlight unique business opportunities in Delta and promote the benefits of shopping locally. This is a fine example of 

[ Page 2548 ]

how we, as members of the community, are responsible for the life and death of that community.

I wish I could take credit for the unique setting and climate of Delta. Suffice it to say, the green space and the sunshine -- of which we get more than any other area in the lower mainland -- all contribute to the wonderful recreational opportunities. However, recreation depends on the people, and Delta has many dedicated individuals and groups who work tirelessly to provide recreational and developmental programs for community members of every age, such as their many sports organizations, youth groups, arts council and seniors' programs. As well, groups such as Deltassist provide many important services for our community, as do the outreach programs of the local school board.

It is evidence of the calibre of our citizens that I so regularly have the enjoyable task of writing congratulatory letters to constituents for their achievements in many fields from academic and citizenship awards to Olympic gold medals.

For more than 30 years I have been privileged to be part of a community endowed in many ways. It is now my turn to work in service to its needs and to its continued prosperity.

[10:15]

N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to my friend on the opposite side of the House. I want to thank him for giving me the opportunity to brag about our community.

As the member for Delta North, we share this community. Community is defined in Webster's as a group of people living in the same area and under the same government. Our community is the municipality of Delta. But a community is made up of many smaller parts. The building block of our community and all communities, in this province and probably the world, is the family. A group of families will come together and form a neighbourhood. Those neighbourhoods form our community. The building block is the family, which is the strength of our country and of our communities

Communities are about people working together for a common goal. As politicians, any power that we have flows from our community. That power can be taken away by the community if it perceives that we aren't working in its best interests. That local energy can accomplish much good for our society, for from it springs those thousands of volunteers who work for the good of society in our communities, in amateur sports, service groups, recreation and beautification projects and environmental issues, which the people of Delta are famous for. Volunteers also assist our police and our fire departments in Delta. They supply those many services to our community that no tax base could possible afford.

Citizens of my community, and I believe all communities, will form into committees and groups and fight at the hint of any threat to their quality of life. They will lobby, petition and protest to protect their neighbourhoods or community, and usually they will win. Woe to the politician or bureaucrat who gets in their way. The citizens of our community rose in unison, as you heard from the hon. member for Delta South. They rose in anger to protest that development to this Spetifore site. You heard that we had the longest public hearing in Canadian history.

We have another issue in the northern part of our municipality in North Delta. That's the issue of a racetrack proposal in environmentally sensitive lands called Burns Bog. I think that the people of North Delta will rise up in the same righteous anger and indignation. These people will probably break the record for the longest public hearing in Canadian history. They will win.

The governing body of this community and other communities is the local council. That's the level of government that's closest to the people in our province. These people live and work within our communities and have their finger on the pulse of the public. They do, on average, an excellent job for their area, for very little pay and for very long hours. This local energy is evident in all parts of our province. The total of the energy that comes out of our community makes this province the great province that it is today. From Atlin to Abbotsford, from Skidegate to Sparwood and from Yale to Yahk, these people are working in their communities. People are involved in their communities, working for their families and working for their neighbors.

We've heard mentioned in this House and read in the newspapers that Canada has been judged by the United Nations to be the best place in the world to live. I'm sure the hon. members would agree that British Columbia is, undoubtedly, the best place in all of Canada to live, so we're very fortunate. We have to thank these many volunteers, these people who supply the energy of our communities for creating this. We also have to thank our people in local governments for their sacrifice. I think that we have to thank the Lord that this country is so great, and that we were allowed to live in it. I have to thank the people of Delta for allowing me to represent them here in the Legislature.

F. Gingell: As we have seen, community is only as strong as the members who build it. The beauty of Canadian community is that the strength lies in the diversity of the people, and the people are the community's greatest resource. As we grow older, we need our communities more and more. Our society is not as family based as it used to be, and our communities are replacing those families, offering the supports and services that extended families used to offer. It is in our own interests to be sure that our communities continue to build and are maintained by its members. We must be sure that we don't allow big government to decide how and where we will live. Although I accept the importance of the coordinating function of government, I hope we see the final decisions left to the people of the community. Liberals are committed to supporting the dignity, rights and responsibilities of individuals in British Columbia. These individuals know what their communities need and want, and what they themselves need or want from the community in return. As we in this assembly are members of a community ourselves, I ask you all to reflect on this and to be ever mindful of the importance of community.

[ Page 2549 ]

URBAN TREES

S. Hammell: This morning I will talk about trees in urban areas. I represent a suburban constituency and, like other MLAs, I spend the bulk of my time in Victoria while the House is sitting. As I walk each day from my temporary home in Esquimalt, I have been struck by the contrast between the great wealth of trees in the capital region and the often barren landscape of new subdivisions in Surrey.

We in B.C. have the farsighted settlers who arrived in the last century to thank for the glorious trees of Victoria. Among the essentials they brought with them were tree seeds and cuttings from points on their journey. So in addition to native species like Garry oak, arbutus and Douglas fir, I walk among monkey trees from Chile, English walnuts, tropical catalpas and giant conifers from California and Oregon.

Members will have noticed the trees around the Legislature. Two are older than this building. They are the 60-foot American elm on the Superior Street side and the redwood out front, which was planted in the 1860s as a seed. The architect, Francis Rattenbury, was not pleased when many of the trees he had expected to frame his Legislature were felled and sent to the mill.

The trees around the Legislature are certainly safe from the axe now, because the Speaker controls the precinct, and she would act on behalf of the members to protect our heritage if ever it were threatened. That is not, however, the situation for municipalities like Surrey. For that reason, I want to ask hon. members to consider for a moment the powers of our municipalities to deal with depleting urban forests.

Trees that are a joy to us can be just green things that get in the way if you have to put in sewers or footings for houses. But I think a strong case can be made for preserving our urban forests for very practical reasons. For example, there is the question of energy conservation. The 1980s gave us five of the warmest years on record, as well as the awareness of the global warming phenomenon. We learned that when you cut down a group of trees and replace them with buildings and roads, you create a microcosm of global warming. The city is an artificial environment, relatively low in green plant material and water and relatively high in synthetic materials. While plants absorb carbon dioxide and heat, they also transpire water to keep cool, which keeps their surroundings cool.

In an urban centre, the buildings, asphalt and concrete surfaces make for higher temperatures, which means more carbon dioxide and pollutants in the atmosphere. Some researchers call these urban centres "heat islands" and recommend that we could cut cooling costs in half by increasing tree coverage and changing some of the dark surfaces, like roads, to light. And of course, as every schoolchild knows, trees actually clean the air by removing pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, airborne ammonia and sulphur dioxide.

As I have mentioned before in this House, Surrey is the fastest-growing community in Canada's fastest-growing province. In the past five years in Surrey we have added 70,000 people to our municipality. As a result, each year we lose urban forest equal to half the size of Stanley Park. If the local construction industry came to the municipality and requested permission to clearcut that amount of urban forest, councillors in the community would scream in indignation. However, the question is never put in that frame. Surrey does not want to replace good stands of urban forest with tree-free developments featuring houses that stand in fields of dirt.

Some might say that it is merely fashionable to express green sentiments, but the view I am presenting has deep taproots in our urban culture. Writing 50 years ago, Frank Lloyd Wright said that we should build houses that restore to humanity the life-enhancing elements of nature. If we give legislative expression to this principle, Surrey council will be able to work in partnership with developers to deliver higher quality, more environmentally friendly developments.

Let me be clear: the construction industry is not the problem here. The problem is with our provincial laws. In the late seventies the first Bill Bennett government took away local governments' power to preserve trees during development; but more recently, in 1990, the city of Vancouver persuaded the previous administration to grant them very limited powers. Vancouver developers are now required to replace any tree that they take down in the course of construction. Surrey asked for similar powers but was rebuffed. But Vancouver's struggle to get control over trees has not been entirely successful. Vancouver's bylaw allows a 100-year old tree in good condition to be axed and replaced with a sapling or two. This hardly qualifies as conservation.

Local government should have the tools they need to ensure that development in their area is of high quality and is as environmentally friendly as possible. They should have the right to preserve the heritage of trees growing in their municipality. I call on this government to bring forward legislation that returns this power to our local governments.

D. Jarvis: When I first heard that I had to make a response to the member's statement on urban trees, I was completely unaware of what it could possibly involve. I wondered what she could mean by it.

The member's riding, as I am aware, is Surrey-Green Timbers. That would lead one to believe that the title of the statement that she was going to make today would be somewhat of a misnomer. The dictionary shows that timbers are a piece of wood forming beams; whereas a tree is a perennial plant with a single, woody, self-supporting stem or trunk. Urban is living in a city or a town, as the dictionary describes it. Being from North Vancouver, I was surprised to see that she would consider Surrey a city. At this point, I was at a real loss to know what the member could possibly be saying in her statement.

[10:30]

Then I felt obligated to discuss what a real urban tree centre would be, or what a forest was really about. I reflect back to my own riding of North Vancouver-Seymour, which is somewhat large and encompasses the city and district of North Vancouver. This area is surrounded by and interspersed with one of the 

[ Page 2550 ]

province's largest forest areas. It also houses the lower mainland's major watershed. The forests of North Vancouver-Seymour are made up through Grouse Mountain and Mount Seymour. They contain every kind of tree that one could imagine -- from every type of cedar, hemlock, spruce, birch, alder and pine, just to name a few. Our ancient forests in the North Vancouver-Seymour riding are larger than the Carmanah and Walbran Valley forests put together. Obviously trees are a very important part of our society and our everyday lives, and not only as a resource. The trees in our province eat up about 50 percent of the carbon dioxide that we emit.

In any event, urban trees are essential to good Liberal ridings. For example, my riding of North Vancouver-Seymour has such great trees and everything in it. I also think of West Vancouver-Capilano, which is a very heavily treed riding. West Vancouver-Garibaldi is a very heavily treed riding. The city of Powell River -- and Sechelt also -- is part of a very heavily treed riding. So you can see.... I could name many more Liberal ridings that are heavily treed urban ridings. So one would have to say that Liberal ridings are urban, evergreen-treed ridings and that socialist ridings have shallow-root-system trees, that their leaves turn red every year and fall off. In most cases socialists are barking up the wrong tree, so I can only assume that the member wishes she was a Liberal in a Liberal, evergreen-treed riding.

S. Hammell: I have to assume from the member's comments that he is in support of trees in all constituencies.

I do want to come back to the very practical nature of my discussion and share with the members some of the actions taken around this country in response to the concern I'm raising. The city of Kitchener views landscaping as an essential service, in much the same way as sewers and waters. The developer is bonded and required to maintain landscaping for a certain period of time after development. This shows the concern of that city for the urban environment.

Mississauga has developed strict policies which force developers to provide landscaping to standards established by the city. Once again, all costs are borne by the developer, and bonding is a must to ensure that the developer is in compliance with city standards.

Calgary has a very unique policy which ensures the continued existence of its urban forest. The city requires that trees removed by developers be replaced; in fact, they demand that for every tree removed two trees are replaced. If there's an abundance of trees in one area, the surplus is taken to areas that are more needy.

In Surrey, as a reaction to the destruction of our urban forest, the parks and rec department, with the Scouts, Guides, children of the school district and others, embarked on a program to releaf Surrey. A total of 32,000 trees was planted during Earth Day week. The goal of the municipality is to plant 200,000 trees by the year 2000.

This type of effort, as well as legislation to protect our current stock of trees, will go a long way to making our urban environments richer and healthier.

R. Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: I was remiss earlier and apologize for not introducing a couple more people here in the building today: Mrs. Eunice King, vice-president for Canada of the English-Speaking Union, and Paul Haines, an exchange student from England. Would the House make them truly welcome.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

D. Schreck: I rise today to use this opportunity, hopefully with the support of the North Shore members of the official opposition, to call on my community newspaper to be a more responsible member of my community. I am here to use the enormous freedom of speech we enjoy in this parliament to ask the North Shore News to recognize that every freedom carries with it a responsibility. I will return in a moment to reflect on the balance between freedom and responsibility, but let me first state the problem.

We have a phenomenon on the North Shore of periodic debates over the merits of the North Shore News carrying the columns of Doug Collins. Mr. Collins is a talented writer who from time to time drifts to extremes. I am reluctant to say that it has been with increasing regularity. Last month, in response to a statement on racial tolerance by the member for Okanagan East, I commented on what I interpreted as a particularly unfortunate column by Collins. Some call his columns racist. Most call his columns extreme.

Today I am speaking on the topic of freedom of speech, because it is behind that concept that the North Shore News justifies its conduct. I make these remarks with considerable reservation, as I keep in mind Voltaire's observation in 1758: "It is the characteristic of the most strident censorships that they give credibility to the opinions they attack."

So why don't we simply say that those who don't like Collins have the option of not reading him. Why shouldn't the matter stop there? The answer lies in the importance of the North Shore News to our community. It lands, like the advertising it carries, free of charge on every door in the North Shore three times a week. No other media outlet reaches so many people in North and West Vancouver. I appreciate the forum the North Shore News offers me as one of four MLAs elected from our community. Advertisers appreciate that it is an excellent vehicle for reaching our local market. Our community paper occupies a unique niche, and as such I believe it has unique responsibilities.

If Collins were to stand on a soapbox, his voice would not carry very far. If he stood in the Centennial Theatre, as he once did, he might attract only the extremes of the Reform Party. I must add, though, that even Preston Manning rejected his candidacy for the Reform Party. If Collins were to write for a paper which relies on subscriptions, then the market would provide some reaction to his views, but Collins's views are made available to every home on the North Shore 

[ Page 2551 ]

through our free community paper dropped on every door.

When I last criticized Collins's column in this House, I received several letters which indicated what he encourages. One of my constituents wrote:

"Doug Collins has been doing at least one column a month in the North Shore News protesting multiculturalism since at least the mid-1980s because, according to the Gallup polls, public debate at political meetings and the general sentiment expressed by radio talk show callers, even Pat Burns himself, Doug is quite confident that multiculturalism is federally forced."

This constituent went on in a vein I don't care to repeat, and he was joined by others with sentiments that none of us care to hear. He was joined by those we might call the "Collins constituency." I believe it is important for opinion leaders to show leadership in counteracting this intolerance and showing that this constituency is narrow and not welcome. We live in a world of almost six billion people, hon. Speaker. I've noticed that most people don't look like me. The more we can do to get along, the better we will all be. A small step is to at least let people know that Collins appeals to a small minority, and as such should not be given major exposure in a free community newspaper.

Earlier I mentioned the balance between freedom of speech and responsibility. Even in this parliament we have limits on our freedom of speech. The classical limitation of not crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would probably apply even in this House. In addition, we have rules, customs and standing orders which control the topics under discussion, length of remarks, who can speak and when. I may consider it an infringement on my freedom when my time is limited, but many other members in this House seem to consider it a blessing.

Outside this House individuals face similar limitations on their freedom. Members are reminded from time to time, although not in this session, that one is subject to legal action if libel or slander is committed. In at least one recent case outside British Columbia, Criminal Code provisions have been applied to the promotion of racial hatred. I haven't heard anyone allege that these legal restrictions would or should apply to anything in my community paper. Nevertheless, they do constitute evidence that freedom of speech is not unlimited. A practical limitation to freedom of speech is found in its means of propagation. I am reminded of the hollow freedom both the rich and poor enjoy to sleep under bridges. Can it not also be said that those who own, control or have regular access to the media enjoy a far different level of freedom? I believe that our friends in the gallery do maintain their independence from the owners of their respective media.

I am reminded of a cartoon showing an editor congratulating a young reporter for an outstanding job of investigative journalism leading all the way to criticizing the owners of their paper; the congratulations are followed by a pink slip. I am not asking that the North Shore News provide Doug Collins with a pink slip. I am merely asking that they not run monthly columns which at worst draw accusations of racism and are at best attacks on multiculturalism. I agree with the president and secretary of the North Shore Multicultural Society, who recently wrote the following to the North Shore News....

Hon. Speaker, I am happy to conclude these remarks following a response from the official opposition.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to respond to the member's statement. In general, I support the remarks of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. In fact, more than a year ago I had occasion to write a letter to the North Shore News complaining about some of the content of Mr. Collins's columns. I suggested in that letter that perhaps the North Shore News rethink their continual running of these columns. I argued in that letter that the recipients of the North Shore News deserved better. I make the comment, as the hon. member also mentioned, that this paper lands on every doorstep in both North and West Vancouver, so the recipients are somewhat of a captive audience. To the credit of the paper, it ran my letter, but the unfortunate columns continue to this day.

I say unfortunate, because often Mr. Collins's remarks are offensive and inflammatory. There are laws in this province and in this country about what one can say. There are laws dealing with libel and slander. Defamatory libel is a criminal offence. Promotion of hatred is another criminal offence. Spreading false news is yet another criminal offence. Mr. Collins is quick to cite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in his own defence. He would hide behind the curtain of the Charter to deny that he overstates a case to the point of rudeness and total intolerance.

[10:45]

Mr. Collins does not have an unfettered right to free speech, and the Charter does not grant him that right. The Charter, perhaps unfortunately, does not specifically comment on responsibilities, but it was not incorporated into the Canadian constitution to allow unchallenged freedoms. In fact, significant court rulings have placed proper limits on the freedoms outlined in the Charter. If we were to accept the arguments of Doug Collins, Doug Christie, Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel and Malcolm Ross, then, quite frankly, we would quickly erode and eventually lose our freedoms. To abandon responsibility in the guise of protecting fundamental freedoms is foolish and unworthy. We enjoy the very freedoms that allow Doug Collins to have his forum because we show the responsibility that goes with the right.

I agree with the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale that the North Shore News does not have the right to publish the remarks of Collins without question. That paper, like any other, has a responsibility to the community to place restrictions on what appears in print. They do not print letters without examining their content. So why should they print a column without the same examination? No doubt our discussion this morning will spawn yet another Collins column and probably an editorial in that newspaper. There will certainly be letters to the editor that will come from the remarks we're making this morning. I'm sure the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale will get calls, and I 

[ Page 2552 ]

presume I will also, although I have not had many yet on this subject.

