1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 5, Number 7
[ Page 3165 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION
Hon. P. Priddy: Our government has made a commitment to fairness for women and valuing the work that women do in their homes, their workplaces and their communities. The jobs that are labelled "women's work" are still among the lowest-paid jobs in both the public and private sectors in this country. Here in B.C., women earn only 66.8 cents for every dollar earned by a man. We want a different reality for the women of British Columbia, and that is why we have made a commitment to begin the process of closing that wage gap by developing pay equity legislation for the public sector. I am very pleased today to inform the members of this House and you, hon. Speaker, about the progress of that initiative.
An integral part of developing pay equity legislation is ensuring that those who will be most affected -- women's organizations, public sector employers and public sector labour groups -- have an opportunity for real input into the final draft. We want to move ahead on this legislation as quickly as possible, but we want to do it right. We've looked at the experience of other provinces, and we've learned from it. We are working to develop a real alternative to the existing complaints-based and process-oriented models for legislation. We're working for a model that focuses on results, respects the expertise of workplace partners and has a long-term focus.
Our ministry will be inviting participation in two ways. First of all, representatives of groups who will have to work within the legislation have agreed to work closely with our government over the next few months. Their function will be to give us their advice and the benefit of their experience on pay equity options. Secondly, we will expand the input from the groups covered by the legislation by holding a larger forum that will provide them with an opportunity to review and comment on draft legislation. Our goal is to develop the most effective, workable pay equity framework for the consideration of this House and the people of British Columbia.
Pay equity in the public sector is a high priority for our government. We are acting on that commitment without delay. At the same time, we recognize that in the development of pay equity legislation, we must include those who will have to work within the legislation and the women who have been struggling so long for a new approach to legislation in British Columbia. I believe that the process I have outlined today will enable us to achieve both of those important objectives.
L. Reid: I'm indeed pleased this morning to respond to the ministerial statement from the Minister of Women's Equality. As our founding principle, the Liberal Party of British Columbia is committed to the rights of the individual in our society. The principles of individual freedom and equality are paramount and must be protected with a full and open commitment to legislation.
Pay equity addresses one aspect of the wage gap, that of gender-based wage discrimination. It is based on the principle that wages should be based on the value of the job, regardless of whether it is being performed by a man or a woman. This will be the first step towards eliminating wage discrimination in British Columbia and developing a phased-in approach through consultation. This commitment to consultation is commendable. Individual group representation will be followed by an opportunity for all groups to come together. We believe strongly in consultation, and as Liberals, we always believe in people first. Our party is comprised of individuals from a broad spectrum of interests. This broad base of support affords us a better opportunity to provide rational, competent and consensus-building solutions to the challenges of government. We accept that these are the only types of decisions, forged as they are by consensus, which will stand the test of time.
As Liberals, our high level of individual involvement and commitment ensures that we remain focused on efforts to promote and enhance livable and humanistic communities as we approach the twenty-first century. I look forward to the implementation of pay equity legislation in British Columbia, and I am delighted to see this ministry represented by this Minister of Women's Equality.
L. Hanson: I certainly want to commend the government on its open and consultative process that the minister has just outlined to study the issue, but I would like to remind the minister and the members on that side that they seem to use the open, consultative process when it suits their desires. I suggest to the minister that the government itself should use equity and fairness in its appointments, and I cite the example of the Trade Development Corporation. The ladies' and the gentlemen's salaries are really quite different. I wonder if equity was really considered there. I also ask the minister if equity and fairness were considered when the fair wage policy was brought into place to give special consideration for a special part of British Columbia. Fairness applies to everyone in British Columbia. I ask the minister to consider those things when she is going through the consultative process that this government so often says it is in favour of. When the minister brings in legislation, I ask that the opportunity be given to discuss and debate it, which I think is a fair and reasonable process -- not like the fixed-wage policy that was sprung on British Columbians without that opportunity. We in the third party look forward to the eventual tabling of the legislation and the ability to debate it at that time.
[10:15]
Hon. D. Marzari tabled the British Columbia Heritage Trust financial statements for 1991-92.
[ Page 3166 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Social Services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.
The Speaker: I am pleased to table the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library for 1991, pursuant to standing order 116, and the 1991 annual report of the ombudsman. I want to advise hon. members that this report is currently being printed and will be available for distribution to all MLAs on July 6.
BYE B.C.
J. Tyabji: I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture realizes that I'm getting up to talk about the critical situation in the agriculture industry around the province and the situation that the farmers are facing, which is an extremely serious one, with regard to losing the market that they have for their produce. In this House we obviously are constrained by international and federal legislation. One of the few things we do have to assist our farming and agricultural industries is a program like Buy B.C. or B.C. First, where we try to educate the buying public that the only way we can continue to have an agricultural industry is if we promote it and provide our own market for our own produce first. Both the Minister of Agriculture and myself ran very strong pro-agriculture campaigns.
I'd like to point out that very recently, as recently as May 8, we have the report in Hansard from the Minister of Agriculture, who said that generally our farmers are doing quite well. He talked about the fact that, based on their assets, farmers have very low debt. That's a false economy. As most of us know, farming is in their blood. This is a lifestyle, something they were born to do. They may be the third generation on the farm, and that means that most of the assets they have are inherited. We know that in these days of rapid inflation and property values going through the roof, many farmers have ended up on property that their grandparents passed down to them, and suddenly it's worth six or ten times what they actually paid for it. They themselves are not wealthy people.
We all know that the value of agricultural land, at least to us in the opposition, is in the production of food, not in the development of agricultural land. Unless we are going to recognize that that agricultural land is not suitable for development, we cannot attach a price tag to that land based on what it is worth if it is developed. That is why we are in a false economy with regard to agriculture. A farmer's only recourse for financing is taking out some kind of loan against land. They have no way of repaying that loan unless their produce has a market, and we're not providing the market for that food, because we don't have a B.C. First or Buy B.C. campaign.
I'm standing today to draw attention to the fact that.... Although in my area it was the tree-fruit growers who were the primary lobby, we also have field crops, berries and grain producers throughout the valley. People throughout the province are faced with a situation where the only way they have been able to have any cash to even stay operational has been to borrow against land, which is in an artificial economy to begin with. They're not getting any revenue from their produce. As we saw on Wednesday, they put their produce out on display. They were giving it away. It's costing them money to give it away, because in addition to the cost of production was the cost of picking it, putting it in boxes and getting it here. I myself live on an orchard, and next door my mother-in-law grows many field crops. So I know firsthand the cost of the boxes and how hard it is, if you don't have the capital to begin with, to acquire even the essentials to get the produce to market. The support system just isn't there.
I understand the constraints of the provincial Legislature in dealing with the globalization of the economy -- the GATT agreement -- but we know that we could have an apple marketing board. The federal Minister of Agriculture, Bill McKnight, has said he has no problem with it, and that even if GATT rules against marketing boards, we still have ten years before they're phased out. Even after a GATT ruling, we could have ten years of marketing boards.
Although we have those kinds of global and national constraints, we can still support our growers. Each one of us has a budget for communication with our constituents, and we in the Liberal opposition have committed to putting some of those funds specifically toward a B.C. First campaign. We will be asking our constituents to participate with us in providing a market for our own produce. I'm standing to urge those on the government side to assist the Minister of Agriculture in getting a budget for the commitments they've made to promote B.C. agriculture.
The reason this private member's statement is titled "Bye B.C." is that I feel very strongly that if we don't address this now, we can say goodbye to our agriculture industry; it will be gone. That would be extremely unfortunate, because there are so many peripheral benefits from the agriculture industry. In addition, what are farmers going to do if they can no longer farm?
Hon. B. Barlee: I listened carefully to the member for Okanagan East. I'm familiar with the area, and I think we should put this in the right context.
First of all, in B.C. we have 175 different commodity sectors in agriculture. Out of those 175, 165 are doing well. The annual growth rate of all farmers is the highest in the nation, averaging between 3 percent and 5 percent. Four of those sectors are not doing well; that isn't a high percentage out of 175, but it disturbs me. One of those sectors is the vegetable producers of the Fraser Valley. However, the overall record is really quite remarkable. We have about 1,900 ALDA loans, and 1 percent of those are in default. Bankers would blush to have that record. Our record, as far as the farmers repaying their loans goes, is superb.
We are facing some problems overseas. The GATT negotiations may be concluded in the spring of 1993; and then we face a change in the globalization of agriculture. We're aware of that. We are also facing a looming NAFTA -- the North American free trade
[ Page 3167 ]
agreement. I find that the Liberal position has shifted on that. John Turner, when he has Liberal leader in 1988, made a remarkable stand against the free trade agreement. Now I see, from going over the Hansard Blues, that one of the Liberal members stated barely two weeks ago that the NAFTA is the most important agreement facing this country in this century. From the remarks I heard the other day from the Liberal benches, it would seem that there's a great deal of support for the North American free trade agreement.
It's rather interesting, because if you examine the agreement, you will find that there are three signatories to it. If three parties initial that agreement -- Mexico, Canada and the United States -- only one of those parties is allowed to change the agreement or amend it. Who would sign an agreement where only one party is allowed to amend it? Would you go to your lawyer and sign an agreement with somebody else, or with two other parties, if the lawyer said to you: "I'm sorry, but if there's something wrong with this agreement, you can't amend it"? That's what this agreement is all about. The only party that can amend the agreement is the United States of America, under the Congress -- that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate. I don't like it. The agreements we've had with the United States have not been agreements of equal comparison. The NAFTA is no different than the free trade agreement, so obviously we're a little tentative about signing any agreement that's a blind signing -- and that's essentially what it is.
When we look at the state of agriculture in British Columbia it's very good. For instance, the member lives in the Okanagan Valley, and the member knows we've really done quite a superb job in that area. The member's constituents received about $7 million from this government about six months ago -- a total of $30 million, the largest sum of money ever given to any farming sector in the history of British Columbia.
On top of that, we are also doing something else in the Okanagan Valley. I'm taking up two other ministers, the Hon. Zirnhelt and the Hon. Marzari, on this and we've all talked about it; Hon. Marzari and I have talked about this a number of times. We think we are better positioned than the Napa Valley to attract individuals into the Okanagan on a wine tour. We have the high alpine right down to the desert and about 18 wineries in the Okanagan. It's made in heaven for us, really. The Napa Valley has done extremely well. It's the largest tourist draw in the United States. I believe, and the Hon. Marzari agrees with me, that we are better positioned than our U.S. rivals.
The Speaker: Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but I will remind the hon. minister to refer to his colleagues by their ministerial title.
Hon. B. Barlee: Thank you very much.
The agriculture business -- and it is a business -- is really doing quite well in British Columbia.
J. Tyabji: Going back to the false-economy concept and the idea that 165 of the 175 commodity groups in agriculture are doing well, a lot of those are secondary industries. So we have to determine whether or not we're going to allow the primary industries to go by the wayside and let secondary industry be dependent on another market. If that's the way we want to go, that would indicate that this minister is in support of the NAFTA, because those who support the NAFTA are using that very argument: that the primary industries can't be competitive.
Hon. Speaker, I believe I was the member who said that the NAFTA is a very important agreement, and I am fundamentally opposed to that agreement. The reason I say it is important is that it will grandfather the free trade agreement and, in my mind, signify the end of primary producers in a lot of the agricultural industries.
The reason that so few farmers' loans are in default is because farmers are honourable people, not because they have a lot money or a lot of cash flow coming in to make those loans. The first thing a lot of the farmers I know do is pay the banker; the food they put on the table, of course, is from their own fields. The last thing they do is buy a new set of clothes for themselves, a new car or something they might need, which the rest of us take for granted we have money for.
We are overlooking the peripheral industries like tourism that are interconnected with the primary production of agriculture in the province. I can't stress enough how important it is for us to first of all recognize that agriculture is in crisis and, secondly, to realize that it is our responsibility to do something about it.
REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE
N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, we have another problem in British Columbia that we share with other jurisdictions all over the western world. The problem is garbage. Not the type of garbage we hear sometimes in this building and chamber, but the type of garbage that is produced in our homes, businesses and industries; the type of garbage and the type of problem that is produced by us, the people of British Columbia.
British Columbia throws away 2.4 million tonnes of municipal solid and biomedical waste per year. This represents 13 pounds of garbage for every British Columbia household every day. In a year, a family accounts for over two tonnes of garbage. The good news is that more than half of this garbage can be reduced, reused or recycled. The bad news is that we are not reducing, reusing or recycling now as much as we must do in the future. The worst news yet is that Canadians are the most wasteful people in the world. We are 22 percent more wasteful than our friends across the border in the United States and twice as wasteful as the people in Japan. The worst news of all is that we are rapidly running out of time to resolve this problem.
[10:30]
Most of the garbage that has hitherto been wrongly considered useless has found its way into British Columbia's 236 landfill sites. The landfills are filling up rapidly. Over 60 percent of those 236 landfill sites will be full by the year 2000. Only 2 percent of the land in
[ Page 3168 ]
British Columbia is suitable for landfill sites, so new ones are very hard to find.
Unless our per capita waste generation rates are reduced, there will be a shortage of disposal facilities and waste management costs will escalate substantially. There is widespread support for the provincial strategy; that is, reduce all municipal solid waste by 50 percent by the year 2000; develop environmentally sound disposal systems for waste that cannot be reused, recycled or recovered; and develop a provincial solution for collecting, treating and disposing of biomedical waste. For this strategy to be successful, we all need to get behind it.
Think globally, and act locally. With that in mind, I'd like to talk a little bit about my community of Delta. Delta was first in British Columbia to establish recycling bins across a community, and they were used by the people of Delta with a vengeance. Then we were the first community in all of British Columbia to have curbside pickup of recyclables -- the blue box program. This is leadership by my community that I am very proud of.
Central to this activity in Delta is the Delta Recycling Society, which has just had its thirteenth annual general meeting. Last year they collected 5,341 tonnes of household waste, which is 17 percent of Delta's municipal waste stream. This a remarkable achievement, especially considering the limited scope of the present blue box system, and it suggests that Delta is well on the way to beating the provincial goal of 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. Delta believes that 60 percent reduction is feasible in that time-frame.
The impact of this society is more than just diverting tonnes of garbage and marketing it. Just as important is the society's work of community leadership in the broadest sense. Education and inspiration from the society has motivated thousands of Delta residents to change their whole attitude about consumption. Delta's ten-year recycling plan calls for the society to take part in the promotion and education component of the new home composting program. With financial assistance from this government under a program established by the former government, this campaign has had tremendous success, with over 2,500 composters and orders for composters already processed. Delta has had to extend the deadline to July 3 because of the success.
Delta has become the recycling capital of British Columbia and soon will be the composting capital of British Columbia. All involved deserve credit, from the society to the members of Delta Council and their staff, through to the Minister of Environment and his officials. It is this continuing sense of teamwork and partnership that gives us hope for the future. The local media has been very effective in getting the message out, from our excellent cable television station and their excellent programming to the many local newspapers that are doing a great job.
This government has supported Delta's efforts to solve the problem created by the production of too much garbage by funding to the tune of $1 million. These funds will be used for the construction of an intermediate processing facility to meet our goal of 60 percent reduction of solid waste disposal by the year 2000. Once this facility is completed, it will dramatically increase the community's ability to divert waste from the landfill. Delta and its people have a personal stake in reducing solid waste going to landfills, for in the heart of our community is the largest landfill site in western Canada in a very environmentally sensitive area known as Burns Bog. We are not only threatened by a racetrack, but in danger of being buried in garbage. Every week hundreds of trucks come through the tunnel from Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond. They come from White Rock, Surrey and many other communities, bringing garbage to that landfill site.
Hopefully you will now agree that it's everybody's problem, and that this problem should be solved at home in our communities and within our families. That starts with a commitment to reuse, recycle, and reduce.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret your time has expired.
F. Gingell: I was brought up to believe that the important three R's in life were reading, writing and 'rithmetic, but clearly it has now become the six R's when we add reduce, reuse and recycle. We in this House have a very real responsibility to ensure that everyone is literate: that is, environmentally, mathematically and literally. Not only must we ensure that our schools are teaching environmental awareness and good practices, along with the historical three R's, but as legislators we must lead by example. It is never too late or too early to improve the handling of our waste. By their fruits, ye shall know them, and also by the number of bags they put out on garbage day.
Recognizing that my friend from Delta North and I play Mutt and Jeff on private members' statements, it is my pleasure to support his subject on this day. I sincerely hope that the next time he speaks in a private member's statement, he picks a subject that begins with an "s"; I find r's terribly hard to say.
C. Serwa: I thank the member for Delta North for bringing up this particular topic this Friday morning under private members' statements. It's a very important topic. I don't see these as problems; I see them as challenges for us to solve and resolve the problems. We, in fact, can do and are doing that in the province. There certainly is a bright side to reducing, reusing and recycling. The brewery industry, for example, is getting back a high percentage of its refillable containers and aluminum cans. Not only are we reusing materials but we're saving energy. So there has been good progress made.
The solid waste management strategy, which is presently the foundation of all of these efforts in the province, was put together by a former colleague of mine, Jim Rabbitt, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment. The solid waste management strategy of B.C. outlines all the requirements and the directions in which we collectively, and certainly the government of the day, must move. The clock is ticking, and there are a number of challenges. I applaud Delta for their leadership. That's an excellent
[ Page 3169 ]
form of leadership by example, which is the best form, for all the other communities in British Columbia.
There are a number of challenges, such as the collection aspect. The hon. member spoke about an effective blue box system, which is separation at the source, at the homesite. We are seeing more and more bulk containers for separation, for example, in parking lots associated with shopping centres. That is working well, and it is utilizing labour -- employment -- as well as doing a more effective job in the separation and segregation of these recyclable materials.
The least desirable route is probably the separation at the landfill site. The problem there is that there is so much contamination at that point that we lose the materials. If we strive to use them in any other fashion, then we tend to lose the value of those products, and in the end we do not succeed at all. There is the possibility of incineration, but that, again, compounds other environmental problems, and we certainly do not want to do that.
Following the collection is the need for a marketing system for those collected recyclable products so that the various societies or communities that have a recycling collection system can acquire a ready market for those materials at the best possible price. After all, they have to reduce costs and get the best price for the product that they recycle. The government is going to have to provide a leadership role there so that these materials are readily saleable.
We're going to have to spend a lot more money on research and development to find ways to use these recyclable materials. Plastic, which we use a preponderance of, may not be reused as food vessels or containers. So we have to develop other products. We have to build up a manufacturing arm which uses these recyclable products.
I thank the member for his comments this morning and applaud Delta for its efforts.
N. Lortie: To the two members -- one from my own community, representing Delta South, and the other from the interior, Okanagan West -- I appreciate their words and encouragement. Delta hasn't got all the answers to address this challenge, as was pointed out by the other member. Each community is different. Even Delta North is different from Delta South. Each community will develop its own system for dealing with these challenges and problems, a system that will best fit the needs of the residents. Economy, user-friendliness and effectiveness will result in different approaches in adjacent communities. The important thing is that there is a system in place that works and that the system is supported by the people it serves. Without underestimating the complexity of the whole issue and the task ahead, I think Delta offers a strong hope for the rest of the province, and I'm still very proud of my community's achievements at this level.
TRUST
G. Farrell-Collins: I think it's an appropriate time to be dealing with this issue in the House, given that we're nearing the end of the session in the province of B.C. The people of British Columbia have now had the opportunity to see the first session of this New Democratic government and to see what the responsibilities of this government were, what they said they were going to do and where we are now.
Many members of our caucus always walk around with the NDP policy platform from the last election, "A Better Way." It's very interesting reading. I would encourage all British Columbians to pull out their copy if they still have it sitting around their living room somewhere, read it and get an update on where the government is at. Let's start with number one.
The Speaker: Before the hon. member starts, I would caution the hon. member that it is not the intent of private members' statements to be a forum for partisan debate. If the hon. member will look at past statements, or even the previous two we have had today, clearly the intent of this time is to discuss topics of general interest or local interest. Therefore I would urge the member to use caution in his remarks, use restraint and stay within the limits of the standing order that governs private members' statements.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will take your advice, hon. Speaker, and I will certainly temper my comments. However, I do feel that this issue is one of general interest to all British Columbians and certainly, I would hope, to members of this House. Trust is something that we all would hope the people of this province can rely upon their members for.
In that light I would just like to highlight some of the reasons that the people of the province are beginning to lose trust. I'll do it in a fairly calm and collected way, and I'm sure that the member to follow me will also keep in that vein in his member's statement -- although I am curious to see what will happen.
[10:45]
We have one statement that certainly deals with trust, and that has to do with the comment that was made on playing favourites with political friends and insiders. I would just ask the people of British Columbia to question whether or not they still feel that trust, given the appointments that have been made in the last eight months. I don't think I need to say more.
Hon. D. Miller: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, being mindful of your earlier instructions with regard to the requirement not be partisan in these members' statements, I feel the member has strayed into that territory.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I have urged the hon. member to use moderation. I appreciate that the hon. member, in choosing his topic for his private member's statement, may have to use extra caution. The limits of the private member's statement are quite clear; the practice in the House is quite clear. I would urge the hon. member to try to avoid partisan debate during a private member's statement.
G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, if I may, hon. Speaker....
[ Page 3170 ]
The Speaker: Please proceed with your private member's statement.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'll do so. Just for the benefit of the members who are concerned, they may review Mr. MacMinn's comments on private members' statements as they appear in the second edition. Maybe they will feel a little more comfort in what I'm saying.
If we move to the second item on our list, we deal with the topic of a theoretical government -- I don't know which government that would be, but a hypothetical one -- making a statement that they were going to grant contracts in a fair and open way in public tender. If that hypothetical government were to renege on that promise and grant untendered contracts to their friends and insiders, then perhaps the people of that province -- whatever province it may be -- would suspect that the government no longer held the trust of the people of that province. It's very hypothetical.
If the people of the province were to review the third item in that election platform of that hypothetical party, they would find comments with regard to the unique independence of the Attorney General and the justice system being free from political influence. They might question themselves as to why certain decisions were made in some hypothetical bingo case and why it took nine or ten days to call for an investigation by the RCMP, where in the case of the food bank in Vancouver, the RCMP was brought in right away. That would be a hypothetical statement, of course.
The other one would be if that hypothetical government were to make a promise that they would balance the budget within a five-year business cycle and then immediately, upon taking office, came up with all sorts of interesting excuses and processes in order to ensure that they would not have to fulfil that promise and tried to blame the previous government.
Then we would move on to number five of that hypothetical party's election promises. We're all dealing in trust and what would happen to the trust of the public if we really got to that point. I could go along for 44 of these hypothetical statements, but I'll try to stick to the highlights.
We look at small business and the improvement to small business allowing that small business to grow. Then we would look at the fact that that hypothetical government might bring in something called a corporation capital tax and the problems that would cause. Then we would look at the rest of the policy, which states that "we will work with business to achieve regulatory reform and reduce paperwork burden." We would have to look at the new tax structure that this hypothetical government brought in, and wonder what benefit that was to the small business people of the province and whether or not those business people would trust their government.
What would happen if that government made a promise of fair and practical laws in labour relations? I'd like to tie that in with a promise that that government might also make with regard to pay equity, and look at the two. What would happen if that same government promised that they were going to bring in something they might call a fair wage policy or fixed-wage policy or something for, let's say, the construction sector, which is predominantly male? Another sector -- perhaps the health workers, who are predominantly female -- would then have to go and engage in a huge battle with this hypothetical government over proper pay equity for themselves, while one sector, the male sector of the economy, got this huge benefit -- $100 million at least, that we've been able to calculate in this hypothetical case. What would happen to the women?
Let's say they made a statement, for example, that jobs and paycheques for working men and women are a priority, and that they're going to ensure that in situations involving plant closures, layoffs, etc., the workers of the province would come first. Then they would have to ask: what would happen if some hypothetical copper-tubing plant went out of business, and the government simply refused to deal with them or talk with them or help those workers, and they allowed the whole plant to be dismantled and moved south of the border? Where would the trust be that those workers had in that government?
We have another one. This one is important to me. It's a promise that this government may have made regarding environmentally sensitive jobs in a resource economy and how this government might be very concerned and might link the extraction and processing of our resources in British Columbia with the environment. Those people might wonder what happened in a certain section of that province when the government decided to go ahead and break an election promise and allow exploration for, let's say, natural gas in an area where they had said they would not go.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I have tried to give the hon. member as much leeway as possible. I do appreciate that the hon. member has tried to change his comments to be in order, but I would really hope that the hon. member would move a little further away from the areas of concern. As members know, you cannot try to do something indirectly which it is not in order to do directly. I appreciate that there have been a number of interruptions in the hon. member's statement -- and I regret that. I would ask him now to conclude within another minute, because I have taken up some time.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's amazing how difficult it is sometimes to get the truth and the trust out in this House, but I'll try to be as general and non-partisan as I can in respect of the issue of trust in this province. When the people of this province look at trust, they may, in fact, start to become partisan. The issue of trust may start to fall along partisan lines. I certainly hope that that wouldn't be the case, but I think it's becoming clear, day by day, in this province -- this very true and very real unhypothetical province -- that the issue of trust in general and of trust as it relates to politics is perhaps getting a bad name. It may, in fact, end up falling along partisan lines somewhere in the near future -- like tomorrow or the day after.
The people of this province are very upset. They're very concerned that the politicians they've elected --
[ Page 3171 ]
maybe on partisan lines; I don't know what that might be -- no longer hold the trust of the people of the province. Maybe that hypothetical government should take a look at the policies that they've brought forward.
The Speaker: In responding to private members' statements, I'm sure that all members will take into consideration the cautions of the Chair.
The hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum.
L. Krog: I appreciate very much the cautions that have been spoken in this chamber this morning about being partisan, and neither will I try to be terribly hypothetical.
I want to thank the member for his very sobering words this morning. If the hypothetical government that he talked about were drunk with power, I would have very much appreciated his comments.
His topic this morning was to be trust. The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is absolutely correct that trust is crucial to the political process. I'm mindful of those wonderful words that George Shultz spoke at the Iran-Contra hearings when he was asked about the subject of trust. He said: "Trust -- it's the coin of the realm."
Trust is what politics is all about. It's not trust in terms of the fulfilment of promises made during campaigns. That's part of it, but trust goes far beyond that. Trust that is given by the electorate to a government is based on the intelligence and abilities of the people it elects to the Legislature -- people who hopefully represent the finest qualities and broadest spectrum of British Columbians, be it ethnic, religious or multicultural minorities.
The member talked about "A Better Way," and I must say that a better way is indeed the way the government of British Columbia is proceeding, and proceeding rapidly. If I cannot lapse into any partisan comments but make some small reflection on what some hypothetical government may or may not have done, I would remind that hon. member that of the promises contained in the hypothetical document he referred to, some 23 of those 48 promises have been fulfilled in large measure by the passage or presentation of legislation to this chamber in this session alone.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is straying into those dangerous areas beyond the limits of the private member's statement. I would caution the member to bring his comments back into order.
L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's very hard not to fall into the scintillating atmosphere of this chamber. It lures one into comments that are entirely inappropriate on occasion. I do apologize, and I apologize to the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove...
An Hon. Member: For quoting him.
L. Krog: ...particularly, as one of my colleagues has pointed out, for quoting him.
Trust is earned over a long period of time. Trust is what the electorate of this country is demanding in large measure all across this nation. No more secret deals. No more Meech 2 or 3 or 4 or supplemental agreements. People want participation in the process, but they must remember also that they have to trust the people they elect. They must support them. The trust they give must not be withdrawn quickly or easily, because without the confidence of the people, no government can function effectively. Therefore I'm happy to say that I believe this government has that kind of trust.
An Hon. Member: Partisan.
L. Krog: I heard the word "partisan" again. It keeps coming up this morning, hon. Speaker. I can't imagine why.
D. Symons: On a point of order, I think both speakers have wandered too far from the cautions of the Speaker. I would ask that they adhere.
The Speaker: The Chair can only continue to urge hon. members to use restraint.
Please conclude your comments, hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum.
L. Krog: To use that time-worn cliché, might I say in conclusion that I look forward to further opportunities to discuss the subject of trust in this House in further forms of debate. I trust that the hon. members will bear with me at that time when I do speak further on the issue of trust.
[11:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: We've heard some talk today about trust in more or less very narrow means or in very broad philosophical means. The member who just spoke talked about.... The only point I recall was that trust is earned over years of hard work and building up a reputation with the people with whom that trust exists. I might also advise the member that that trust can be lost in minutes. What a group of elected people can take years and years to build up.... As soon as that group of people gets their hands on the reins of power, then it's incumbent upon that group to stop talking trust and start producing trust. And that is the problem, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Some people are getting upset. I don't know why they would be upset with those statements. They're very true statements. In fact, they closely mimic what the hon. member stated.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member opposite, the Minister of Social Services, says that I'm too new to have
[ Page 3172 ]
built up any trust. Well, I'm working on it, and I hope I do a lot better than some of the other members who have been in this House in the past.
Trust is something that the people of this province want to have in their government and in their politicians. It is a serious issue. The members have perhaps taken a lighthearted tone on it. I hope not to; I think it's a very serious issue. If there's one thing lacking in the political process, not only in this province but in the country, it is that the people don't trust their politicians.
We must strive every day to ensure that if we do make a promise, we can follow through on it; if we do make a recommendation, it's something the people can believe in; and if we do, as legislators, bring forth legislation, the people know that we've been thorough and we've canvassed it and we've involved the public and that they have a place in that legislation. Those are the goals we should be striving for in this province. Those are the types of things that as legislators in this province we should be heading for. That's not the direction that the people of this province feel this Legislature is going: a non-partisan legislature. I include all members. As members and as elected members, as people who are working daily for the people of this province, the people paying the bills, we have to ensure that the statements that we have made in the past are the statements that we will follow up upon when we become government and as we continue through our mandate.
The Speaker: For the final private member's statement today, the hon. member for Nanaimo on the topic of the role and responsibility of Her Majesty's official opposition.
THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF
HER MAJESTY'S OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
D. Lovick: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As you correctly pointed out, my subject today is the role and responsibility of Her Majesty's official opposition. I know that many members will wonder: why should I, as a member of government, want to offer what may well prove to be intelligent and rational and good advice to those individuals who are, after all, my political adversaries? After all, they will say, if the opposition is inept, if the opposition is incompetent, if the opposition is ineffectual, why should I as a government member do anything to assist? It's therefore incumbent on me, I think, to begin....
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I purposely took your ruling to heart in my member's statement and made my comments as generic as possible. I think the member opposite is perhaps straying a little far from that same ruling, and I would encourage him to stay within that.
The Speaker: Due to the selection of topics this morning, perhaps we are all having a little difficulty keeping within the limits of the private member's statement. I would urge the hon. member who has the floor now to take the cautions of the Chair seriously.
D. Lovick: The moment I receive cautions from the Chair I shall indeed take them to heart. Thus far I haven't had any. I'm assuming, then, that we are simply listening to rather frivolous points from the other side.
The Speaker: Hon. member, please consider that you have received cautions from the Chair in advance.
D. Lovick: It sounds suspiciously like double jeopardy, but so be it. I think it is incumbent on me, given that I am playing a role that is, if you will, ostensively a role reversal, to therefore explain why I'm doing this. The primary reason I'm doing so is that demonstrably the opposition requires help. I won't elaborate on the point; I will simply make that point. I think that's the universal opinion of all those who have witnessed the goings-on in this chamber.
The Speaker: Will all members take their seats. I will now take that point of order, hon. member. Is it a new point, or is it a point that we have heard already this morning?
C. Serwa: Point of order. You will have to give me some latitude.
The member for Nanaimo is very familiar with the subject that he is addressing. I think that the member can handle it in an objective, accurate way. They are experts in the role of opposition; after all, they've had 37 of the past 40 years in opposition. For the information of the House, I think.... If it strays a little bit in a partisan manner, that's appropriate.
The Speaker: I will say again that I think hon. members will agree that it is almost unheard of to have points of order raised during private members' statements. I think that that demonstrates the cautions of the Chair -- when we choose topics that bring us so perilously close to being out of order. I would urge hon. members to have patience with each other. This is our last statement for the day. I'm confident the hon. member for Nanaimo will try his very best not to give rise to other points of order, and other members will try their very best to give as much latitude as possible at this late stage.
D. Lovick: Would you be kind enough to give me a revised note of the amount of time I have before I commence.
The Speaker: The hon. member has about six minutes and 20 seconds.
D. Lovick: I want to acknowledge the insightful comment made by the member opposite -- not from the official opposition, but rather, from the third-party opposition. He made a point that I was also going to make, that we New Democrats do have considerable experience. I'm kindly and generously willing to share that with people opposite.
My second reason why one from this side of the House would offer comments on a subject like the role and responsibility of the official opposition is self-inter-
[ Page 3173 ]
est, I must confess -- self-interest, because a parliamentary system of government functions best and most effectively when it has a good opposition. Therefore, for entirely non-partisan reasons, I stand before you to talk today about the role and responsibilities of the official opposition.
The easy maxim -- the simplified version, if you will -- of the opposition's job is to simply say: opposition opposes, nothing more; government proposes, opposition opposes. Those are true statements to a degree, but they are also facile. They're much oversimplified. Rather, we have to look at something a little more theoretical. We start by looking at probably the best short monograph on the subject of opposition, written by a researcher with the federal Library of Parliament in his essay called "The Opposition in a Parliamentary System." He notes first the key point: "The existence of an opposition is indispensable to the functioning of parliamentary political systems." That's the premise on which we build.
The next question becomes: what does the opposition do? Broadly, generically, there are three functions. The first is to criticize government proposals, the second is to suggest ways in which legislation might be improved, and the third is to put forth its own ideas regarding what it would do if it happened to be government. Let me recast those points in the words of a great Canadian parliamentarian. The Rt. Hon. John George Diefenbaker said that the opposition's job is "to find fault, to suggest amendments, to ask questions and elicit information. It arouses, it educates, and it moulds public opinion."
The obvious question, then, is whether this opposition -- again speaking in generic terms -- does that job. How does opposition measure up in British Columbia in the latter period? Alas....
J. Tyabji: Point of order. Clearly, when the member starts talking specifically about the opposition functioning in British Columbia, we're starting to get past the point of generic examples. It seems very obvious that he's trying to lead into a very specific critique of the current opposition, which is a partisan....
D. Lovick: I'm frankly losing my patience, but isn't it worth noting on the point of order, Madam Speaker, that that member used her private member's statement as an opportunity to attack current government policy, and that that was in order?
The Speaker: On the point of order, I'm sure the hon. member for Nanaimo will continue in the vein he has been and keep his comments general.
D. Lovick: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your acuity.
The answer, I suggest to all objective witnesses, is: not very well. And don't take it from me. If you want to be partisan, don't take it from me. Let me quote one of your own. A member from the opposition has said he would give the opposition a B minus grade.
The Speaker: Hon. member....
D. Lovick: Oh, for heaven's sake.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I have to request that you confine your remarks to opposition in general and stay away from comments on the particular opposition in this House, in this Legislature, in this parliament.
D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I have not yet been charged with having violated any principle of order. I have had two points of order considered out of order by your ruling. I have been given a cautionary note in the beginning which you said was in anticipation. I have done nothing yet that violates the standing order. If I have, I would ask for that citation, please. I'm familiar with the rules of this House. Indeed, I venerate the rules of this House. I love this chamber; I'm not about to violate those rules. Please give me guidance, Madam Speaker; otherwise you're effectively telling me that my entire topic is out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I will use standing order 40, which deals with disrespectful or offensive language being forbidden in this chamber. I specifically refer to comments the member made at the opening of his presentation when he used the words "me and "I" and then used the words "inept and incompetent" in reflecting the members opposite. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.
Hon. D. Miller: On the point of order, private members' statements are a privilege accorded to members. They are important, and many useful topics are discussed in these private members' statements on Friday. I would urge all members to remind themselves of that fact. I'm sure we would all like to proceed through these private members' statements, rather than be bogged down in points of order. If I could draw that to your attention, hon. Speaker, perhaps all members might take that point under advisement.
[11:15]
The Speaker: In terms of the direction the hon. member for Nanaimo is going, the Chair regards comments directed at the present official opposition in this House as being out of order, in terms of the limits of private members' statements.
D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I thought this was going to be helpful, instructive and, indeed, amusing. Therefore I am surprised. My question is: does that mean that all those previous private members' statements we have heard, in which the opposition attacks government -- legitimately, in my opinion -- have been out of order? You're telling me I'm not allowed to say....
The Speaker: As the hon. member knows, there can be no debate between an hon. member and the Chair. I am certainly happy to discuss privately outside this chamber.... But I would ask the hon. member, if he chooses, to continue with his private member's statement, which I'm sure all hon. members would like him to do.
[ Page 3174 ]
C. Serwa: On a point of order, traditionally in this Legislature, which is in fact a political forum, we have had a substantial amount of latitude. Hon. Speaker, I would suggest that today we go through with that private member's statement, because I think this House will be enhanced and be more familiar with that. I would suggest that perhaps a meeting of House Leaders and yourself can look at this and then make some sort of rule. Normally, in the tradition of this House, we have that type of latitude. It is a political forum. After all, it's just a little spice that flavours the debate.
The Speaker: Thank you for your comments, hon. member. Member for Nanaimo, please continue.
D. Lovick: I will proceed as circumspectly as I am able, Madam Speaker. I assure you it is not my intention to introduce any note of acrimony to this chamber. I was making the point that the opposition clearly has to be measured against particular criteria, whether it is in this chamber, in New South Wales or any other parliamentary system. I would put it to members opposite that if a member -- an acknowledged leader in an opposition caucus -- were to say something like, "We give ourselves a B minus grade; we need to do something to improve our reading and research skills," that is an admission that the opposition is not doing terribly well.
I would also put it to the members opposite that when we have commentators on radio suggesting that that opposition has abdicated its responsibility, that opposition is probably not doing very well. Of course, I'm not about to draw any particular reference to particular persons.
I just want to suggest a couple of points that may be heuristic and helpful. Namely, the amount of time one spends arguing from an opposition perspective is not the criterion by which one judges effectiveness. Rather, the question is how successfully one's agenda gets advanced, how successfully one achieves the obvious and ultimate objective of looking good, of looking like a government-in-waiting. The way we measure that -- and it pains me to say this -- is how well we manage to capture public opinion via the media, via the press. Indeed, Madam Speaker, you and your Clerks will certainly be familiar with this point because it's made by Sir Erskine May in Parliamentary Practice -- the twenty-first edition, page 200, for members opposite. Sir Erskine May writes:
"Since the strength of modern party discipline makes a ministry largely invulnerable to direct attack in the House...the criticism of the opposition is primarily directed towards the electorate, with a view to the next election, or with the aim of influencing government policy through the pressure of public opinion."
The question then becomes: how well does this opposition -- or any other opposition; let's talk again in more abstract and theoretical terms -- achieve that? That's the legitimate criterion by which we should measure. I would suggest that the best way to look at that would be in the crucible of question period, which is supposed to, after all, give us the best clue as to whether the opposition is indeed unfolding as it ought. As we know, question period lasts only four days a week, 15 minutes per day. Every ear is glued -- if you can glue ears -- every eye watching. Everybody wishes to know what's happening in question period.
I see, Madam Speaker, you're giving me an indication of time. I would submit, Madam Speaker, that I probably have not had much time, given the....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I signalled Hansard to increase time. I do use my clock here to try to keep control of the number of points of order. The hon. member has had seven minutes, albeit very broken up by points of order. The chair regrets that.
The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, in response to the private member's statement. I hope the Chair does not have to repeat the cautions.
G. Farrell-Collins: Not at all, hon. Speaker. I intend to be very generic and non-partisan.
I think the member opposite was well on his way to giving us a very valuable presentation when he quoted from a number of documents: the researcher from Ottawa with regard to the roles of the opposition, and certainly the comments by the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker. I think those comments were very much in order, and were very much the types of comments that I had hoped to hear from the member opposite in his comments on opposition. I think that he was well on his way.
He mentioned a couple of things that the opposition is designed to do, or the responsibilities of the opposition. He said that the opposition is supposed to criticize the government, look at legislation, judge that legislation and recommend improvements upon it. I would assume that when an opposition puts forth amendments to bills and when an opposition has those amendments accepted, that would be a sign of a very constructive opposition, because that is exactly in line with the goals that the member opposite stated that an opposition should attain. The member opposite also said that an official opposition -- Her Majesty's official opposition -- should make a point of putting forth alternatives, improvements on the political direction that the government is taking. In fact, I would think that is exactly the type of thing an official opposition should do, and I think that most official oppositions do that.
The member opposite took another tack and discussed another angle of what in his mind an official opposition is designed to do. That is that one can measure the effectiveness of an official opposition by the public perception as illustrated in the press. I would suggest that that is not the only way one evaluates the effectiveness of an opposition. Rather, one measures the effectiveness of an opposition by going back to the communities and constituencies and talking to the people in those communities and constituencies, and asking them how well they think the official opposition has done in bringing forth their concerns and their personal recommendations to the government on how they can improve legislation and on how they can make various policy directions work better. In fact, I think that's a much more valuable and much more precise way of determining the effectiveness of an opposition.
[ Page 3175 ]
To do that, one just has to look at poll results. We all know we don't trust in polls completely, but they do give us a bit of a snapshot as to where the government is going, where the official opposition is going and where the third party is going. Those types of poll results are very important, to give you a bit of a snapshot.
If I could have some order, hon. Speaker, in the House....
Perhaps those polls would give an indication of where we're going. I think if we were to look at the polls in this province, we would see that in fact the official opposition has been affected....
The Speaker: Order! Order, please, hon. members.
Please continue your comments. I was only bringing the House to order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I didn't want to stray there, and I'm sorry if I did.
There are a number of ways of determining the effectiveness of an opposition, not merely by listening to the political commentators that spend their time in these halls or the ones who have talk shows and do radio programs. Their job, frankly, is to provide entertainment to the public. They crank out this stuff, and it.... We're in the phase now where news has become entertainment; it's a marketable product. The media has to produce stories; they have to ferret out stories. The things that are the most confrontational, the most titillating -- they draw those things out, and they use that as a means to report. That's what we see in the media, for the most part, these days.
In many cases the media don't look at the substantive amendments that are made to bills, the improvements that an opposition would make on legislation, the new programs or the new policies that an opposition is advocating. In fact, perhaps those are the best ways of determining whether an opposition has been effective. Those are the ways for the people of this province, or any province for that matter, to determine whether the opposition have made themselves effective. Question period in the Legislature is but a very small, small, small part of what goes on in a legislature. Question period has become, in effect, a show. It's become the fodder that we feed to the media to allow them to make their stories and to steer a political agenda in the forum of the media.
But there is a much more important way to determine whether a government or an opposition is being effective: to go back and ask the people of the province, the constituents, and find out what they think and whether or not they think the opposition or the government has been effective. It's the people that count.
D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, I'm going to put on my academic hat for a moment, if I may, as somebody who knows a little bit about government -- or at least theoretically -- who's written about the subject, who apparently has some knowledge of parliament and how opposition and government ought to work and ought to interact and react.
I think the absolute key feature of parliament and the parliamentary system is precisely in the word itself, coming from the French parlement, a place where we speak. And our speaking ought not to be, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, antiseptic. It ought not to be robbed of those moments of passion and those moments of humour and those moments of excitement where the true and deeply held feelings of individuals are allowed to flourish. The genius of parliament, above all, is that we rationalize, formalize and ritualize debate -- so we throw lighter objects than stones, rocks and bullets at each other. But if we don't allow debate to proceed with passion, vigour and excitement, we take a backwards step. Parliament will become a cipher of itself.
Opposition's role is to oppose government, and government's role is to fight back. Opposition wants the job that government holds, because opposition conceives and perceives it can do a better job of serving the people's legitimate interest. Government says quite the opposite is true: we on our side can do better. There must be opportunities for us to have that kind of interaction without being -- above all -- nice. That's what I fear has happened to this chamber. We're asked to be nice. Civil, well-mannered, honest, forthright and direct -- yes, all of those things, but we must not fall into the trap of saying: "You can no longer speak against them, because their feelings might be hurt."
We on this side of the House, by the same token, should never, ever fall into the trap of believing, even though we are predisposed sometimes to be self-righteous and sanctimonious, that we are without blame. We should be willing to listen to criticism, take that criticism and laugh at ourselves. I fear that what has happened -- and my fear for Friday mornings and private members' statements -- is that we have established a regimen whereby we will no longer be able to have that exchange and interaction. I'm saddened by that.
I would dearly ask the Speaker to think carefully about the judgments that have been made here today. I say that with humility and with the greatest possible respect, but I am deeply concerned.
J. Tyabji: I was waiting for the end of private members' statements to raise this. But as the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove pointed out, if we review the records, we will find that prior to the ruling of the Chair, the member for Nanaimo had called the official opposition both inept and incompetent. That is currently standing in Hansard. I believe we deserve an apology. I think that goes under standing order 40.
[11:30]
Hon. G. Clark: On the point of order, I appreciate that there's been some testiness in the House, perhaps because it is Friday. However, having said that, it is quite in order in the House to make comments on the quality of a group of individuals. What is improper, it seems to me, is to suggest that any individual holds improper motives or to make comments about them in a disparaging way. To disparage the official opposition
[ Page 3176 ]
is generally in keeping with the tone of the House, as it is the opposition's right to make comment on the activities of the government -- as long as it's not personalized. This is not personalized, in my view. This is dealing with the official opposition.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I have taken the point of order. I ask for the indulgence of this House. This has been a very unusual private members' statements day. I hope that it clearly demonstrates what happens when we begin to stray into areas that are not usually the practice of this House in private members' statements.
I'm sure all hon. members will agree that the energetic debate that various members have referred to during these private members' statements and during the points of order are perfectly in place in this House. That is what this House is for; it's for debate. If at some future time hon. members would like to review the purpose of private members' statements, then of course the Chair would always be willing to carry out the will of the House.
With the indulgence of all members, perhaps it would be most appropriate to proceed to other matters of business in this House.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
On vote 48: minister's office, $365,941 (continued).
V. Anderson: Just before we finished the estimates the other day, I raised a question about the alcohol and drug education programs in the public schools and in the high schools. The Alcohol-Drug Education Service has for some time researched and developed, with a great deal of skill and ability, a system of programs that have been used in public schools and high schools throughout the province. They have trained and prepared teachers and have developed systems in cooperation with the schools. I would ask why she would not continue with those programs, and why she has put in place, as I understand it, early prevention programs with staff, some of whom are not necessarily trained as teachers. She has tried to develop a completely different system when there was already a system in place that was working well and that was well received. If you could indicate the nature of the new system and why it is in place instead of the other, it would be appreciated.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said the other night when we were wrapping up, we have not provided core funding to this organization; however, we have used them from time to time to provide services for us on a contract basis. This year we're providing $400,000 to schools directly so that they can make their own decisions about how to best provide these programs. We think that by leaving it to the schools to design the programs that are most appropriate to their needs, they will have the appropriate personnel and probably very effective programs for their students.
F. Jackson: Hon. Chair, I beg leave to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
F. Jackson: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine who have just arrived here from Kamloops: Martin and Melvina Fedora. I would like the House to join me in making them feel welcome today.
V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, I understood there was an early prevention education project undertaken by the ministry that was to be evaluated and operating in 17 schools. Might she tell us what has happened to that particular project? Do I understand her previous comment on the money over the $400,000 that was made available to mean that the school boards themselves could each request the Alcohol-Drug Education Service to continue to do the programs they had been doing? Do they have that choice, and is that open to each school board to undertake that with the money available to them now?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, the grants go directly to the school boards, and the school boards will decide who is to provide the services. They could contract with the Alcohol-Drug Education Service if they wish to do so. There are 17 schools that are being funded through the early intervention program, and there is new funding this year of $1.27 million available on an existing base of just over $2 million.
V. Anderson: Could you describe the nature of that new program? Is it available to school boards to choose the early intervention program in the 17 schools? Has that been extended to all school boards, is that money available and is it a choice for them to accept it or not? What is the nature of that program, and what is the nature of the personnel who are working in it? Are they all trained teachers, and have they been specifically trained in this area?
Hon. E. Cull: All schools are eligible, and there are two programs. There are the school grants, which I just mentioned, and then there is the school-based prevention program. It is up to the school boards to determine who will provide the services and what kind of personnel will provide those services.
V. Anderson: Are those grants and the school-based prevention program you mentioned available for both elementary and secondary schools? Do they cover all age ranges, or is there a limitation as to which groups are eligible for them? Are they available throughout the province?
[ Page 3177 ]
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, the program is available throughout the province. At this point it's only in secondary schools. I understand that last year it was started as a pilot in secondary schools, and it hasn't been moved beyond the secondary school level at this point. Obviously the secondary school level is probably the priority for getting the program in. In your questioning, you're suggesting that elementary schools are also deserving of this kind of programming. I agree with you. It will be a question of determining how best to move this program further out into the school system.
V. Anderson: I agree that it needs to be both in secondary and in elementary schools. I think we are discovering, though, that the priority of crisis intervention is probably true in the high school secondary area. The priority of prevention is really in the primary area rather than the secondary area, because so many of our youngsters are getting caught in the system before they get to high school. I would ask if the minister has reviewed the material of the Alcohol-Drug Education program, which has been operating in the secondary and primary areas for some time, to see if that is not a model. Why are they developing other models rather than encouraging the one that has already been tried, researched and tested? I find it strange that if we have a good program in place that has been well-received, we seem to be countering that program and, indeed, challenging it and not giving it the opportunity. Are they recommending to the school boards that the ADES program is available as an option and a choice that they would recommend and complement?
Hon. E. Cull: I think the marketing of any particular agency's services has to be left up to that agency. I don't think it's appropriate for the government to promote one contractor over another to third parties such as school boards.
You have been asking about school-based prevention in the school grants program, but there are other programs that are targeted at elementary schools. There is a new public awareness program this year. There's a program called Kids' Zone. There is also some work that we do with the B.C. Dairy Foundation on promoting responsible behaviour with respect to alcohol and youth.
P. Dueck: It's certainly a privilege and an honour that one can rise in this House and contribute, perhaps in some small way, to the functioning of government. I have to say at the outset, though, that the role of opposition is much different for me than the role I had prior to coming to this side of the House. I believe there shouldn't have been a change, because the opposition was really expert on this side of the House, but we are learning. Having said that, I will do my best.
I will be speaking in general terms rather than in specific terms as to problems in my constituency, or even questions on certain areas of the ministry, because I think everything has been said and asked already up to this point in time.
I would first like to congratulate the minister for the appointment. Perhaps it would be better to give condolences, because I know what it means to be in that position. It's not easy. I have some sympathy for the minister. Having said that, I want to be very kind, as I always am. This morning will be a very easy go for you.
It is a very fulfilling ministry. For all the criticism that you receive -- and I'm sure that the minister has received much criticism to this date, and will receive more and more as time goes on -- there are so many positive stories in the ministry. When I balance the two -- it was hectic -- I have to look back and say that there were so many things that one could do and directions one could go in to shape and form. Having the ministry go into the various complex areas was really the part that I enjoyed the most.
When I look at some of the things that came to my attention, I thought of the roughly 100,000 people who work in the health area, in some form or another, producing heroic efforts in saving lives, preventing diseases, treating ailments, comforting the dying, bringing new life into the world, assisting the elderly and handicapped and protecting and promoting our health. Those are the things that you will get great satisfaction from when you look back during the next term, when perhaps somebody else will be sitting in that chair. No, not really. We don't wish any bad luck on anyone.
[11:45]
I'm sure that by this time you have suffered unfair attacks by the news media and have sometimes been misquoted, and all the rest of it that goes with that particular job. You may have also suffered resistance to change from staff and even from us, as we sit in that position. I think it's a natural feeling for anyone who goes into a new position. When you get to know your particular ministry and then somebody comes up with a suggestion to change it, it is very difficult. You no sooner get to feel a bit comfortable in that position than somebody wants to change it. After about four months in my position, I talked to a former Minister of Health, Jim Nielsen. I said: "Gosh, how long does it take until you get a handle on this?" He said: "No time at all -- peanuts -- two years." So there's hope. After a while you will find that it's not very difficult.
The minister has tremendous responsibilities. It is fortunate that you have such good people around you to assist you. I am certainly familiar with most of the faces I see. I have to say publicly -- and I want it on the record -- that in every area you have the finest staff that you could possibly imagine. I'm glad you kept them on, because they are good people. They are non-partisan. They are there to do the job in order that the people of the province have the best health care. I commend you for having them with you, and I certainly hope that that will continue.
I have been in the private sector, and you often heard people talk about bureaucrats in derogatory terms such as: "I mean, after all, those are the bureaucrats." I have to tell you how the senior people I've had when I was in business acted. I only kept good people. I couldn't afford to have people who weren't competent, because I wasn't that competent myself. When I got into the Ministry of Health and noticed the dedication and
[ Page 3178 ]
loyalty that these people had towards the minister and their ministry, it was really quite a revelation to me. I could call on a Saturday or Sunday night, or at any time night or day, and say: "I don't need that information right now, but I thought you perhaps knew it." They would go to the office, whether it was Sunday morning, and half an hour later I would get a call, and they'd say: "I've just got that information for you." That's something I didn't experience in private business. I generally went to the office myself and looked it up if anybody had a question. So I want to tell you that you are very fortunate. Now I suppose I will get a free meal from the bureaucrats sometime down the way.
I am pleased that in my constituency -- I will speak a little bit about my constituency -- the minister has in fact increased the beds by 50 to 350 for the new hospital that we are going to build in the near future. Mind you, it's been in the works now for two or three years, I think, but it will come on stream one of these days. We need it very badly, because we have a population now of about 100,000 that this hospital services. I'm really pleased to hear that.
I want to mention that the health unit is very crowded, and I was criticized soundly for not doing more for my constituents. As a matter of fact, the criticism was that it's such a safe riding, and that I wanted to be so impartial, so the MSA area or my constituency -- the Central Fraser Valley -- got very little. It was always someone else. But I truly tried to look at all the criteria or all the priorities in the province, and the need. Very often my community got less because I knew another community had a greater need. This is why I want to appeal to you that the health unit is at the point now where if you have a number of people coming in at one time, they have to first let some of the staff go so the others have room to come in. It's something like the office I have now: if one person comes in to see me, I have to leave so that they have room.
But as the minister, you have the opportunity to do many things, now that the crunch is on -- and it certainly is -- to get even greater heights of excellence in the Ministry of Health, or you can destroy the system through bitter confrontation. I was going to be kind, so I'm saying it in kindness. We cannot afford confrontation in the Ministry of Health. That ministry should be absolutely non-partisan and should only look at the best for the people of the province. I am partisan, and so is everybody else in this House to a degree. But to let that take over the Ministry of Health is, I think, a very dangerous thing. I see somehow that it is beginning to creep in, and I wish it were not so.
The changes that are needed and that are going to come about, and which have come about in the past so many years.... I've only been in it since 1986, but if I read and look back in history, it has changed much in 24 years. The health care system has changed dramatically. Very often it's unrewarding work that the minister does, but at the same time it is work that has to be done, and the vision that a minister has to have to keep abreast of the changing times and other things that are changing, and how to go about it to make the health care service even better....
There's one piece of advice I'd like to give the minister. She must have the bold vision of making changes, but she can't change the system without the cooperation of all the stakeholders and all the people involved in the health care system. That includes health care providers, patients and the taxpayers that we serve. You know, it is a balancing act. I think it is a challenging position, but it is difficult. I'm afraid that what I see lately has already happened, and I hope that it can be changed. I think that the confrontation that has already occurred is not for the benefit of this province and for the people of this province. I wish it were not so, but I see that things are getting a little bit out of hand. I hope that the minister can get a handle on it and solve some of these problems.
There is no long-term solution to the funding problem the way it's going now. I do not believe that you have the vision or the systems in place to solve the long-term problems. I believe there are fundamental problems in the system. While all groups are partly responsible for escalating costs -- no question about that -- the doctors are being forced to bear the brunt. This is inherently unfair. It will not change the root cause of escalating costs. The same pressure, overutilization, will persist.
I read an article in a journal. I have the article at home, and I can quote you the doctor's name and the time it was written. This doctor writes that in the city of Edmonton he did what he called raids on his patients' homes -- mostly seniors -- and asked them what types of prescription drugs they had in their cabinet. We are all familiar with seniors having a whole row of various prescription drugs. Very often they're from years back, and very often they will exchange drugs between husband and wife and say: "Well, this little red pill really helped me last year. Fine, I'll take that one, too."
This doctor did a survey, and he did some raids on people's homes. He found enough Valium to put Edmonton to sleep for ten days. It was written by a physician. Dr. Anderson is sort of looking in great surprise, but I would like to give him that information. Maybe it was somewhat exaggerated. Maybe it was a little bit exaggerated, like Dr. Rachlis sometimes does, but what I'm trying to do is bring the point across that we now spend $325 million on prescription drugs, whereas six years ago I believe it was half that.
There is something inherently wrong. It has to be fixed. We cannot continue with that. I don't think we can do it by putting pressure on the physician, because when I go to my doctor, it may be insignificant to someone else, but I have a concern. I certainly don't expect my doctor to say: "Don't worry about it, and don't see me this often." They're really caught in a bind. They really are. I don't say that every doctor is genuinely interested in patient care. Some are more interested in the care of their pocket. We're all in some way in the free enterprise system and anxious to make our claim to fame in this life. We want to have a good life, and we're interested in making money. At the same time, I think most physicians have a very difficult time to cut back. To say that you're going to ration them.... What are they going to do? We've had, of course, rations before in the sense that we had a cap, but they
[ Page 3179 ]
were agreed upon. Those contracts were agreed upon. Those agreements were mutual. But criticizing just for the sake of criticizing and hoping that they will bear the brunt -- I think that's a short-term goal and will not work.
The problem with escalating health care costs is simple to understand. Everybody knows that the cost is going up, but the solutions are very, very difficult and always complex. The problem in the health care system today is largely a problem of incentives, in my opinion. The payment mechanism and the premium systems encourage overuse. It is as simple as that. We had a user fee at one time. I'll go on record: I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a proponent of user fees in some form. I always have been, and I always will be. We have user fees in different ministries. We have user fees in income tax. We have user fees in every walk of life. Why we are so terribly...?
The Chair: Pursuant to standing orders, your time has elapsed.
V. Anderson: The speaker on the floor has a long history and a lot to share with us. I would be delighted to hear him continue.
P. Dueck: I was talking about user fees. We were forced to take the user fee off, and when we took it off and no longer charged people, emergency departments in all hospitals increased, some of them up to 35 percent. That tells me that user fees do have an impact. Consumers will maybe decide to wait and go to the doctor the next morning. "Maybe it's not that serious; maybe I don't have to go the emergency department." But that's beside the point. The Canada Health Act doesn't allow it, so that's for another day.
In the absence of some incentives, the fundamental flaw in our current health care system remains. We now realize that unless we are willing to take a bold and new approach, the very survival of our health care system is at risk. It is a serious problem, and I'm concerned that we will get to the crunch where it's not that easily corrected.
Our system has historically been entirely open-ended, as we all know, providing its patients with the best care possible -- not the most appropriate care and regardless of taxpayers' ability to pay. Why bother with trivial matters like cost? The government takes care of that; it's the government's responsibility. How many Health ministers in the past have attempted to control by rationing? To some degree, in the short term, it had some result. It worked marginally, eliminating some of the waste. I think the fat has been taken out of the system. I think there's very little, if any, fat left in the system. Actions have to be taken and should be taken. The vision must come from the minister. Further government rationing to eliminate the expenditure will only lead to more confrontation and deterioration of services. Now is the time for vision, not confrontation.
The minister has a tremendous opportunity to continue with the visions created by ministers before her. I don't necessarily refer to me, but many others were competent. For example, the Victoria Health Project was put into being some years back, and I think it has proved to be very successful. That was a vision. That was a direction that the government took. Many people had very negative thoughts about it and said it would never work. You can't get all these people and players together to do this thing on their own, without being individually responsible. The quick response team of the Victoria Health Project is a tremendous success. I think that's what I'm talking about when I mention vision and new ideas.
[12:00]
When I left the Health portfolio, my staff were investing a number of HMOs -- health maintenance organizations. The concept of a health maintenance organization has many benefits. I think the NDP and all members of the House would support that concept. I know that in the States they have a number of them. They have a common bond, whether it's geographical or a corporation, and they join this health maintenance organization. There are various models. It works well, and there's a cost saving in that.
These measures will improve the system, but they won't solve the overall problem, which is overutilization in the fee-for-service sector. It is in the fee-for-service sector that the incentives must change if we are going to have any real long-term solutions. I believe it is time to the put the decision-making process into the hands of the consumer. Consumers must take responsibility for their own health. Only through thoughtful consideration by the consumer about the types of care they receive can we begin to tackle the problem of overutilization.
It is also important that changes in the incentive system meet with the goals, of course, of the Canadian health rules that we have in place. I have recently read with great interest Professor Grubel's report to the Medical Post. I'm going to read part of that, if I may, for our edification. I found it tremendously interesting, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
"Undoubtedly the demands of physicians for more and the government's insistence on less spending will be settled through compromise in the usual tradition of Canadian politics. My concern is that this and similar compromises in the future will wreck the health care system because they fail to deal with its fundamental flaw. This fundamental flaw is the absence of incentives for efficient practices by physicians, patients, hospitals, drug companies and others in the industry. The absence of these incentives is due to the legislative entitlement of every Canadian to the best available medical care and no personal extra cost.
"These incentives induce an increase in the consumption of medical services. Patients rationally insist on extra visits for diagnosis and on more expensive treatment, since they are "free." Doctors rationally respond to these demands, since the patient benefits, they do not want to lose patients and there are no costs to them for doing so. In addition, their self-interest encourages them to overservice and overtreat their patients. Hospitals, drug companies and the producers of diagnostic tools, in turn, are induced to develop and market all innovations which improve patient care, regardless of costs.
"When the Canadian health care system was designed in the 1960s, it was not known how much these incentives would actually affect behaviour. In the spirit
[ Page 3180 ]
of optimism about the seeming success of socialism in Britain and Sweden, many believed that the social conscience of people would prevent them from responding to these incentives at all. We now know that the effect on the demand for medical care coming from these incentives is so large and growing that the very survival of the medical system depends on its control."
Further, I have taken some of these from his articles. I think they are very real, and I think we should take them to heart: "A requirement by patients to enter into their tax return," -- in other words, this is another option or model that can perhaps be followed -- "the cost of medical care they consume and taxes on the imputed income." This would replace premiums and other taxes. To protect against undue hardship from serious illness, the taxable imputed income cannot exceed, let's say, 10 percent. In other words, if somebody is in the 50 percent tax bracket and he has received $5,000 worth of health services that year.... Let's say you take 10 percent. He would pay 50 percent of that bill -- not bad. I think people would buy into it. I think it's a good option. Low income people would pay nothing. Their taxable income would be at a level where there would be no taxes, so they would get it free.
The second proposal that he's talking about is the health maintenance organization, which I've already mentioned. It could be voluntary; it could be an experiment at this time with certain groups. That work has to be done on it. There are certain pitfalls, and they have to be looked at. Since time is of the essence, I'm rushing through this. It would be an incentive for the doctor not to oversubscribe and overservice, and there would be incentive not to go to the medical profession, because at the end, when there is a profit -- and there is a profit with these HMOs -- they would share that which is left over. In other words, when they go to the doctor, they'd say: "Well, I'd better be careful, because at the end of the year I will probably get some of that money back."
The third option proposed by Professor Grubel is similar to some of the discussions taking place now; I'm sure the minister is well aware of them. We must work together to set up a national-provincial board which determines which diagnostic and treatment procedures are covered by the public health care system. Its task is to draw on technical advice to make economic, cost-effective or cost-benefit calculations and determine whether covering the use of new technology is in fact warranted. For example, I remember VGH got the first lithotripter to zap kidney stones. We thought that would reduce operations. What happened? Operations increased; lithotripsies were done by the hundreds. We have to be very careful that we don't get new equipment and then overservice because we have new equipment and everybody wants to use it.
It's the same with MRIs. It's very nice to have an MRI in every small hospital, but we know that's not possible, because it's not the purchase of the MRI -- most communities would gladly pay for the purchase of equipment -- but the operation of the equipment that really costs the money, and that's in perpetuity, long after the equipment has been purchased. So one has to be very careful in that area.
I ask the minister to take a long, hard look at funding arrangements, incentives and payment mechanisms before introducing any new legislation that may in fact be negative to the new look. I wish you success in your responsibility for health issues. There should be no partisan politics -- and I did practise that. I truly always wanted to practise that when I was in the Ministry of Health: partisan politics should stay completely out of the Health ministry operations. If there is a hospital or a need in a certain community, it does not matter how that community voted in the last election or if they ever elected a minister or an MLA for that area. I think I did practise that. I can bring examples, but I don't want to at this time.
I believe that you have a very challenging portfolio. It's a delightful portfolio. There are so many challenges and so many benefits that when you are finished with that particular work, you'll look back with pride and say that it was wonderful to be in that portfolio. Furthermore, if you can go in some of the directions where you can improve the health care system, that will be to your credit. I wish you well.
Hon. E. Cull: I just want to take a few minutes to respond to the member's comments. I want to thank you for setting a tone that was very visionary and philosophical about where we're going with health care. Quite obviously your background in this portfolio shows through in your comments. I also want to thank you for what you said about the staff in the ministry. I agree with you: There are some very excellent people supporting me and making my job easier every day.
You talked first of all about confrontation, and the fact that confrontation isn't going to allow us to move forward with some of the challenges in this portfolio. I agree. Obviously, if you're going to be making significant changes in an area like health care, the best possible situation is to have everyone on board, everybody agreeing with the general direction. As you know from your own past experience in this portfolio, that's not always easy. Confrontation hasn't started with this government and probably wasn't even started with your government. It probably goes back in history further than either you or I could go back. I think that we always have to bear in mind that there is an element, as you said, of the resistance to change that creates the environment for confrontation. We have to work very hard to reduce that.
With the current confrontation, it does take two to sit down to eliminate that confrontation, or reduce it. As you may be aware, we have agreed to sit down again with the BCMA this weekend to try, once again, to look at those areas where we have some disagreement. I'm optimistic that we will be able to work at this, and if we both come to the table with serious intent and desire to move beyond our current dispute, we will in fact be able to achieve something.
I think there has been far too much focus on doctors' incomes in this whole discussion, as opposed to looking at the bigger question of how much money we really have to spend in health care, and how we are going to make that money meet the changing needs of our population over time. Some of the things that have been
[ Page 3181 ]
missed, I guess, while we focused on what the doctors have talked of as the rationing or cap on their incomes, are the other, more creative aspects in the approach that we've been trying to pursue with them. I point out that one of the other supplementary practitioners, the chiropractors, have recognized, I think, the value in some of the other things that we are suggesting around co-management, around guidelines and protocols and things like that, and have said that they are willing to sit down and now put together a co-management model for their part of the Medical Services Plan. I'm hopeful that other practitioner groups will come and start to work with us on that basis and that the doctors will see, through the example of their colleagues in other health care practices, that this will work.
Some of the things that I just want to draw your attention to, because there are many tools that we have to use.... We talk about the difficulties doctors have in making decisions about what services to provide and when to provide them. Clearly we don't want anyone but doctors making medical decisions. The last thing we want is bureaucrats doing that, as competent and as talented as they may be. Medical decisions do have to be made by doctors. But I hear from a lot of doctors who say to me: "Well, we have a hard time saying no to our patients, because the patients come in, and they've read the latest article on something to do with health, and they want a test on this particular health issue. If I say no to my patient, the patient will just go down the hall and find another physician who will do it."
So one of the things that we're trying to do, which I think is creative and moves us in the kinds of directions you were talking about, is to start developing some guidelines and protocols with the College of Physicians and Surgeons that say: what are the circumstances within which a test is recommended? I think that will give physicians something that can back them up. We do want to back them up when patients come in and make requests where the doctor, looking at it strictly from a medical point of view, would say: "That's really not something that we need to do here."
The other thing that we have to look at is education. The system really is changing. You talked a lot about the attitudes of the public and how they have perceived access to medicare. We do have to start focusing on responsible behaviour around our medicare system, particularly if we're to preserve it.
You made reference to the impact of user fees on emergency wards. It is clear that people do have to understand that if they make choices that needlessly spend money out of the health care budget, then there is less money to spend on other things that may be of greater value to our health in the long run. That's very much what this is all about.
[12:15]
As you know, having gone through the difficult job of setting budgets in the past, we do have to set budgets for health care. We have to make some very tough decisions, because there is never enough money to do all of the things that we'd like to do in health care. We're trying to manage all parts of the health care system to make sure that we do get our priorities right.
We have agreements with physicians in other provinces -- sometimes imposed, sometimes negotiated -- who have not seen the kind of global budget increase that we've provided this year, at 4.7 percent. In some cases it's 0 percent; in some it's an actual rollback. In none of those provinces right now do I hear physicians saying that they're going to have to eliminate needed surgery, turn patients away or close their offices. We have to bear that in mind.
When we're here in British Columbia in the middle of a dispute, sometimes it's hard to look beyond the Rockies to see the rest of the world and realize that there are other things going on out there. We're not unique here. As much as we would like to believe that British Columbia is on the leading edge and that we're unique and special -- and in many ways, I suppose, we are -- when it comes to the kinds of things that we're doing with health care, there is broad agreement with all of the health care ministers across Canada, regardless of which party they're from, about the directions we have to go to maintain the quality, viability and sustainability of our medicare system into the future.
Recently there was a meeting of Health ministers with Finance ministers from across Canada; it was an interesting and very productive meeting. We talked about the directions for health care in Canada and had very strong agreement. We talked about cost-containment measures, and again, there was a lot of agreement on that, although there were some differences on a couple of issues which I'll just touch on: the point that you raised about the need to establish national guidelines for what should be covered under medicare and what our national system is, because we don't want to end up with a balkanized system with each province having its own vision of what should be in medicare. I think it's important that we maintain this as a national program.
For that reason, I think it's important that we maintain it as a universal program and that it has universal accessibility. I guess that's where the government disagrees with your point of view on user fees and on the way that people would actually go about paying for medical services. The experience in the studies that I've had a look at clearly show that there's a direct correlation between health and wealth. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to suffer from all kinds of health disorders.
I recently saw a very interesting study that looked at the British civil service over a long period of time. They were able to look at the management and clerical people, the middle policy people and the people at the bottom of the occupational scale who have the least control over their jobs and -- perhaps some of us would think -- less stressful jobs.
They looked at things like heart disease, lung cancer and other forms of cancer. What surprised me was that the concept many people have that the most likely person to die of a heart attack is the harried executive who's working 16-hour days seven days a week and has all this stress and decisions to make is wrong. The person most likely to suffer from a heart attack is the person at the bottom of the occupational heap who has no control over his or her life and has a job that's
[ Page 3182 ]
stressful in a totally different way. Maybe it's monotonous or repetitive. Maybe they have very little control over the product of their work or no connection to it. Those are the people who tend to be the least healthy.
I think we have to bear that in mind when we start talking about user fees, because I don't think that a user fee would deter you or I from going to an emergency ward or going to see our doctor. But it certainly will deter those people who have limited incomes. While social assistance will certainly help a portion of our population, there are another group of people who fall beyond the social assistance nets. They are the working poor; they are people who are struggling to get by on reasonably limited incomes. The last thing in the world I want to do is make those people reluctant to visit their doctor or their hospital in time to have a timely intervention, so that they end up waiting and waiting until they are actually quite seriously ill. Then there's the obvious cost impact, but more important is the impact on the individuals and their health and their family's.
You talked about health maintenance organizations, and I gather that since your time in this portfolio they've been worked on and renamed as comprehensive health organizations. It's a concept that I am very interested in pursuing, and we're going to look at a number of ways that we can do this, working with the services that we provide as a ministry in communities, and also working with hospitals and particularly diagnostic and treatment centres to try to expand those into being more of a comprehensive health body in their communities.
Again, just to go back on the issue of change, one of the questions I've asked is: why is it taking so long to move forward on this one? The idea was around for a long time before I came into this job. What's the holdup? One of the things that we're having to deal with is the reluctance of physicians in communities to move in this direction. Again, it's the fear of change, I think.
There are some things that we're doing. When you talk about the perverse incentives that exist in the way that we currently pay for medical services, one of the things that I think is worth exploring more is the rostered group practice idea, where a health organization would receive a fixed sum of money per patient, and then would manage that money over the year to ensure that all health needs of that patient are met. We've seen some very good studies of these kinds of organizations that show that not only are they cost-effective but they result in less hospitalization and avoid the problem that you mentioned of overmedicalization: giving too many prescriptions to individuals who may benefit from some other form of therapy.
In fact, I think what's most important about that is that it gets us around this crazy system we have which seems to reward doctors for doing things to people: cutting them or putting prescriptions into them or doing something like that, but doesn't reward them for sitting down and talking to patients and trying to get a better understanding, particularly when you talk about those seniors. You talked about the concept of the doctor raiding the medicine chests of some of his patients. I think if doctors were rewarded, through the system we have, for spending more time with seniors, we'd have better health outcomes for them.
I just want to wrap up by saying that I agree we need a bold new vision for health care not only in British Columbia, but in Canada. I want to assure the member that we are working very hard on that vision. We have ideas in this party that we've been working on for a number of years. We have the benefit of the Royal Commission on Health Care, which has given us a lot of material and ideas to work with. We are going to be coming out in the fall with our response to the royal commission, which I hope will, at that point, set out -- in a written format for all people in this province to see -- a very clear understanding of the vision for health care that this new government is trying to move in.
P. Dueck: I have a couple of very short points I would like to make. The user fee portion of my remarks was something that I personally believe in. I added that it's not possible because of the Canada Health Act. It's a non-issue at this time. I believe there should be some incentive. I felt that the user fee was an incentive -- or disincentive -- to go to a doctor, to a hospital or to emergency, in particular. That is something we cannot change.
When we talk about user fees, we certainly have them in Pharmacare. It's going up every year; now it's $400. When you're making an argument that we really don't want to enter into user fees, we're doing it with prescription drugs. That certainly is part of the health care system. It's not part of the Canada Health Act, so we're going in that direction. We're now changing our philosophy and saying that the poor people, of course, can't afford to get prescription drugs, but that's okay because it's not under the Canada Health Act. In the other area, which is under the Canada Health Act, we say no user fees because the poor people can't have access. I totally agree that everyone should be equal. I've been very strong on that point. There should not be a two-tiered system. There should be access at all times, especially for those people who are less fortunate than others. Therefore there should be a safety net, and somehow they should be looked after.
The three points I wanted to make were in the change that I think should be brought about in perhaps the tax return, where it could be a system of showing the amount you used on the income tax. In fact, the person who earned a big income would pay more than a person who had a low income. The HMOs and the board itself would discuss -- national board, provincial board; national board, of course, would be better -- to determine what diagnostic and treatment services would be, so it would be a uniform effort across Canada, not one region or one province. Having said that, I think you've covered most of the points.
I think you're going in the right direction. I like some of the ideas you brought forward. I hope that our medical system can be completely overhauled, completely changed, because I really have a fear that if we continue on this route, we.... So many people talk about saving the health care system. I believe that if we continue on this track, on this route that we have gone
[ Page 3183 ]
on for years and years, we will destroy our health care system. It may even hurt some people. It may even be very unpopular, but I think we must change, and we will have to change if we want to save the best health care system in the world. I truly believe that.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: Certainly your wrap-up comments are ones that I totally agree with. We are on a course right now across this country which is a very dangerous one if we don't start to bring about some changes and create a new vision for health care. We will lose what I think is one of the most, if not the most, important social programs in this country. Clearly the health care ministers across Canada, I'm glad to say, are in agreement on some of these directions, so I think there's a lot of hope that this change will come about.
You've zeroed in on one of the most difficult parts of bringing about change: in any change someone is going to feel aggrieved. Someone is going to feel hurt by it. Unfortunately, I've learned, and I'm sure you have the experience on this, that when a group feels aggrieved, they squeal very loudly. The group that's being rewarded, perhaps, or are receiving the benefit of the change usually says "thank you" very quietly, and goes about doing their good work. Sometimes I wish we would have equal volume on each side and perhaps have a better recognition of the balance.
I see that it is getting late and it is a Friday, and I know people want to return to their ridings, so I'm going to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[12:30]
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to advise the House that we will be sitting at 10 a.m. on Monday. With that, I wish everybody a restful weekend.
Oh, I apologize, hon. Speaker, I have had a chance to advise the House of hours of sitting on Monday. With that, I will turn it over to the Minister of Labour for a ministerial statement.
CONSTITUTIONAL MEETING
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has summoned Canada's premiers to a luncheon meeting on Monday to deal with the constitutional dilemma. At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to lay out the thoughts of the province of British Columbia as we head into that pivotal meeting.
In our view, there are three probable outcomes, among many, from this meeting, and I want to focus first on those three probable outcomes. First of the potential outcomes is that the federal government will serve notice to the provinces on Monday that it wishes to make a unilateral constitutional offer to the province of Quebec. This, in our view, would be most unfortunate for several reasons.
It would be most unfortunate because it would undermine the view that this has been a Canada round, which has been designed to deal with the concerns of all regions of Canada and not just to appease the interests of one province -- namely, the province of Quebec. For that reason it would therefore inevitably trigger an angry reaction throughout various regions of the country, and particularly from western Canada. In our view, this potential outcome would be unfortunate, because the federal government has to recognize that, as much as it would prefer to move unilaterally, at the end of the day it cannot achieve constitutional change through unilateral action. By law it must have the consent of the provinces and the signature, if I can put it that way, of the legislatures of the country. Why would the legislatures of this country sign a document that they did not ultimately play a role in shaping?
Third, I think it would be wrong for the federal government to take that unilateral action, because in part it would be an admission of failure, not just on the part of the federal government but on the part of all of the provinces involved. It will be an indication to a public that is increasingly cynical about politicians that we have been somehow unable to exert the leadership and demonstrate the compromise that is necessary to conclude this matter.
A second probable outcome is that the Premiers of Canada and the Prime Minister will come to the conclusion that the negotiation process that has been so successful the last four or five months, but yet has hit a snag at this time, should now resume. In our view, this is the most preferred of all outcomes. The reason for our view is because it will demonstrate to Canadians that all parties have chosen to work together and do what the public expects, namely to rise above the political fray and show the necessary political will that is so much the key to compromise.
This is the approach that this province has taken so far with regard to constitutional discussions, namely the path of seeking compromise, largely because we fundamentally and deeply believe that it is the right thing to do. It is also what the public expects, and it is the only way in which we can put this matter behind us and get on with other issues that are more important to ordinary Canadians.
That is not to say that at the negotiating table we as a province or a government won't be firm with respect to the issues that are important to the province. We have been. We think it is essential that this province play a role in bringing together the various disparate groups and try to seek a constitutional consensus. We have been able to take that path to a large measure because of the cooperation of the opposition to date, which has not only encouraged us in seeking a constitutional consensus, but has assisted us in arriving at consensual positions. I must thank them for that, because quite frankly and candidly, it's just about politically impossible to take that position without the cooperation of the opposition.
I don't know how likely it is that the Premiers and the Prime Minister will agree that the negotiation
[ Page 3184 ]
process will continue, but I can assure hon. members that this government, through its Premier representing this province at the table, will be taking the position firmly that the constitutional negotiations must resume in the fashion that they have in the past: through multilateral meetings as opposed to a unilateral process -- or, for that matter, even through a first ministers' conference.
A third probable outcome is that a decision can be made at the time to tell the province of Quebec to go on and do what it must: hold its referendum and decide if it wishes to be part of the Canadian family. If it does make the decision to be part of the Canadian family, it will return to the negotiation process and allow the negotiations to resume. That has some political appeal, but it will also serve to revive separatist sentiments in a much stronger way than is currently the case, it will undermine some of the work that the Premier of Quebec is engaged in right now in terms of endeavoring to shift public opinion, and it will inevitably mean that constitutional issues will be before us for months to come instead of weeks -- if we can resolve it through the more preferred option of negotiation. Therefore it is essential that every effort be made to find a solution now.
For there to be a solution, however, all parties -- and I want to emphasize this -- must rise above the fray, both partisan and parochial in terms of their own provinces, and demonstrate the willingness necessary to show compromise.
That willingness must be shown in four areas in particular. Those four areas include, first, the Senate. With regard to details and discussions around the Senate, people must accept certain political realities. Those who have advocated the triple-E model must accept the reality that even if British Columbia were to come full force and support triple-E as well as the other provinces that have not advocated such a position, the best possible outcome is that eight of the ten provinces would arrive at that position. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario clearly will not support that type of Senate model. Inevitably, that means that you could have eight of the ten provinces representing less than 50 percent of the population in support of that proposal, and therefore it would not have the requisite constitutional consent.
Two of the provinces, Ontario and Quebec, have held out for a pure equitable model. In our view, that means we will just be placing a House of Commons on top of a House of Commons. I don't think that another layer of politicians in Ottawa is the answer to all of our problems. That is why this government has proposed reasonable options and compromise solutions, be it the notion of the House of Provinces or the regional equality model, or perhaps even our willingness to take a look at some variance to the Saskatchewan proposal.
The answer lies not in the hard-edged notions of the traditional triple-E model or traditional equitable model, but in the area of compromise. I make an appeal to the provinces that have taken a harder position on this issue to recognize that there must be some compromise if we are to get around the snag on the Senate.
The second area where there has to be a willingness to compromise is in the amending formula and the veto. I must say that we are concerned about the public impression of the veto, in the sense that there seems to be a general notion that the veto would apply to the province of Quebec only and to all areas of constitutional change. That is not the case. It is the intention of all of the governments.... In fact, in my view, it is impossible for there to be a veto to any one province, particularly the province of Quebec, with respect to the majority of changes to the constitution. The discussion around the veto focuses on a narrow band of issues that relate to the House of Commons, the Supreme Court, the future of the monarchy and the Senate. That's really where the debate on the veto has been.
I think the province of Quebec has to understand that it's not in the cards, politically speaking, that there will be unanimous agreement for a veto. There are just too many provinces that are either opposed to it or, like us, have a referendum provision where I think it's unlikely it would survive a referendum in the province. I appeal to the province of Quebec in the days ahead as we move towards this issue to recognize the political realities of the veto, as much as I appeal to the provinces that have been traditional in their support of the triple-E to recognize the political realities with respect to that issue.
The third area where's there's going to have to be some compromise is aboriginal issues. We've come a long way in resolving the aboriginal questions in this country. In fact, whatever agreement is arrived at will represent and, indeed, be an historical breakthrough. It's much needed, and it's long overdue that there be developments on the aboriginal front. But for seven and 50 consensus, there need to be modifications to the package. Native leadership in this country has to understand that no negotiator gets everything they want, and this negotiation is no different than any other negotiation.
The final area where there's going to have to be a willingness on the part of the parties to compromise is in economic union, section 121, the so-called free trade provisions. Canadians have seen the effects of the free trade agreement with the United States, and they don't particularly like what they see. They have heard about the potential effects of NAFTA, and they don't particularly like what they hear. Free trade within Canada, where the courts will be determining economic policy, is an area of great concern to this administration, as I know it is to others. The federal government, which is so intent on having some clauses, may well have to accept the fact that the best area of resolution around compromise on that front lies in coupling the economic union with the social covenant and making the clause there non-justiciable. Again, I implore the federal government, in the spirit of compromise, to consider that as an option.
British Columbia will go to the constitutional table determined to show both flexibility and leadership. We, unlike other provinces, have no intention of walking away from Canada. We also have no intention of being involved in a Meech 2. I make that point very clear, in terms of what happened two years when the Prime
[ Page 3185 ]
Minister invited Premiers to a dinner. Nor will our motivation in wanting to arrive at a constitutional consensus be driven by arbitrary deadlines or by the intimidation of those who seek to leave Canada. Rather, our motivation is predicated on the recognition that we have a unique country that has gained respect throughout the world and distinguished itself as a nation among nations on this earth.
We owe it to the next generation and the generations after that to pass on to them a country similar in values, ideology and compassion to that which we were so lucky to inherit, and that will drive us in terms of seeking a constitutional consensus.
G. Farrell-Collins: I thank the minister for his statement. I know he doesn't often get an opportunity to speak in the House, and that's why he took as long as he did. That's fine. He had lots of important things to say.
Many of the things that the minister has said are true. This issue ceased to be a partisan issue a long time ago. Absolutely the only way that this country will stay together and continue in the direction that it has for the past many years, but only better, is if politicians rise above their politics and start to be more like leaders. The minister opposite has certainly demonstrated that in the way in which he has kept the official opposition and third party of this House informed on what has been going on, and in addition to that, perhaps taking some suggestions and some contributions from the members of the opposition. I give him credit for that. I, too, was worried when I heard that the Prime Minister had called the first ministers of this country to Ottawa -- this time for a lunch. The last time he did this, he called them for a dinner, they were there for a week, and we know what happened with that. I think the minister is correct in cautioning the Prime Minister that that is not the direction the people of this province want things to go, and I think it's not the direction the people of this country want these discussions to go.
[12:45]
It's true what the minister said: we do have to negotiate. We must negotiate. We must negotiate in good faith. We have to bargain hard for the principles and the views that we hold dear. We have to be able to be flexible and be cognizant of the fact that people in various regions of this country hold their views as strongly as we do here in British Columbia. I was a member of the constitutional committee that toured the province, and I know how strongly the people of this province support triple-E, for example. I think that we must fight for triple-E. We must fight long and hard to get the provisions of a triple-E Senate. In the end, at the end of the day, we have to be aware, however, that other groups in this country have their views and hold them as strongly as we hold ours. However, we must not let the Prime Minister hold a gun to the heads of the people of Canada once again and try to force a compromise on the people of this country. I believe the minister is very correct when he makes that statement.
British Columbians have some very strong views on the constitution. They have some things they want to see addressed; some long-held and, I think, legitimate grievances with the way things have been done in this country over the years. I think that they do need to be changed in this round of the constitution -- not a later round, this round. This truly must be a Canada round. It must be for all Canadians, and all Canadians must have their views come forth in the constitution.
I, too, have concerns. While it may be, as the minister said, politically appealing to put this whole thing on hold, let the people in Quebec have their referendum, decide if they want to stay in Canada and then start the negotiation process again, I'm not sure that's realistic. I'm not sure that is going to get us where we want to be at the end of the day. I, too, think that there are a great deal of risks incorporated in that type of a policy. I believe that the ministers -- not the first ministers necessarily, but certainly the constitutional ministers of this country -- have to get together. I think they came very close to an agreement in the past several weeks. They've been working long and hard at determining a new constitution for this country and coming up with a proposal. I think those talks have to resume. I think we have to ensure that we keep our principles. We have to ensure that we're negotiating in good faith. In the end we must put this country first and put our own personal views second to ensure that at the end of the day there is a Canada that we can all come home to and celebrate. I thank the minister for his comments.
C. Serwa: I thank the minister again for giving me prior notice of the fact that he would bring this to the Legislature. It is certainly much appreciated.
Truly the constitution in Canada is the most important and pressing issue facing Canadians today. There is no question about that. Canada has to be number one in all of our minds -- not only the politicians and the provinces but all people. The focus has to be on Canada first. We have a great and glorious country, of which we're all exceedingly lucky and very proud to be citizens of.
The Canada that I live in, and that I am aware of, is one that recognizes that all people must be treated equally, and that has to be the basic foundation for any negotiation and any agreement. For the negotiators, for the minister responsible for the constitution or for the premiers who will meet in Ottawa on Monday to discuss this matter, it's clear that they must have a shared and common vision of Canada. Once we establish that shared and common vision, then we will take the appropriate roads and take the necessary steps, with a living document that is the constitution, to get us there and to ensure that we do have the vision of Canada secure. It's well worth coming up with that strong vision of Canada and getting there.
Regarding the various proposals that the minister outlined and the options on the status, it's clearly not appropriate that the federal government handle this in a unilateral manner. That would be clearly unacceptable to most Canadians. Most Canadians are concerned that the Canada-first concept be enhanced, and that that awareness be taken into consideration by all ministers.
Yes, I agree with the minister responsible -- for the official opposition critic -- that politicians have to rise above the concerns at home. That's a major challenge,
[ Page 3186 ]
because we seek election on a popularity base, and sometimes the decisions that are best made for a long term are perhaps not palatable or popular over the short term; but nevertheless we have a responsibility as elected officials to look at the long-term picture to assure that the vision of Canada is in fact securely in place with a constitution.
I appreciate and believe that if negotiations have to be extended, they must be extended. There is no question in my mind that the more communication, the more dialogue from the different perspectives -- be it in the provincial legislatures or among the ministers responsible for the negotiations, the staff or certainly the premiers of the provinces -- the more negotiations that we have the better the level of communication and the greater the understanding for the concerns of the various jurisdictions in Canada: the provinces, the regions or the territories.
The option of Quebec going it alone is not desirable. We recognize the negative effect that the failure of Meech Lake had on the people of Quebec and francophones throughout Canada, and Canada itself cannot stand that kind of continued shock load. It would be a very unpalatable situation. The French, of course, have had a long, proud history in Canada among the earliest of the pioneers and settlers in this great country, a valued and important segment of Canada as we know it.
Of the various issues, Senate reform is certainly very important. It was originally set up with the concept of regional representation. It has been somewhat subverted. The regional representation isn't there; it's more aligned with representation in the House of Commons. When I travelled throughout the province of British Columbia, it was made evident to me that we had two choices: one was to reform the role of the Senate, and the desired model was some variation on a theme of the triple-E concept; and the other was that if we couldn't reform the Senate and assist it to accomplish its original task, it may have to be abolished, because it is failing to accomplish its original mandate.
The Quebec veto. Again, the people who made presentations to our constitutional committee didn't have a great deal of trouble with a Quebec veto if it was restricted perhaps and enabled all provinces to have that same right in matters of the House of Commons, the Senate and...
Hon. M. Sihota: The Supreme Court.
C. Serwa: ...the Supreme Court -- thank you very much, hon. minister -- those three areas that we basically agreed there was a status quo that had been established. The people of British Columbia who made submissions to us clearly enunciated that particular fact.
Aboriginal interests and aboriginal self-government are really not defined, but there is great sympathy and an understanding that we have to be better than we have been, and we have to move in positive and appropriate directions. I believe that we're very close to the necessary level of agreement on that.
Economic union is another important issue. Are we talking Canada first? If we fail to come to some agreement on a form of economic union, again we're starting to put ourselves into various sections and segments. We have benefits and advantages here in British Columbia -- perhaps it's the wage level or access to the Pacific Rim -- that someone in Saskatchewan or Manitoba may not have. But if we're Canadians first and foremost, and if all Canadians are to be treated equally, we have to work toward some form of economic union. Clearly the world of commerce is shrinking. We're talking about a variety of trade negotiations with many countries. Clearly we have to work with a series of deliberate steps, so that it can be accepted and the shocks to any system or jurisdiction can be taken into consideration. I'm confident that the minister representing British Columbia at the meetings on constitutional matters can handle this, and that the province can handle it.
This is a very important issue. Canada is celebrating its 125th birthday. We've had all forms of stresses in Canada, but we still stand as a remarkable showplace to the world, where diverse peoples from every country in the world can live in relative harmony in one country. These are the people who make it great. So whether it's our earliest pioneers who worked in the forests, the factories or the fields or the early politicians who came up with a concept and pulled this great country together, we truly stand on the shoulders of giants. We stand on the shoulders of those who fought in two World Wars for the Canada that we know today, for the freedom, the peace and the opportunities. I'm confident that we'll work toward it, and if we don't succeed in the next week or two, we will in fact succeed.... We will continue to enjoy a strong and fruitful Canada.
Hon. G. Clark: It's nice to end the week on a positive note from all members of the House.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada