Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1992

Volume 6, Number 25

[ Page 4315 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

EATING DISORDERS

L. Reid: Today I'd like to begin my remarks by quoting from a press release that was issued on November 12, 1992:

"We are here as the family and friends of people with eating disorders to mourn the passing and continued suffering of young women and men who have anorexia or bulimia.

"We are aware of four deaths in as many months of young Vancouver Island women, 16 to 22 years of age, who were unable to receive needed help from our health care system.

"Vancouver Island has no program or facility for the treatment of eating disorders. Vancouver's St. Paul's Hospital has an adult program with seven beds, but with a waiting list of 300 people. Currently a person must wait 18 months for an initial assessment, promoting chronicity of the illness.

"We are here to remind the government of the desperate need for action now. Young women strive for acceptance and approval by starving themselves, leading to a complex illness. While we wait, young women are losing the best years of their lives....

"This government has promised to establish a community-based program in Victoria to...treat persons with anorexia and bulimia. The program has been in the planning stages for two years....

"We are asking the government to fulfil this commitment now, before another family is faced with the needless, tragic loss of a daughter."

This event was sponsored by the members of the B.C. Eating Disorders Association, and the parents' support group of Victoria.

There's a myth in our understanding of anorexia and bulimia that they apply only to white, upper-class females. The fact is that women of all ages, races and socioeconomic groups may be anorexic, and 5 to 10 percent of this population are male.

My purpose in rising today is to continue to educate the public in terms of an understanding of the complexity of this disorder. What we understand today in terms of research and our ongoing understanding is that eating disorders are expressions of ineffectiveness, low self-esteem and fear. People express these feelings by becoming focused on weight, exercise and perfection. They think that rigidly controlling these aspects of their lives will bring them success and happiness.

One particular disorder that I'd like to touch on today is anorexia nervosa, which is characterized by considerable weight loss from the severe restriction of food and fluid, often accompanied by excessive exercising. Most persons have a distorted image of how thin their body is, making it difficult to convince them to seek treatment. The second area is bulimia nervosa, which is characterized by frequent fluctuations in weight and periods of uncontrollable binge-eating, followed by some form of purging to rid the body of unwanted calories by causing self-induced vomiting, abusing laxatives or using diuretics, or by overexercising or fasting. Another area that certainly ties into the mandate of the British Columbia Eating Disorders Association is compulsive overeating, which is characterized by feelings of failure, powerlessness and unhappiness. Chronic dieting and/or weight escalation often follow this compulsion to eat. There is a lot that we truly do not understand about these disorders, and I believe they're something we need to take a very careful look at today.

There are five tenets to the mandate of the British Columbia Eating Disorders Association. The first is advocacy. They wish to act on behalf of the eating disorder community for the maintenance of existing resources and for the creation of new resources in the field of eating disorder support and treatment. Their second tenet is education: to educate individuals and the community about the existence, incidence, nature and treatment of eating disorders. Another area they touch on is resource information and referral services: to provide eating-disordered individuals, their families and friends with information about and access to available treatment and support facilities and resources.

In order for us to have an ongoing understanding of how we need to treat these disorders, they also have a tremendous interest in research. They hope to research, collect and coordinate information about the incidence, nature and treatment of eating disorders. We certainly know that, as in all other cases of illness, ongoing support for the family and patient is required. They hope to provide an accepting, growth-oriented environment in which eating-disordered individuals can learn from and support each other.

Again, I believe that a goal of this government and this administration should be to expand an understanding of people with eating disorders, because those disorders are very much misunderstood. They are not something that the general public understands. Certainly because of that lack of understanding, we are perhaps not able to explore different methods of treatment and intervention to, hopefully, find a very necessary cure.

There's no difficulty finding statistical information to highlight the necessity for interventions. We haven't looked at interventions across this province. It is certainly not an issue that applies only to Vancouver or Victoria. Individuals across this province have difficulties with eating disorders. We would take a look at the continuing behaviours that eating disorders currently revolve around, and we would look at a better understanding, increased tolerance and more compassion in terms of how we're going to go ahead and treat this disorder.

In March 1989 the McCreary Centre Society, on contract with the Ministry of Health, struck the eating disorder task force to examine the problems of eating disorders. Their task force concluded that eating disorders occur in all regions of the province; there has been 

[ Page 4316 ]

a recent increase in the size of the caseload in British Columbia, numbering in the thousands; obesity and bulimia are the most prevalent forms of eating disorders, but anorexia nervosa and its subtypes are particularly common in younger age groups; eating disorders are a chronic illness that may extend over many years without early intervention; and treatment resources for sufferers and their families do not meet current needs and are unevenly distributed throughout the province.

The task force went on to enunciate a set of principles to guide the development of services for the patient and proposed an implementation process. They wish to look at an emphasis on out-patient, multidisciplinary treatment programs; a network of regional and provincial treatment centres; the development of specialized treatment resources for specialized groups, such as children and adolescents; encouragement of innovative programs that provide alternatives to hospitalization in acute-care facilities; facilitation of self-help programs; the promotion of healthy eating; the development of eating disorder prevention programs; and the expansion of research and education programs for eating disorders.

[10:15]

S. Hammell: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Richmond East. I share her concerns for the victims of eating disorders. The permanent damage to health and even possible death that can result from eating disorders is nothing to laugh about. Anorexics can starve themselves to death. Victims of anorexia nervosa and bulimia have a mortality rate of 20 percent over a 20-year period. My colleague the Minister of Tourism brought eating disorders to the attention of the Minister of Health in the former government during debate in this House in the early spring of 1989. In September, as the member for Richmond East has said, the McCreary Centre Society presented its report on eating disorders to the Ministry of Health. The report concluded -- and I think it's worth repeating, hon. Speaker:

"1. Eating disorders occur in all regions of the province.

"2. There has been a recent increase in the size of the caseload in B.C. -- numbered in the thousands.

"3. Obesity and bulimia are the most prevalent forms of eating disorders, but anorexia nervosa and its subtypes are particularly common in younger age groups.

"4. Eating disorders are a chronic illness that, without early intervention, may extend over many years.

"5. Treatment resources for sufferers and their families do not meet the needs and are unevenly distributed throughout the province."

Anyone with a teenage daughter must worry about their eating fads -- and my daughter Sage is just turning 15. The McCreary report estimates that 1 percent of schoolgirls have anorexia nervosa, 10 percent have obesity and 10 percent are bulimic.

We cannot leave this topic without pointing to the contribution the media, in particular the advertising media, makes to these problems by providing role models of thin, unnatural bodies. I was pleased to see a report that B.C. stores will soon stock the new Barbie doll. Instead of the anorexic shape of the old doll, the new model provides a realistic body. By changing these images, children's dolls and media role models, some diseases may be prevented.

For those who already have eating disorders, the McCreary report recommended that British Columbia develop improved treatment programs and community alternatives to hospitalization. Our government is just one year old this month and I know it has faced many challenging problems in its first year. But I also know that our government considers action for victims of eating disorders among the highest priorities for health care reforms. Preventing the disease by adopting more healthy role models should be our first choice. For those affected by the disease, I look forward to soon seeing some attempts to test ideas stemming from the study on eating disorders.

C. Serwa: I'd just like to take the minute that we have left and perhaps give some of my thoughts with respect to this. Yes, it is devastating and debilitating -- there's no question of that. I am always mindful of some of the causes. The hon. member on the government side indicated the media and perhaps some sort of fixation on role models, and she also enunciated the fact that the eating disorders anorexia and bulimia hit young women primarily -- and primarily women.

Native people had the concept of holistic health -- mental and physical, spiritual and emotional -- and, fundamentally, a re-emphasis of that has to be first and foremost to provide the necessary foundation. The other thing that the Ministry of Health must do is what is done in other jurisdictions -- especially in Seattle in Washington State: provide a facility that specializes in the treatment of this complex mental and physical disorder. It is a complex disorder, and the treatment for adults has to be substantially different than the treatment for young people. I think the major concern that we have in this House is treatment, especially for young female victims, and the inappropriateness of the present type of treatment.

L. Reid: Certainly I appreciate the comments made by the two previous speakers. The issue of lack of appropriate service for eating disorder patients continues to be a major problem in the Victoria area. The statistics that I wish to share with my colleagues this morning take a look at how eating disorders break down over a demographic of age. In applying these statistics to Victoria, it would indicate a prevalence of about 600 eating disorder patients in the 12- to-25-year-old population. There are 90 in the 12-to-17-year-old age group, and 510 in the 18-to-25-year-old age group. The literature reveals that the 12-to-25-year-old age group comprises 95 percent of the total.

It is a huge concern for members of the official opposition, and it's a huge concern, I know, for this government. I believe quite honestly that we can work together to resolve some of these difficulties. Without early intervention, we're going to see an increasing number of young women fall prey to a very serious disease.

[ Page 4317 ]

I reiterate that it is a very serious disease that is ill understood. Very few people understand a great deal about it. Dr. James Kirkpatrick, who works in the Victoria area, has done some wondrous work, and I believe he continues to need our support. He advocates a treatment program that should be community-based wherever possible, in order to provide out-patient treatment near the patient's home to minimize disruption to the individual's life. The treatment team should be multidisciplinary in order to address the various medical, nutritional, psychiatric and psychosocial needs of eating disorder patients and their families.

This morning I wish to close with a quotation by Barbara Small in the Eating Disorders Association newsletter:

"If women can come to understand that their thoughts and feelings are partially a result of cultural learning, they can learn to accept their bodies the way they are, rather than trying to change them to fit cultural expectations. Women need to identify their own standards of personal attractiveness, separate from what the media dictates. Finally, by valuing their own needs and feelings, they may begin to nurture themselves. This self-care may help eliminate the need to use food or starvation to numb their feelings or deny their personal needs."

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
IN THE KOOTENAYS

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise today to announce, with the kind leave of the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Economic Development, the government's decision to review and fund an inquiry into post-secondary options in the Kootenay region of British Columbia. This region is roughly defined as the land and people represented by the four southeastern B.C. constituencies; or by the regional advisory commission of the Ministry of Economic Development from the Kootenays; or the area represented by the East Kootenay Community College region and Selkirk College region.

The inquiry will begin this winter and will report back to the three sponsoring ministers by the fall of 1993. I will make this announcement somewhat more formally -- members will notice that I'm actually working from a text -- than is sometimes my norm in this place, in order to attempt to set a tone for this initiative, a tone of seriousness mixed with fiscal accountability, academic credibility, regional and provincial solidarity and, quite frankly, great personal joy.

The province of British Columbia is known in this land, maybe even on this continent, as a place that has a tendency to great political polarization. I have even been known on occasion to take part in that partisan debate. [Laughter.]

D. Lovick: Sometimes to lead it.

C. Evans: Sometimes.

Today, on behalf of the people of the Kootenay and the Columbia drainages -- and most especially the people of Nelson -- I want to make this announcement as devoid as possible of the partisan nature of politics that sometimes goes on in this room. We, the people of the Kootenays, have on occasion suffered from the boom-and-bust cycles of both politics and economics. In a sense, in the style and substance of both how we make this announcement and precisely what we are saying, I want to imply today that that pendulum stops here. But perhaps some of this discussion runs ahead of the narrative that would explain it.

All of you graciously sat through my first speech in this room less than a year ago. I explained at that time that there have only been two universities in this entire country shut down in this century. The first one was Notre Dame University in Nelson in 1977 in the province of B.C. Strangely enough, the second one was David Thompson University, also in Nelson in the province of B.C. It's my sincere hope that this country, somewhat under economic siege, might finish the remaining seven years in this millennium without adding a single institution to that record.

A university is not a sawmill, and it's not a mine, and it's not a government. A university is part history, part flesh and blood, part financing and part dreams. A university is maybe as close as we come in modern society to building a living thing by design. The death of a university in 1984 might have been defensible in Beirut, where hon. members will remember that both students and professors were in danger; or in El Salvador, where similarly in 1984, universities became a focal point of the violence in that area.

In Nelson in 1984, though, the death of the city's university for the second time was seen by some members of the community as an act that was not defensible. In the Kootenays for a time, the people's response was rage, civil disobedience and frantic lobbying of the government. In more recent years, though, their response has simply been to begin again, with Selkirk College and a new music school; Nelson University Centre, brokering American courses; and a Kootenay School of the Arts, with 200 students. How this came to pass can barely be explained in the language of governments, but perhaps it's because you cannot kill a university, because a university is an idea, and if the town survives, the idea survives.

We need to recognize that it's the end of the megaproject era in the history of the era of steel. By starting this initiative at this time, we need to recognize that we're not going to put megaprojects or universities wrapped up in a string in towns any more. We need to combine regional interests, cross-ministerial interests, provincial interests and local interests. One of the things I'm most proud of in announcing this initiative is that there are three ministries and four constituencies involved. It has taken me and those I have worked with a year to get to this day. The reason is that we are attempting to ensure that this is universally accepted and is not a parochial or one-community initiative.

It's with great pride that I announce this on this day. I ask all members of every party to work with us over the next year and into the future to end that pendulum-swinging, parochial, vested-interest style of management that in the past has hurt British Columbians and 

[ Page 4318 ]

dearly hurt my community. We will work together to build something that will outlive us all.

[10:30]

H. De Jong: It's indeed a pleasure to rise on this issue. I'm sure that the member from the Kootenays -- while this matter is very close to home -- rises on this occasion because the Nelson University Centre people will be meeting with all of us next week to further their efforts toward degree-granting status for their university. So it's certainly timely. I'm sure we all appreciate the enthusiasm that the member has just expressed in bringing this about.

In light of what is happening today, as the member mentioned, with the university closures.... He mentioned the one in Beirut in particular. I suppose from time to time we must also look at sporadic closures that can be very harmful to the advanced education process. As well, labour disputes or any other type of thing is very hurtful to the students.

The uniqueness of the community is very important. When we talk about the community, we don't talk about buildings; we talk about people, because people make up a community. In some respects the Kootenay area could be considered somewhat isolated from the higher educational facilities throughout our great province, particularly in the lower mainland and Vancouver areas. Yet the people of that community also have their desires and aspirations to be a valuable asset in today's economy. As we noted this week with the announcement that was made by Dr. Strangway in the newspapers, if there's so much interest by people in providing funding for educational pursuits in many areas, then surely the government must respond. Indeed, that was a promise by the previous administration.

I also want to point out that the university of the north was exactly the same thing. People in the north felt isolated as well. They deserve their university, and it's well on its way. I'm sure that the member for Prince George sitting across is grateful for the steps taken by the previous administration to bring this about. I'm sure that the government of the day will further those aspirations of the people of the north.

I don't necessarily think that a university is simply an idea. I think that the people of this province and, I'm sure, those from the Nelson community know that the importance of our youth is as important as our future, and that the future depends upon our youth. Particularly in today's society, where education is a must for economic strength and progress, they want to be part of that, because they've always taken a very important part in the economy of this province.

I know this for a fact, because many of my uncles and aunts had their initial start in the Nelson, Fruitvale and Trail areas. It's not an area that's totally strange to me and my family and relatives. I'm very impressed with the member's attitude that he would like to see this proceed as quickly as possible. I'm sure that every member in this House will support that initiative, so that the university centre in Nelson will become a degree-granting college or university.

C. Serwa: I welcome the private member's statement by the member. When I sought my nomination in 1986, one of my dreams was a degree-granting institution in the central Okanagan. That has transpired. The Access for All initiative has transpired. I welcome the dream of the member, and I applaud that dream. If there is a jewel in the west Kootenays, that jewel is the city of Nelson.

C. Evans: We are all politicians here, and because....

An Hon. Member: Speak for yourself.

C. Evans: We are all elected people here, and as elected people we know that announcements like this are usually made in the hon. member's constituency in a room with the most possible people in it in order to achieve the strongest political gain.

Hon. Speaker, this is perhaps the first such announcement I have ever heard of that is being made in this chamber. I want to explain why it was made here rather than in my constituency in order to gain personal political benefit.

It is being made here because the most important thing to me and to my community is that members of the hon. opposition and the third party are brought into the tent. After the inquiry and when the region decides what makes most sense, the institutions that grow from this seed we are watering will outlast my political life and the government that is presently in power, and all persons in this room will in future be part of making this dream happen.

Lastly, I would like to read into the record the names of some people who kept this dream alive while some of us were away doing other things. I'm just going to run through their names, because we're short of time: Arthur Bartsch, Gillian Browning, Alice Bruce, Betty Daniel -- who made up this list -- Dedie and Sam Dodds, Betty Drew, David Fairbank, Peter Faris, Fran Horan, Pauline Hughes, Bruce Hunter, Jean MacKenzie, Russ McArthur, Tim Shay, Jon and Sigrid Shepard, Elizabeth Wallach, Ron and Frances Welwood, Marg Wood and Caroline Woodward are among the hundreds of people who occupied the library when they closed down the university. They then formed non-profit societies to keep the dream alive and started schools of one kind or another or worked with one of the existing institutions to keep it happening.

Hon. Speaker, I would like to announce at this time that the wonderful academic Margaret Fulton, known from Nova Scotia to British Columbia and even in Gro Brundtland's Norway, perhaps the most perfect individual that the government could find.... The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has talked Margaret Fulton into being the chairperson of the commission of this inquiry, a person whom I feel will be acceptable -- in fact, wonderful -- to all of those people who kept this dream alive. I hope, hon. Speaker, that she is a person whose credibility in academia, general society and in both parties opposite will ensure, when we bring the results of this inquiry back to the three ministers who are putting forward this initiative 

[ Page 4319 ]

and they in turn bring it to the House, that we will all feel a part of this process.

YOUTH JUSTICE

J. Dalton: I rise this morning to address what I feel is a very common topic and a very vital topic in our communities, hon. Speaker. I'm referring to the rising tide of violence that unfortunately we are all witnessing and hearing about and also to the ancillary issue of youth and justice.

I have been very active in my communities -- and when I say mine, I mean both North and West Vancouver because my riding spans both municipalities -- dealing with some of these issues which, as I say, are very current and very important.

I had the pleasure of attending the B.C. Conference on Youth and Justice, which was held in West Vancouver on October 23 and 24 of this year. Also I had the pleasure on the Saturday morning of hearing our Attorney General give the keynote address at that conference. The Attorney General informed the people attending the conference that there's a provision in the Provincial Court Act, specifically section 4, that all municipalities shall have youth justice committees. I think the operative word is "shall."

Hon. Speaker, the reality is that relatively few communities in fact have such committees in place. I have written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing pointing this out, with a copy to the Attorney General. I am hoping that those ministries will take some initiative to promote such committees throughout British Columbia. The committees that do exist in communities, including both North and West Vancouver, as I've referred to, benefit greatly from them. These committees are comprised entirely of adult volunteers giving guidance and advice to youth. I need not tell all hon. members how important such a service is to the younger people of this province.

At the West Vancouver conference many issues concerning our youth were discussed, including the rising tide of violence, random violence, adolescent concerns about education and employment and the judicial process, among others. The highlight of the conference, in my opinion, was the last session on the Saturday, when approximately 30 youth from both North and West Vancouver attended and expressed their concerns and opinions to the conference members. Those youth spoke of the dropout rate in school, gang violence in all lower mainland municipalities, mentoring programs in schools, where older students assist younger ones, and employment opportunities, both part-and full-time. Other issues were also addressed, but those were the important ones, hon. Speaker. All the adults in attendance listened intently and certainly agreed that these issues and many others need to be effectively addressed.

Since that conference, I have attended other community meetings on the North Shore dealing with the same topic, including one at my son's high school in North Vancouver, which was sponsored by the parents' advisory committee. That meeting was attended by approximately 200 adults and 30 students from the school. I would say that the most effective part of the evening was the actual discussion between parents and students, who sat at individual tables with the people attending, to address the issues concerning youth.

Let me just give a very quick example of something that I was horrified to hear about at that meeting. Three high school students from another part of North Vancouver attended at my son's school one Friday afternoon, one of them equipped with a chain, to settle a dispute the students had the night before. I just cite that as an example of some of the things that are, in fact, happening in all our communities.

Next month there will be further sessions in North Vancouver. The RCMP, for example, are sponsoring a youth forum on December 9. Again, this will address the concerns of young adults. I know as a fact that CBC Television -- because they have already been in contact with me -- will be holding a forum on a similar topic, and this will be televised sometime in January. The location has yet to be determined.

I've asked that my name be considered for placement on the North Vancouver youth justice committee, because that is the community in which I reside. As the parent of three school-aged children and as the Education critic for the opposition, I feel it is very important that I get personally involved in such committees. I know how effective they can be.

It goes without saying that our youth are our future. Their needs, concerns and fears must be addressed. They must be listened to, and they must be involved. I encourage all members to examine the issues affecting youth in their communities. Is there a youth justice committee in place? If not, assist in organizing one. The process is free, and the benefits are priceless. Most importantly, the community can be directly involved in finding solutions. I congratulate all volunteers throughout B.C. who do participate, and have participated, in such committees and who organize community meetings, and I encourage many other British Columbians to do likewise. Finally, I invite all members of this House to examine their community's needs and address them accordingly.

[10:45]

G. Brewin: I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano. He has raised some very important issues that relate to his community and, indeed, to all our communities.

I'm pleased for his sake and for his community's that the communities of North and West Vancouver have established those youth justice committees, which were promoted by the hon. Attorney General. I know that those committees will be turning up in all our communities across this province, because one of the things that is very clear to all of us is that we are all very concerned about establishing safer communities, so that all people can feel safe in them.

I've had some personal experience with all of these kinds of issues in my former political life in the city of Victoria, as a member of council and as chair of our police board. Part of that very strongly brought home to me those issues regarding the criminal justice system. I was privileged to attend a number of national and 

[ Page 4320 ]

international crime prevention conferences and participated in our very own process in Victoria as we established a new initiative here, the community police stations.

Madam Speaker, justice is done when justice is seen to be done, and that is true in any civil society, for youth and for adults. In fact, when any member of society comes in conflict with the law, in a very real way society has failed. However, when it is our young people who are in trouble with the law, we as a society have particularly failed.

The news is dire from many corners of the country, the province and the world. We hear more and more of street kids, youth gangs and the concern about neighbourhood crime. Guns seem to be more readily available. Drugs seem to be everywhere. It is a concern that we are all very, very worried about. We as a society have much to do to clean it all up.

The problems of youth crime are not easy to address. We must resist the temptation to find simple solutions, because the problems are very complex. Increasing sentences, building more jails and eliminating distinctions between children and adults may appeal to some public fears, but that approach does nothing for real treatment, nothing for the protection of the community and nothing for the services to victims. All you do, then, is guarantee a steady, unending supply of adult criminals for the future.

If we really want to change the agenda and not just have a PR exercise, if we really want to attack crime, we must attack illiteracy. If we really want to attack crime, we must attack child abuse, family violence and racism. If we really want to attack crime, we have to attack the issue of poverty; we have to attack the issue of unemployment. And if we really want to attack crime, we ourselves must build a decent juvenile justice system that works.

There are several principles that we must put into effect as we're dealing with this. We have heard about the fundamental one, which I think works and will continue to work for our community and for most communities -- that is, the building of partnerships within our communities. That means that the community, police, governments, families, adults from all sections, young people and any organization within the community must come together to build that kind of safe community, to understand what the issues are within our own communities and to work towards finding solutions. A government role in all of that is to help facilitate some of those meetings, so that those solutions can be found.

On a provincewide basis, we know that in 1990 the ombudsman endorsed an integrated policy development program planning approach and encouraged that to happen, particularly with regard to services to children and youth. To that end, in the spring of this year the Minister of Social Services initiated the child protection review process, and a community panel was established and chaired by Pat Chauncey of the End Legislated Poverty group. It has held public meetings across this province, and we're looking forward to hearing the report of that commission when it returns to us in this Legislature.

I said earlier that another example of communities coming together occurs in the city of Victoria, where we established a series of neighbourhood community police stations over a period of two years. The concept of that comes out of the States -- it's not new to us -- but it has since spread across this country in a number of different but very effective forms, where community volunteers working with police in a storefront operation within the neighbourhood can deal with community problems at that level. This has been demonstrated to be a most effective process.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret your time has expired.

J. Dalton: I thank the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill for her remarks. She brought a useful perspective to this discussion, given her previous political life before being elected to this House. She has made some comments that I certainly agree with, such as partnerships in our communities. There is no question that these partnerships among adults, youth, police -- all people in communities -- can and must be formed. Happily they are being formed in many communities throughout British Columbia.

The member is certainly correct in suggesting we don't need to build more jails and enforce the law as strictly as it may be written, perhaps. Sometimes that is justified, but not many times in reality. We need to find ways, such as community service and other concepts, that will allow people to feel at least somewhat comfortable, if they know they're violating the law, they're not going to have the heavy hammer of the law come down upon them, because that only exacerbates the problem in many situations.

The issue of rising youth violence in our communities and in the justice system obviously has negative connotations, which is unfortunate. I'm going to suggest that this negative can be and, in may cases, is being turned into a positive. By that I mean -- the hon. member also referred to it -- the partnerships that can be formed in our communities. That's what I want this House to reflect upon. Look within your communities at the partnerships that can be developed.

The youth justice committees I spoke of are only one example. There are certainly other ways in which it can be done. Hold membership meetings in your own community to form these committees. Hold block-watch things -- I'm a block parent, among other things, in my own community. All of these things are very effective on the ground. These are strictly grass-roots, ground-level movements. I would say to the members opposite that there's a happy thought involved in all of this: most of them have no price tag attached. That's something that everybody can buy into. We have something that is truly priceless and doesn't have a price tag. Again I encourage all members to reflect upon the needs of their community and to address them accordingly.

[ Page 4321 ]

SERVING ONE'S CONSTITUENTS

D. Lovick: A little over a year ago all of us in this chamber were given a great honour when we were chosen to take our seats in this place. But I think many of us, if asked what we were elected to do, would have some difficulty. We would all provide detailed and lengthy answers, and I'm sure those answers would cover a great deal of ground. We would probably all agree that we were elected to represent and to serve our constituents -- those people who elected us.

The question of what representation and serving one's constituents means is a difficult one, and that's my subject today, hon. Speaker. I hasten to point out that I don't promise to provide any definitive answer to the question -- far from it. Rather, I want to review the theory and practice of representation and of serving one's constituents, in the hope that all of us who serve will profit from that review, and that those who are watching and listening to our deliberations will perhaps gain a little more insight into what goes on in this chamber.

To talk about how the elected representative ought to serve is to walk into the middle of a debate that has been going on for about 200 years -- perhaps even longer -- and is still going on. The fundamental and quintessential question of the debate can be reduced to the following. Should a representative do what his or her constituents want, or should a representative do what he or she thinks best? The question is sometimes called the mandate-independence controversy or the delegate-representative controversy. Most of us who think about the issue would probably leap to the conclusion that this debate is really a product of the later development of politics and political houses. We would think that it belongs to the international democratic revolution of the nineteenth century or perhaps even later when people began to say: "I want to hear what my constituents have to say and vote accordingly."

You will be surprised to note, hon. Speaker, that the notion that one ought to represent what one's constituents said to one is very old. It goes back, in fact, to the very earliest days of parliament. For example, in the fourteenth century the King went to parliament and asked for money, and the House of Commons at the time said, "Sorry, we have to consult with