To close, some would say: let's leave well enough alone -- or perhaps, "ill" enough alone. But to remain silent is to say I agree. Well, hon. Speaker, I do not agree with the policy of the North Shore News. Other members, I'm sure, would agree with our reluctance to give any credence to the content of his columns. Mr. Collins, whether he likes it or not, has a responsibility for what he says and writes; certainly a newspaper has the same responsibility. He has the right to comment on whatever he wishes, but unqualified comments in a significant North Shore newspaper that reaches every doorstep are an abuse of this right. The newspaper should recognize this.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for making this a true community and non-partisan request of the North Shore News to show more responsibility.

I have in my hand a couple of letters I've received from the more extreme of my constituents criticizing me and supporting the views of Doug Collins. I thought about whether I should quote some of the remarks in these letters, but they do not deserve the dignity of being repeated in this House. They are the most racist comments I have seen in years, and they would shock all members of this House. It is that extremely small minority that is encouraged by, and feeds upon, the extreme comments in the worst of the columns by Doug Collins. No community newspaper should be encouraging that kind of extreme constituency.

I agree with the president and the secretary of the North Shore Multicultural Society, who recently wrote the following to the North Shore News

"Your defence of Doug Collins's racist articles has been based on the freedom-of-expression argument. We do not wish to deny Mr. Collins the right to express himself. However, it is our belief that you should not give him a public forum through which to promote racial hatred. The real issue is the ethics of publishing. As a community newspaper, you should demonstrate social responsibility to the public and a basic respect for all citizens who comprise our community. In our opinion your current editorial policy is absolutely wrong and is stretching the community's tolerance...."

As one of four North Shore MLAs for the communities served by the North Shore News, I consider it a privilege to rise in this House and add my voice to the call for ethical journalism. I am pleased to see that my colleague on the official opposition has done the same.

HEALTH CARE TRAVEL

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, every year thousands of British Columbians must travel far from home in order to receive a diagnosis or a specialized medical treatment. Often, however, money is not available for one airfare, let alone enough to cover the cost of airfare for a parent to accompany a sick child.

The British Columbia Airvac program provides an excellent emergency service to all British Columbians. The one problem with the service is that patients are only guaranteed a flight to the treatment centre. Once a treatment or surgery is completed, it is incumbent upon the patients to provide for their own flight home if they are completely recovered. Often patients need treatment requiring travel to medical facilities that may be hundreds of miles away.

Let's consider the example of a young girl from Fort St. John who is in need of emergency eye surgery in Vancouver. She is flown to Vancouver, and if a seat is available, she may be accompanied by an escort. Upon recovery, they are responsible for paying for the return trips home. The costs to her family are astronomical. The flight back to Fort St. John costs about $320 for one ticket. Added to this is the cost of a hotel, at upwards of $100 a night. The meals could reasonably total $40 a day, and that's a conservative estimate. If the daughter and her mother stay in Vancouver for three nights, the bill could total more than $500 -- not to mention the $640 they have to pay for the flight home. We must also consider the impact on the family members at home. If there are other children, a babysitter must be arranged if the father is working.

This is just one of the many situations that people throughout British Columbia must confront as they deal with the ill health of themselves or their loved ones. For example, a one-way flight from Vancouver to Atlin, which goes via Whitehorse, costs $500; to Sandspit or Smithers, $296; to Cranbrook, $255; and to Port Hardy, $190. If the air ambulance is not required, a return flight costs double these amounts. At first glance, the costs for these flights may not appear unreasonable. But consider the fact that people are paying this money just to have access to emergency and specialized health care services that people in the lower mainland can readily avail themselves of. In 1989, 22 percent of the patients were referred from rural and remote areas of B.C. to hospitals in urban and metropolitan areas.

Many words of wisdom came from the Seaton Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. One recommendation in particular touched a topic dear to my heart: establish a travel grant program for people who must travel to receive health care. It's an idea which sounds simple enough, but you might think that it could cost a fortune to actually implement it.

With ingenuity and resourcefulness, a constituent in Peace River North came up with a brilliant idea, which grabbed my attention. Airline companies, by way of promotion, offer travel points to encourage repeat business from their customers. People travelling on government business, such as provincial and municipal officials and members of this Legislature, are eligible to be the recipients of travel points. Often times the points, which are in reality a discount, fall by the wayside and go unused, and no one, not even government, benefits.

This is where you and I come in. Under the auspices of the provincial government, an office should be established to administer travel points collected as a result of flights taken by all government officials. The travel points received would then be collected and disbursed to individuals in need of air transportation back to their communities upon completion of their medical treatment. The office -- possibly under the Minister of Health's jurisdiction -- could facilitate the 

[ Page 2553 ]

transfer of travel points to those in need. Because of financial costs, many British Columbians are unable to avail themselves of some health care services that people in the lower mainland so readily enjoy. In addition, this program would be of great benefit to people requiring a return trip home after treatment in Vancouver.

Actively using a benefit such as travel points, which is often wasted, is a win-win situation for everyone. People who are already concerned with their own health or the health of a loved one have their financial pressures eased. The government is providing a much-needed health care service. Health care services, in general, will be more accessible, as travel to those services would not pose a great financial barrier.

This is an opportunity for us to take the lead and set an example for all employees within each level of government. Ideally, corporations and businesses would become involved and encourage their employees to contribute their travel points to this very worthwhile cause. Establishing a provincial government office to administer the travel points program requires the cooperation of governments and the airline companies. As members of this Legislature, we have the ability and the resources to take action to provide free flights for those who require out-of-town medical treatment. Implementing this travel point system would enable us to make use of a currently underutilized, valuable resource for the benefit of people throughout British Columbia.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to speak on the concerns as to northern and interior health care travel. As many members of the House know, equitable access to health care, particularly ensuring that people living in rural ridings such as mine will have the same benefits of the province's health care system as those in the larger centres, has long been an issue of concern. For many years my colleagues on the government side of the House have raised this matter, and it was acknowledged by the former government that this matter required careful consideration. As well, the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs also looked at this issue and made a number of recommendations. If the member has had the opportunity to read past debates in the House, he will have seen that the current Minister of Health spoke in this House on May 13, 1991, in support of travel assistance for those residents who have to travel long distances for health care treatment.

One of the things that this government does not want to do is implement ad hoc programs. We want an integrated health care system that will benefit all residents of British Columbia. To that end, we are attempting to develop a coordinated approach that will look at the regional needs of the whole province so that we may put in place a more holistic system. As members already know, this government appointed an advisory committee to advise on implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission. The advisory committee's report is due at the end of October. I think it is very important to note that the advisory committee and its working groups reflect the diversity and concerns of all the people of British Columbia. In other words, all regions of the province are represented, as are first nations, health care professionals and consumers.

I'm very glad that the member for Peace River North has raised this issue in the House today. My colleagues and I appreciate his concerns and we share his interests. I will be happy to ensure that the Minister of Health is made aware of his suggestions.

L. Reid: Currently people travelling by ambulance in this province must incur their return costs. I share the sentiments expressed by my colleague. I too have been nonplused to find that after tremendous medical intervention and separation of families, they indeed must incur additional financial hardship to return to their homes. Health care must at least recognize that hardships do exist, and perhaps we can look to hospital support systems to provide return travel. Without some mechanism in place, we will continue to have a two-tiered health system -- i.e., if you live in the lower mainland, the cost of health care is less than if you live in the northern parts of this province.

[11:00]

This is current practice. We need to ask ourselves if this is indeed the way we wish to proceed. Part of the difficulty is that we may not recognize the problem. The hon. member for Peace River North has identified the problem, and he has also presented a possible solution. I welcome innovation. I would welcome the members of this House joining together to seek a solution.

There is another issue, which is compounded by distance. This is the availability of kidney dialysis for residents of our province who live outside the lower mainland. Patients who require dialysis need this service three times a week for four hours at a time. To be uncertain about the availability of this service at their destination is discouraging many British Columbians from visiting friends and family around this province. We cannot allow this situation to continue.

Again, past practice is advocating a different level of freedom for British Columbians requiring specialized care. These issues require our concerted efforts to ensure that discrimination in our health care system is eliminated before many more days have elapsed.

R. Neufeld: The effective use of travel points by government employees at all levels has long been a topic of discussion. It's high time that we actually did something useful with a benefit that is reaped from government business.

The first step involves members of this Legislature committing themselves to an idea that our collective pool of travel points really can make a difference. We already know that this government supports the idea of providing free air travel, as evidenced by the grant to a charitable organization in Toronto that provides free air transportation for Canadians in need of medical treatment or diagnosis. In fact, in only six months, from October 1991 to March 1992, Mission Air Transportation carried 179 British Columbians, at a total cost savings of $49,000. Since March of 1986 this organization has carried 960 B.C. residents, for an overall cost saving of $221,000. That is absolutely remarkable. Mission Air 

[ Page 2554 ]

truly deserves recognition nationwide for its contribution to our health care system. Unfortunately it is based in Ontario.

I encourage the Minister of Health to ask her staff to immediately look into the idea of establishing an office in government that would facilitate the collection and distribution of travel points. I would be more than pleased to provide the minister with the information that I have already received. Let's take the lead in British Columbia and require that all members of this Legislature give their travel points to our citizens who are in need of transportation to and from health facilities outside their homes. We can make a difference and improve our health care system.

We talk about making better use of underutilized resources. Now it's time to put our travel points to good use to improve our health care system and help British Columbians. Let's have a travel point system that is in British Columbia alone, not in Ontario.

L. Stephens: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: In the galleries this morning we have a group of students from Alice Brown school in Langley, with their teacher, Ms. Quiring. We also have a former employee and a good friend and supporter, Norlain Williamson. Please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: By agreement I call committee on Bill 10, the Health Special Account Act.

HEALTH SPECIAL ACCOUNT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 10; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 1.

K. Jones: I rise with pleasure to speak on this resolution. Our party has been working on this act and advocating it for many years, and there was extensive discussion on it last evening. I think most of the points have been addressed. We have a few areas of concern that we think would make the bill a little better, and we would like to make those proposals as we go along. They are just to make sure that, as is indicated, these health-oriented funds are going to go directly to the health projects that would be visible and of benefit to the people, not just running into the general operating funds of the health ministry.

I would first like to address the fact that this establishes a health special account in the style of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, where everything was going into one big fund. These are the public's lottery funds, and we need to maintain strict control to see that they remain at all times for the stipulated uses as provided under this act.

Therefore, I propose the following amendment: to add after the words "revenue fund" the words "and shall only be used for the purposes of this act." I think the minister should probably have very little difficulty with that amendment. It just clarifies the allocation of the funds, and should be very easily supported by all members of this House.

Hon. G. Clark: I obviously don't have any problem with the intent of the amendment, but it's clearly not necessary. The entire act is setting up a special account which prescribes that money can only be spent for the purposes of the act. That's what the act is. So it's completely tautological. It's a redundant amendment, which legislative counsel suggests is not required. I think it would be ridiculous to add those words to this section, when it is not required to do exactly what you have suggested.

The Chair: Hon. members, while the amendment is not out of order in that it changes anything, it does expand on what already exists. In that respect it is redundant. The Chair rules that it is not a substantive or necessary amendment and is therefore out of order.

K. Jones: We make our improvements, and sometimes they're not the best at that time.

V. Anderson: Perhaps if the minister could expound.... I know in one sense it's listed below, but a great many questions are being asked about the terms of reference of the fund itself. The special health account and some of the illustrations given further down leave it so wide open that it could almost be used for general funding of health which is currently budgeted, rather than the terms of reference that say it's not to be used for any of the current budget, but is only for special projects. Clarification of the terms of reference of the fund and its establishment would be helpful at this point.

Hon. G. Clark: There's no problem doing that under section 3 of the bill, but this is the creation of a special account. Could we have that discussion on section 3.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

K. Jones: We have a little concern about the term "up to a maximum" in determining the amount of the account that would be included, since the account should always be equal to the full amount voted. If in fact it is the intention of the legislation to fully use one-half of the annual average available lottery moneys, then it should be all-inclusive -- the full half of the lottery funds that are transferred to the government from the Lottery Corporation. It should be without that restriction. Therefore we would like to propose the following: delete after the words "Lottery Corporation Act" the words "up to a maximum in each fiscal year that is equal to the amount shown in the estimates as revenue in the health special account for that fiscal year." I hereby table the amendment.

[ Page 2555 ]

On the amendment.

Hon. G. Clark: The problem with this amendment is that it is completely contrary to some other remarks made by members of the Liberal Party. That doesn't, of course, surprise me, but.... If we were to agree to this amendment, it would mean that the amount of money would float every year with lottery revenues. What we've done is say at the beginning of the year that we will put in the estimates book a separate vote which can be debated in this House, and it is an estimate of how much lottery fund revenue is to take place, with specific expenditures so that it can be debated and accounted for. The reason this is required is that if there is extra money -- an extraordinary year for lotteries or something -- we can leave it in the special account and carry it over for next year. Instead of being required every year to spend whatever comes in on lottery funds, and have it go up and down or whatever happens, the use of a special account is precisely so that we can carry over small surpluses from year to year. You as members, and members of the public, can see how much is in the special account and can draw down whatever's in there, and you can put demands on us.

[11:15]

Rather than liquidate the account entirely every single year and have it subject to those whims, what we have done is much more accountable to the Legislature and to the public, and it's much more rational, because it allows for the smoother continuation of health care spending in certain areas over the course of the year. I understand the point you're making. If we were to go your route, it would guarantee 50 percent of every lottery dollar absolutely spent every year. It seems to me not to make really good public policy sense. Believe me, if we were to pass this bill and have a huge surplus in the health special account -- which in the health care side would never, ever happen -- we would be subject to enormous criticism from the public and yourselves that we had in fact thwarted the bill.

From your perspective, I think you have comfort with the special account. You know that we are obligated to spend it, and if we don't spend it then we will be held accountable in the House. I think the opposition should have enough comfort in the existing bill. If we were to accept your amendment, this bill would require the government to spend money up to the maximum every year, and that would lead to March madness every year, because you never know exactly how much is going to come in on lottery funds. It would lead to the fact that we wouldn't be able to provide sustainable funding over time. I think the way we have it is better, so I'm opposed to the amendment.

K. Jones: The minister appears to be relating to section 3 rather than section 2, because he's talking about the expenditure of the funds. We're talking about the money that's being brought into the funds. This amount of money should be 50 percent of all of the money that is allocated for lotteries. Otherwise he, in the Ministry of Finance and in consolidated revenue fund, has all of the surplus money going for whatever purposes he wishes to use it. I don't think that was the intention of everybody who supported this bill, that there would be extra funds from the lottery going into general revenue.

The lottery-raised money was intended to go to specific projects -- 50 percent to Health, a certain amount to community development programs, a certain amount to museums, archives and projects like that and a certain amount to sports and culture. I believe that was the whole intent of everybody's thinking. All parties in their campaigns advocated that the lottery funds go to specific areas and not be part of the general consolidated fund for use other than what would be under vote, as you've indicated. You're planning to bring it under scrutiny by bringing it through under vote. The way it's worded right now, having this maximum, leaves a gap in there that's not covered. Therefore, we bring this forward and ask your support to understand this concept. I'm sure you do understand.

Hon. G. Clark: Just one final point. I think you're completely wrong in this respect. What this does is give you, as an opposition member, comfort that every year we have to bring in what we're going to spend the health care special account funding on, in the estimates of the Ministry of Health. That's what it requires us to do.

You're suggesting that if we don't put a maximum in there, that allows government to spend it on whatever they want, which is the way it has been in the past with lottery funds. We are tightening it up with ours. You're asking us to go back, essentially, to the way it was in the past. If we don't put the maximum in there as the amount shown in the estimates of the Ministry of Health, then the maximum is how much is in the fund. Then you'll obviously have to spend whatever is in the fund. I think this gives much more accountability for the opposition and for the public of how we're spending it.

V. Anderson: I don't think we have disagreement with what the minister is trying to say. What is written here is not what he is trying to say. As I read it -- perhaps he could clarify -- if we took in $200 million in lottery funds in the current year, 50 percent of that would go into this fund. If we took in $300 million, then $100 million of that would go into this fund, which would be only 33.3 percent. If we took in $400 million, $100 million would go into the fund, which would be only 25 percent.

We're simply saying, not on the expenditure side, that the estimates, as you've properly said, are $100 million that will be spent out of the fund. That's the estimate in planning for the year. As this reads, that's also the maximum that goes into the fund. If this were to say that 50 percent of all lottery money raised goes into the fund in any given year, the amount in the estimate is what will be spent and the rest will be carried over to the next year, then we would be in total agreement. I think that's what you're saying.

[ Page 2556 ]

As it now reads, there's a maximum of $100 million that goes in every year instead of 50 percent of the lottery fund.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand your point. Let me give you a different argument for why I think the existing thing is better. By virtue of putting it in the estimates of the Ministry of Health, it means that if lottery fund revenue drops, which is more likely than increasing these days with competition for gambling revenue, we can still spend the amount that's in the estimates.

I think you're right that if we have an outstanding year in lotteries, it may be that we don't spend 50 cents in that particular year on every dollar in lotteries. The way we've designed it means that what we put in the estimates, we have the authority to spend if the members of the House vote in favour of it. For planning purposes, to give some certainty to it and to have better public accountability, we're detailing exactly how we're spending at the beginning of the year. That requires an estimate of revenue. You're right; it can go a little up or down. From our perspective, we're more concerned about giving some certainty. The downside, if lottery revenue drops, is that we can still spend the amount that the members have approved in this House.

I'm afraid I'm still going to have to oppose the amendment, but I appreciate your rationale better now.

V. Anderson: To take that one further, I agree with him that the amount needs to be set at the beginning of the year. If the amount of money that came in went down that year, then that estimate covers the promises for the year. That we totally agree with.

But we still argue that if another minister comes in.... We've had trouble; this minister may not be the Minister of Finance all the time. If another minister comes in who has not been part of the argument or discussion and simply goes by the act, then they will put in half of the 50 percent up to $100 million. If the minister was to put in the act that 50 percent will go in every year and the estimates will indicate the amount that will be spent in that year, it would be a both-end proposition rather than an either/or. I think if the minister would be willing to reword that -- and it could be quite simply done so that it covers both of those contingencies -- we and everyone else would be much happier about the bill. As it's written it does not give the kind of authority that the minister is discussing at this point or, I might say, the kind of authority the people in the community are expecting.

I'm sure the people in the community are going to read the act the same way we are, and they're going to say that the government is doing it to them again. They say they're going to give us 50 percent, but all they're giving is $100 million. I think we have to be fair to them and to ourselves. The act should say what you have said, Mr. Minister, not what you're interpreting it to say, which it does not. They would hope you would bring in a change.

K. Jones: I believe that the minister was trying to achieve what we're trying to achieve, but the minister would be better off in bringing that allocation into section 3, which defines how much of the money would be spent. That is more clearly appropriate. If you were to put the part that we're recommending be deleted into section 3, then you would have the instruction there that the expenditure shall be what is budgeted.

Hon. G. Clark: I think sections 2 and 3 are really quite distinct and separate, and I'd rather keep them separate. You seem to be mixing it up a bit. But I understand what the member for Vancouver-Langara and the members opposite said, and that is that you would like a floor but not a ceiling. I'm sympathetic to it, but I'm not prepared to make changes right now on the floor. From our perspective this gives absolute certainty for all members in how we're spending the money, and we'll be held accountable. I assure you, we will be held accountable. We prefer that approach, but I'll certainly take your consideration under advisement. I'm sure that you'll remind us if we're not living up to our commitment. Believe me, we wouldn't bring in a bill like this if we weren't intending to spend 50 cents on every dollar of lottery funds on health care. We certainly will.

K. Jones: Just one final question. I'd like to ask the minister if he could indicate how he's going to spend the portion of the lottery funds that isn't allocated if it goes well beyond the limit that is budgeted for health care, which is going to be maximized by this section of the legislation. Where is he going to spend the remainder? How will the public know that that money is being spent?

The Chair: There is some question with respect to future policy on how the other half is spent. However, the minister may wish to respond.

Hon. G. Clark: We will be spending half of the estimated amount of lottery funds. If there is some bumper year or extra revenue, it goes into general revenue. Believe me, it will be absorbed by that $6 billion health care budget in any event, because that's usually the reason why we're over budget. There's absolutely no reason to believe that we won't be spending half. It will be half of lottery funds based in all likelihood on last year's revenue. There won't be any surplus to be spent.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, as a point of clarification, could you ask one of the Clerks whether or not the reference to the Lottery Corporation Act, which apparently has not yet been proclaimed, is legitimate?

H. De Jong: I'm a little concerned about the statement that the minister just made. He said that if there is additional money, it will be absorbed by the Health budget. That's really my concern. The Health budget should be sufficient to run Ministry of Health activities. This is also why I stated last night that if the money is designated for a specific purpose over and beyond the budget, I have no difficulty with it, but this 

[ Page 2557 ]

should not be a means to lower the budget as such because it will be filled in by lottery funds.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask for leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have in the Legislature today, visiting from Powell River, two students from Malaspina College, who are here to have meetings with the Minister of Advanced Education. They met with me today as well. I wonder if members of the House would welcome Dan Keane and Stephen Soby.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the Clerk has checked the reference to the proclamation of the Lottery Corporation Act.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm not clear that I quite understand your point. However, if the minister wishes to canvass your question, that's....

[11:30]

Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly look into that consideration. This is legislative counsel's drafting of our intentions. The purpose of this is partly the lawyers of the government suggesting it as the vehicle for spending. Believe me, it's a legal question. If you have concerns about the Lottery Corporation Act or any proclamation thereof, I'll be delighted to look into it. But I don't know the answer.

Amendment negatived.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

R. Neufeld: As was discussed last night in second reading, we're going to use half of the lottery funds in the health care budget. I said that I agree with that. I have a little problem with the way it goes around. I would rather see, as the minister stated, that it is going to be accountable. He said it would be in a certain fund. If it was designated to health research or health promotion and health care education services.... That is a trend that we're going to in the health care budget. The Seaton commission recommended that home care is apparently the way to go. That is obviously going to be a very expensive part of the health care budget. I'd rather see that we target that money for those specific purposes than putting it, by the minister's whim, into administration, operation and delivery of health care, because it can get lost very quickly. We're talking about a $6 billion budget. A hundred million bucks goes pretty fast in that size of budget; we all know that. If we could target it to health care, research and promotion of educational services, I would be much more comfortable.

Hon. G. Clark: The minister is here, but let me say that the reason you should be comforted is that all spending out of this special account is now in a separate vote in the Ministry of Health. Every year in her estimates, you can query precisely how the money is spent on health care. Believe me, I agree completely with you that this could be spent on administration pretty quickly, and that's not our intent at all.

I think you'll find this year that the estimates of.... The minister can talk -- her estimates are coming up shortly -- about the fact that it is largely health promotion, health research, the B.C. Health Research Council....

Hon. E. Cull: No, that's a separate item.

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, it's a separate issue. But there are lots of areas where.... I think generally we are in agreement, and the reason why I feel strongly that this bill.... It is a bit broad on the expenditure side in terms of narrowing it, but the reason why we did that was that we accompanied it with the fact that it's a special account which requires the House to approve the expenditures from it in the estimates. The broadness of the definition in the act is to give flexibility to the minister to spend the money, but the minister can only spend the money after it's approved in the House and after you get a chance to debate exactly how it's spent.

Hon. E. Cull: To add to that a little bit and to give some explanation, one of the reasons the flexibility is very useful is that over the years, our priorities may change. Right now it's very clear that the priority is to move in the direction that Justice Seaton and the royal commission suggested: to bring services closer to home, to expand community-based services, to shift the focus from treating illness to treating prevention.

Over time -- and this will be around for many years -- some of those priorities may change as a result of our success in achieving them. We may find that we want to direct this money not to the things we want to direct it to right now. We might want, for example, to direct more of it to AIDS treatment; to set up home IV for AIDS patients, which is an area that we need; or to cancer treatment as new technologies come along. We need some flexibility there. What we will be discussing in the not-too-distant future when we start my estimates is how we're going to spend it this this year. We'll have a lot more time to talk about it then.

I want to assure the member that what we are talking about are the very things he has suggested, with the exception of research. We do have the B.C. Health Research Foundation as a separate body that funds all kinds of health research. I don't have in my head right now the amount that they fund. I could get that for you, and of course we'll discuss it in estimates.

A number of health research projects are funded every year -- again, on a priority basis. This year we're looking at multicultural issues, women's health, native health issues and health promotion -- royal commission issues. The money that we will be debating in my estimates is to go to health promotion, to preventive health care, such as increased immunization. You know that we announced a hepatitis B vaccination program recently. That has to be funded from somewhere. The 

[ Page 2558 ]

Lottery Fund is where we will be taking that from. Hemophilus B is another vaccination program that is needed to deal with prevention issues. We will also be dealing with mammography screening -- again, another preventive program -- and with some of the higher-priority issues I mentioned with respect to cancer, AIDS and heart surgery.

The other aspect of where this funding will go is to expand the community partnership program, which is in conjunction with hospitals and continuing care to create programs that help the transition from institutions to community services. The best example I can use to illustrate that is the quick response team that was successfully piloted here in Victoria and has now been copied all over the province.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Minister of Finance states: that it will be a separate vote and will be debatable, and that we'll know where it went. I am concerned about the administration part. I've been in municipal politics for a lot of years, and I know how much money can go into administration in an awful hurry in the operation of the delivery of health care. If we're going to set up a special account and it needs to be changed later on for whatever purposes, you can bring it forward as an amendment. There's no problem with it. I do have reservations about that. Other than that, fine. I just wanted you to know that.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, the words "administration," "operation" and "delivery of health care" are not appropriate in terms of what was discussed with 72,000 British Columbians who put their names to a petition. They believed that 50 percent of lottery dollars in this province should go to urgent health care priorities such as surgical waitlists. We're not responding to that with this particular section, hon. minister, because we still have individuals leaving the province for surgery. This needs to be revamped very seriously.

To take issue with the Minister of Health's comments about the Seaton royal commission.... At the very least, the direction of that commission deserves debate in this legislative chamber. It deserves some recognition of where we intend to go as a province. It does not need to be considered in estimates prior to debate. I resent the lack of process. Certainly the royal commission is going on its own pace at this stage.

We need to look very carefully at removing "administration" from this bill today, because this is not in the wishes of British Columbians, and this is not the intent that you folks campaigned on during the last election.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, following up my colleague from Richmond East, we on this side have two areas of concern in this section. First, the minister and the ministry have full authority over moneys to be paid out. It could be argued that this is too much authority for the ministry, since they are responsible for general health facilities operations, and this is supposed to be a special account. Therefore, in order to provide for better administration of this account, we'd like to make the following amendment: to delete, after the word "authorization," the words "of the Minister of Health" and replace them with the words "of the Health Special Account Advisory Board provided for under this act." I hereby table that.

The reason for this is fairly straightforward. It's important to have a separate, independent board that will look after all the various ramifications of the needs of the province and the community in the health care area, and to do that in coordination with the Health ministry -- but to have a separate administration so that they can concentrate specifically on this, much like in 1973-74, when we had the resources boards. I'm sure the minister recalls the resources boards that the former NDP government brought into place in British Columbia. They played a very positive role in guiding the ministries on distributing the funds which were allocated. I'm sure that there will be a great number of demands on this roughly $100 million fund, and I'm sure there's probably going to be a request for $200 million or $300 million. It's going to take a fair amount of work to differentiate the true area of need. I think it's very important that this be done by an independent group of people who are really dedicated to this job only.

We make this recommendation that will establish this independent health administration board.

[11:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

L. Reid: The decision just reached by this House is a huge disappointment to me, which is shared by members of your party. On June 13, 1990, the hon. member for Burnaby North said: "Mr. Speaker, we have recently learned that the auditor general's review of lottery grants has found irregularities in 25 percent...."

D. Schreck: Point of order. The matter that the member is attempting to debate has just been voted upon, and continued debate on that matter is clearly out of order.

The Chair: The point is well taken. The standing orders quite clearly prohibit reflection on a vote that has been defeated. Would the hon. member please proceed.

[ Page 2559 ]

L. Reid: We are still on the same section, so I will continue my remarks. The hon. member for Burnaby North said: "The public wants assurance of a non-political process in terms of lottery grants." Has the minister decided to replace the four-member cabinet committee with an arm's-length, non-political advisory committee? This issue is in the minds of British Columbians, and this issue will be addressed. The 72,000 people who signed Mrs. Parkes's petition will not be impressed.

The Chair: Hon. member, once again you are reflecting on a vote that has passed.

K. Jones: Even though the government chose not to proceed with that independent board, we do have concerns about the allocation, or how the expenditure will be distributed. Therefore I would like to table another amendment: that the words "the administration, operation and delivery of health care" be deleted and replaced with the words "recommended health care projects, including support for urgent health services for individuals, special equipment for use in provincial health care facilities,...." Then it carries on with the other items.

On the amendment.

K. Jones: The idea of this, as it was spoken about both last night and earlier today, is that the people of British Columbia are very concerned that the money raised through lottery funding and allocated to the Health budget should go to things that are specific and urgent in community-based areas and not just to the operational funding of hospitals and health care services. We bring forward this amendment to focus on what the government has already indicated as the purpose of this legislation. We just want to make sure that this more clearly defines that. We feel that this is a very good amendment, and we ask all members on both sides of the House to support this, because it deals with the direct intent of the bill which was brought forward.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm speaking in opposition to the amendment, because I think it's really a trivializing amendment. Surely the government agrees with the intent of the sentiments voiced by the official opposition. In fact, those were made clear, as I recall, in the throne speech. They've been made clear by the Minister of Health many times and by the Premier when he was Premier-in-waiting, during the recent election campaign. The intent of the amendment implies that somehow the Ministry of Health is incapable, as a government ministry, of making non-political, fair and rational judgments about where the most pressing needs are in the health system.

I am pleased and proud to be recognized as a former Health critic for the official opposition and to be able to say that although, as a private member, I don't always agree with everything the Ministry of Health does, in last 20 years in general they have displayed very clear evidence that they don't make decisions on political grounds. In general, they do respect the priorities of the province.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: The Ministry of Health. For those who can't hear, the member for Saanich North and the Islands is shouting: "Who makes decisions in a non-political way?" The Ministry of Health does, and the clear intent of this bill was that the minister will, as ministers generally do, be following the advice that she receives from Ministry of Health staff and will be exercising her authority as the responsible head of the government department to allocate these moneys responsibly. I think the amendment is therefore clearly unnecessary and is really tying up the time of the House, which is urgently waiting its chance to debate a private member's motion on this private members' day.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, through you to the ministers of health this afternoon, the words "Health Special Account" say it all. To trivialize it by putting in the word "administration" is not the direction you folks suggested this bill would go in. It was not that long ago since the election, when there were going to be urgent health priorities recognized.

The Minister of Health's responsibility is administration. This is something new. This is the health special account. If you want to say "Health Account" and take out the word "Special," we could debate this for the rest of the day. But it's a special account, and it cannot, in my view, not recognize where we want to go with this, which is to urgent health priorities. We ask your support for this amendment. You are devaluing something that should be new and fine and special under the health special account, if you go forward and allow this act to contain administration. That is not the purview of this act, and it is not what you promised to the voters of this province on the steps of this Legislature. Seventy-two thousand of them wanted something that was special for health care priorities, not administration. That has to be recognized.

[12:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

Section 3 approved on division.

Section 4 approved.

[ Page 2560 ]

Title approved.

N. Lortie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: On behalf of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is unavoidably absent from the chamber today, I'd like to introduce a group of 28 grade 5 students from Our Lady of Sorrows School on Slocan Street in Vancouver. There are 28 students accompanied by 20 adults, so they're well supervised. They're led by Miss Imperadeiro. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to welcome the students from my part of town as well.

I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 10, Health Special Account Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move that we return to routine business for motions on notice.

Leave granted. Motions on Notice

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to call the second private member's motion for this session, which is two more than the last five years combined. I call Motion No. 2 on the order paper: "Be it resolved that this House, mindful that the cold war is winding down and that low-level military flights represent a threat to the rights of aboriginal peoples and the environment, urges the government of Canada to cease all low-level military flights over British Columbia."

I will add, hon. Speaker, that by agreement we have limited the mover of the motion to ten minutes, other speakers to five minutes and the entire debate to 30 minutes.

C. Evans: The first thing I'd like to do is point out that th`e wording in this motion calls for the government of Canada to cease something that to our knowledge is not presently happening. What we're trying to do here is entrench in a motion of the House the position of this Legislature and transmit it to the government of Canada for all time. I hope that can be clear to everyone.

To the young people in the room and to the people of B.C., before I talk about the motion, I want to talk first about the fact that we're getting to debate this motion at all. There are people outside here who think that a government works by party politics and machine politics, that everybody does what they're supposed to do, nobody steps out of line, and no private members or opposition members get to put motions before the Legislature. I want all of you to understand that this is the second time in two months that a simple member of the Legislature has been invited to stand and put forward a matter of concern to them, and debate it and vote on it in this building. There are people in Canada joining the fringe and the haywire parties -- the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois -- because they don't think that the mainstream parties allow this kind of democracy. I just want to say, before we launch into debate in terms of the motion, that the very fact that we're having this debate is a wonderful thing.

I guess I ought to talk about what this motion really means. For some years now on the east coast of Canada there has been a raging debate, hearings going on about low-level military flights over Newfoundland and Labrador. There may be people here who don't know that the federal government has expressed an interest in using the west coast for exactly the same purpose -- flying military aircraft as low as 30 metres over the heads of the citizens of the west coast of Canada, and the land and the animals and the trees, without notice and for reasons which aren't clear.

Maybe in a perverse sort of way this is actually a good thing, because what it means is that NATO, which used to fly at will over the peoples of Germany and central Europe during the years of the Cold War, has essentially been kicked out of Europe. The people have said: "We don't want you doing this to us anymore. We don't see the reasoning any more. We don't want an atomic war. We don't think that this makes any sense, so get your airplanes away from the air space over our cities." So what did they say? They said: "Oh, I know! We can't end this industry. We've got to spend this money. We'd really like to fly our airplanes. Let's go to Canada, where there aren't so many people and such big cities. Let's not mess with the populous places like Ottawa, Montreal, Vancouver. Let's go fly where nobody will see us."

In fact, on the east of Canada they actually did move this preparation for war, this practice for war, to places where they said nobody lives. Then a really wonderful thing happened. The people who live where the generals and the federal government think nobody lives started to speak up and say: "Hey, we live here. And even if we didn't, elk live here, grizzly bears live here." You cannot find a piece of this land and say it's empty simply because it doesn't have an urban population.

I guess it's important to me to be making this motion because we in the Kootenays have experienced it several times. We have experienced them deciding to flood the valley and then read in the newspaper that somebody says it doesn't matter, because nobody lives there, and the people sitting there reading the newspaper are quite offended. The Arrow Lakes people had the same experience when the government erected a plaque that said: "These people are extinct." The living, breathing people who went and read the plaque knew they weren't extinct.

It's a real kind of chauvinism. It's big nations like the United States and Germany who run NATO, and big 

[ Page 2561 ]

governments like the federal government in Ottawa saying that there aren't any people in Burns Lake -- we can rip over the top of Burns Lake. There are people everywhere, there is land everywhere, and it is not okay to go play war where nobody sees, just because they can't do it anymore where everybody's watching.

[12:15]

There's another reason why it's important to me to be making this motion, and I referred to this last time I stood. A month ago I met with a small group of people who live in my constituency, and I said to them: "You know, you guys, you've got to pay taxes. Everybody pays taxes: That's how we have our school buses, how we run our hospitals, and that's where the ambulances come from." And they said to me: "Well, some of us are willing to pay taxes, but this debate centres around war. We think that when we give our money to the government -- no matter what the government says -- the government will lastly spend it on war."

This is our second chance in two or three months to point out to those people that their taxes are going to heat and light, and to pay the wages of people to work in a place to discuss peace. In this motion, we're saying that not only did we move and almost unanimously pass a motion a couple of months ago, saying this would be a nuclear-weapons-free zone, but we're now saying we're going to escalate it a little bit. We're not going to let them fly the airplanes -- even without the bombs -- right over your heads. I wouldn't be surprised if it went on month after month, year after year, in the terms of this government. I'll bet you that the next time we come back here we'll be talking about submarines, because this is an issue that is not going to go away.

It is an incredible paradox -- it is even hypocrisy -- that right now our Minister of Environment is in Brazil negotiating with the leadership of the world on how to deal with global warming, how to deal with pollution and how to deal with the differences between the rich nations and the poor nations. We are in a struggle, trying to figure out how to redistribute the wealth on the planet. While they're down in Brazil doing that on the television cameras, away from the watchful eye of the world some people in Ottawa are talking about collecting taxes and burning up jet fuel over our heads to play war. Hon. Speaker, that's exactly the money that John Cashore needs in Brazil to negotiate our way through the next century.

My dad worked one time for a guy named Melvin Belli. He was a dramatic sort of lawyer. When Melvin Belli went into court, if he was trying to make the point to a jury that a witness really couldn't have heard what the witness said they heard, because there was a fire engine going by, Melvin Belli would arrange to have a fire engine go by at the moment, where he could raise the issue and say, "Well, how could you hear?" and the witness would say, "Well, I couldn't hear, because there was a fire engine going by," and Melvin Belli would say: "Exactly."

If I could phone up Ottawa and say: listen, you guys, I want to tell you what to do for ten minutes.... I'd like to have one of those jet airplanes fly 30 metres over the roof of this building while we're having this discussion. I'd like all of you to see that the windows would shake and that you wouldn't be able to hear me. More than that, there'd be fear in your hearts if you weren't ready for it, because a jet airplane coming out of nowhere at the height of the trees is like firing off a shotgun from behind you when you don't know it's coming. It's like the first strike. It is not physically a strike on the earth, but it's a strike in the hearts of the people that we're flying overhead of. It's like making war with sound.

I'll close my comments pretty quickly here. I want to talk for a minute about another reason that I don't want this to happen here. We're discussing it all the time, and it comes up all the time in this House. People stand up and say: "We've got to send the right message to business." I don't know where that jargon came from, but you hear "message to business" all the time, as if they can't read.

We need to send a message to our kids. I've got a son. He's 22 years old. He talks to me all the time about joining the Coast Guard. It's a dilemma for his generation. They want to be involved in peacekeeping in Cyprus or in the many places on this planet where the Canadian Forces have gone and will go. They want to be involved in search and rescue. They want to pull fishermen out of the water when there are storms. They want to find the people whose airplanes go down. But they don't want any part of the war machine.

We need to send a message to those people that says: "It is okay to be part of the Canadian military, because we're not holding this army to go play war somewhere. We're not involved in first-strike policy. The Canadian army is a peacekeeping force." Not flying these airplanes sends a message to those people.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to respond to the notice of motion from the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. This seems to be a week for issues involving low-flying aircraft. I was interested to note this week that our Labradors are underpowered in this country, meaning that the crews that fly them are risking their lives. We also note that there's a plea from the taxpayers of Port Coquitlam and Surrey to ground their municipal flyers, particularly when they're heading to conferences at taxpayers' expense. I also note that a flying school in Delta crashed from financial ruin, taking the deposits of a number of flying school students with them. It's indeed a topical issue for discussion.

We need to differentiate between training flights for military purposes and the option we have to utilize low-level flights for other types of rather useful endeavours. Search and rescue, patrolling fishing grounds, surveillance of lands and parks areas in the country are certainly worthy objects for low-flying aircraft.

I might also add that the complaints about low-flying aircraft do not extend only to military aircraft. As members of this House, we receive expressions of concern all the time -- at least I do -- about civilian aircraft and the people who live under flight paths. In particular, I can recall one case in my own riding of a family living in a highrise building who repeatedly tried to express their concerns to various civil and federal aviation authorities about low-flying aircraft 

[ Page 2562 ]

and have been really unsuccessful in pressing their case.

I certainly respect the hon. member for Nelson-Creston for bringing this issue forward in the form of a motion to the House. I hope that during the course of our debate on this motion, we can differentiate concerning the civilian use of military aircraft -- the possibilities for using our military aircraft in ways that will enhance our lifestyle and our commitment to the environment. I think there are a lot of opportunities there. It's hard to argue that low-level military flights shouldn't be more closely scrutinized. Perhaps they need to be examined. I hope the hon. member will recognize that many of the flights that we seem to think are military flights might actually be used for more worthwhile purposes. It might behoove us to investigate more what types of low-level flight we're looking at and whether or not it has other benefits for peaceful purposes.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm very pleased to speak to this motion. I raised the issue in the Legislature from the opposite side of the House back in 1989, as a private member asking questions of the former Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm. I was satisfied that he had very little understanding of what the issue was about.

I'd like to respond to a few comments that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock made. I could clarify my understanding of the intent of this motion from the member for Nelson-Creston, from whom it arises. We're not talking about search-and-rescue missions here. We're not talking about fisheries patrols. We're not talking about Labrador helicopters or Buffalo aircraft or the aircraft used for common search and rescue out at sea. All hon. members appreciate that. We appreciate the bravery of the people who went down in the crash of the Labrador helicopter up in the Mount Waddington area recently. No one would in any way question what they're doing. We'd just like to see them operate in updated, safer aircraft.

What we're talking about here are practice flights at very low levels for first-strike capacity, be it in the old days of the strategic thinking for first-strike nuclear war fighting capacity -- the so-called counterforce strategy in the days of the Reagan administration; something which is now increasingly, if not totally, irrelevant, since the Soviet Union has broken up and collapsed -- or for a potential first strike in wars against developing countries. The relevance of British Columbia territory, of course, for these low-level flight practices -- like Labrador -- was for practising attacks in forested, mountainous areas in the northern hemisphere. What the military was thinking about were attacks in the early phases of a nuclear war into the Soviet Union or perhaps China. We don't think it's a very good idea to practise for the early phases of a nuclear war, because the early phases would last minutes -- at most, hours -- and following very shortly after that, there wouldn't be any need to discuss this; we would all be obliterated.

Let me reinforce what the experience is like. I'm quoting from a publication, "Environmental and Nuclear Issues and the Law," which is the proceedings of a symposium held by the Lawyers for Social Responsibility in Vancouver in the summer of 1989, organized in part by Mr. Bruce Torrie, who I believe has been assisting the Liberal caucus, and his colleagues, Dorothy-Jean O'Donnell and Margaret Gouin. They invited Chief Daniel Ashini of the Innu people of Labrador to describe the experience in Labrador, where every summer there were at that time about 9,000 low-level military flights of various NATO air forces.

Here's how Chief Ashini, who has lived out on the land and has been arrested many times for trying to stop this, describes the experience:

"When these machines fly over you at 100 or 250 feet, without warning, it's like someone snuck up behind you and fired off a shotgun. It's a ripping noise, like something being torn apart. It's like an explosion. And it arrives without warning. It makes your heart pound, your ears ring. You react instinctively. You fall to the ground, grasping your ears, cursing and swearing as you realize what the source of this ear-splitting noise is. At the moment, Innu children are being subjected to that kind of noise. Innu elders are being subjected to it. They are terrified.

"Normally we are used to a kind of spiritual quiet in the country that many white people associate with their oldest churches. But this jet noise startles us, terrifies our children, makes our ears ring. There are cases of children wanting to go back to the village to escape from the jets."

Imagine that. And those flights are still going on in Labrador with the various NATO air forces.

They're expensive, too, hon. Speaker. Those jets consume somewhere between 1,750 and 2,000 litres of jet fuel per hour. They don't go up for much less than an hour. Usually they go for two hours. So in the course of a two-hour flight each one of those jets might consume anywhere from one to two thousand or more dollars in fuel alone, let alone the hundreds of millions of dollars cost of those instruments of war. So if there are 9,000 sorties in the summer, we're talking about maybe $18 million or $20 million just in fuel costs -- and pollution and ozone depletion. For what?

Now why is this relevant to B.C.?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. minister, I regret to remind you that the time agreed upon has expired.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll be very brief -- if I could just wrap up in a minute.

Deputy Speaker: Unless there is leave, the Speaker has no authority to extend the time.

J. Pullinger: We would all be happy to hear the member continue, if the standing orders allow that.

Deputy Speaker: The Speaker would have to put that to the members. If the members agree, then it may be extended.

D. Symons: If this privilege would be extended to others, I would agree.

Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House. Shall the time be extended?

[ Page 2563 ]

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Deputy Speaker: It is agreed. The time that the hon. member was requesting was just for another minute, I understand.

[12:30]

Hon. T. Perry: I think I can wrap up very quickly. Certainly the intent is to let all other hon. members have their say as well.

The issue arises in B.C. because, although we're not aware of any low-level flights right at the moment, there has been a standing plan of the Department of National Defence, in collaboration with the United States Air Force, for low-level flights from the Northwest Territories through a corridor over the Liard River, down into the area over Burns Lake and Ootsa Lake, down into the Mount Waddington area, curving down into Bella Coola and the head of Rivers Inlet, I guess a little bit north of Mount Waddington. There are native people in that area too. The military planners look at the map and figure, oh, that's a vast wilderness, as the member for Nelson-Creston said, and they forget that there are people down there. Chief Wedlidi Speck, a chief from the north end of Vancouver Island, flew that corridor and points out that there are four principal tribal areas. Most northerly is the Treaty 8 tribal association, then the Carrier-Sekani, then the Gitskan-Wet'suwet'en, ending up in Nuxalk territory, which is the Bella Coola peoples. He has found that they are not too enthusiastic about suffering the experience of the Labrador Innu people.

I'm glad to support this motion. We don't need the low-level military flights. They're an environmental disgrace and a waste of money. They will terrorize the native people. I hope all hon. members can join us in saying to the federal government: "Let's just can them and do something sensible for a change."

Deputy Speaker: The time beyond the agreement was a minute and a half. I will extend that time to the hon. member for Richmond Centre, so you have six and a half minutes.

D. Symons: You'll extend the total 30 minutes as well?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the agreement by the House Leader initially was that the mover of the motion had ten minutes, and each successive member had five. So that was by agreement, and I have extended it. I will give you an extra minute and half.

D. Symons: I am very pleased that we have the opportunity in this House for private members to bring forth bills, and I do hope that the government will see fit to allow some of the opposition private members' motions to come before this House as well.

I have been quite involved with the low-level flight issue over quite a number of years. In 1987 the then Minister of Defence, Perrin Beatty, brought forth a White Paper on defence. To put it bluntly, this White Paper was a real Cold-War-rhetoric type of paper: the Soviet Union was the enemy, and we must be armed to the teeth against it.

It predicted and projected that they wanted to open a nuclear submarine fleet for Canada. The $8 billion price-tag quickly changed their minds on that. But at that time Canada was already engaged in low-level flights in eastern Canada. At approximately that time the move was, as mentioned by the previous member, to have low-level flights in British Columbia as well.

At that time I got involved with a group that was formed to protest both the low-level flights in eastern Canada and the proposed ones for British Columbia. This group was called AALF, the Alliance Against Low-level Flights. It was formed by groups such as Greenpeace, Project North, Project Ploughshares, End the Arms Race, peace and justice groups from the United and Anglican Churches and many more concerned groups and individuals. I had the honour to be a member of that founding meeting in Vancouver at that time. We met on five or six occasions, planning strategy under the chairmanship of John Mate, who is from the Greenpeace organization. He was seconded from Greenpeace to head up the AALF organization. One of the parts I had in that was to start a postcard campaign where we were sending a large number -- in the thousands -- of postcards to the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister of Canada and the leaders of each of the two official opposition parties.

The effects of the low-level flights were mentioned by the previous speaker, and indeed these are horrendous on the people around them. I met with a doctor from Germany who came over to speak about the effects of low-level flights on the children in Germany. The one thing that bothered me, as mentioned by the previous two speakers, were the concerns that the federal government seemed to be implying to these countries -- to bring their low-level flights to Goose Bay, Labrador, because those lands are uninhabited, and they had completely forgotten about the native and aboriginal peoples in that area. These had profound effects upon the livelihood of the people in the area, because not only was this effect, as mentioned, like a shotgun going off behind your head without any warning, because the planes would have passed, in a sense, before the sound barrier would hit you, but it also affected the animals. It had quite an effect, as you can imagine, on a herd of caribou or other such animals in the neighbourhood -- upon their feeding, their breeding, and their whole livelihood. It greatly affected the animals these people were dependent on for their lifestyle in those areas.

Also, as mentioned by the previous speaker, the fuel used has its effect on the environment -- not only the fuel that's burned, which is in the millions of gallons, because these large planes have eight engines.... They're much bigger than any of the jets that we travel on, the Boeing 747s and so forth, and their fuel consumption is just fantastic. So it not only drinks up the fuel, but it lays a layer of kerosene, primarily, which is the basic ingredient in jet fuel. It lays this layer all over the lakes and the forests over which the low-level flights take place.

Actually, the B.C. flights were cancelled in 1991. The federal government first postponed three or four of the 

[ Page 2564 ]

flights that were to take place, and then they cancelled the whole program, as outlined by the previous member. That program was actually first put on hold and now has been cancelled. They will not take place in B.C., except that we found out from some of the tribes up country, at these AALF meetings that we had, that besides the ones the federal government had officially designated for a low-level flight corridor, apparently U.S aircraft carriers off our coast would end up sending flights -- and this must have been with the Canadian government's approval -- inland, and there would be unofficial low-level flights taking place throughout B.C. We have no idea whether these flights are planned in the future or whether they are also cancelled with the effective cancelling of the official ones that were planned.

So it is with great pleasure that I stand today and support this motion. It is a motion that is long overdue in this House. Maybe it's almost answered itself, in the sense that the threat that it was supposedly preparing us to counter certainly does not exist from the Soviet Union anymore.

M. Farnworth: It's a privilege to rise and speak on the motion that's before the House. A number of members have talked about the threat of low-level flights diminishing in British Columbia as the cold war evaporates.

I'd like to touch on a point in this whole debate that I think is central to what has been happening. It's an attitude by the federal government, and governments in general, of a divide-and-conquer strategy: a holding out and a splitting up of communities with a promise of what they desperately need -- which is cash and jobs -- at the expense of another group of people to whom the environment is centrally important.

Too often what we are seeing -- and low-level flights are a classic example.... There's no reason why a low-level flight can't take place over Vancouver, if the idea is to teach someone military manoeuvres. There's no reason why it can't take place over the Fraser Valley, Regina or the Prairies, or over any other small or large town in British Columbia, except for the fact that a large number of people would complain bitterly. There are people who are organized and who have access to government officials, their representatives and communities. They can organize quickly and effectively and squash these ridiculous plans.

Governments are forced to look to the marginal areas of the country, those which they say are uninhabited or populated by people who are remote from political and economic centres. Those people are perceived to be in the lower strata of society, because they're not able to organize for themselves. They say that it's uninhabited, that there are only people living off the land or that there is nothing but wildlife.

In the case of Labrador you have communities which are desperate for jobs and for cash. They go in there and say: "We've got the answer to your prayers." But that splits communities and creates rifts and tensions that take a long time to heal, because it creates intense bitterness. That, to me, is one of the most heinous things a government can do. There was no need for low-level flights in Labrador; there were other areas willing to take low-level flights that probably had their own way of dealing with things. Instead, we had a government that said: "We feel that there may be a political benefit to a certain constituency, even if it's at the expense of another." That's not right. The message we send from this Legislature today is a message that's being heard more and more across this country: you can't count people out; you have to include people in the decision-making process. That's something that didn't take place in Labrador. It's something that potentially would not have taken place in British Columbia. By passing this motion, it is something that we're addressing. It is part of an attitude that governments have to change. That is something that people all across this country are looking for. It's a pleasure to stand and support this motion.

Deputy Speaker: In recognizing the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, I want to advise that there are only four and a half minutes left under the agreement. I will be recognizing the member for Nelson-Creston to close after you complete your time.

V. Anderson: I would just like to make one point. The members who have spoken on both sides of the House have already recognized that this should not have taken place in the first place. We should recommend that this does not happen in the future. We should respect the validity of the lives of the people who live in these areas.

I would only add one other request and suggestion. Not only is it easy for us to put our ideas into words -- and we might encourage the government and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to give us some leadership -- but we as a Legislature might undertake to discover what has happened to these people because this has taken place. Let's see what we can do to alleviate the ongoing difficulty in their lives because of this event. They are part of our responsibility. If there had been a fire or an accident or a flood, we would have taken responsibility by responding to that in a positive way. I hope that we put actions to our words: undertake to visit these persons and alleviate the conditions that have been caused by this particular action in our communities, which we, in essence, allowed to happen.

C. Evans: I really want to say thank you to members of all three parties and the three House Leaders for allowing this to come before the House today. Thank you for your comments. It's indicative that we can wrangle and fight about political issues all week long and then come together on something we all believe in at the end of the week.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada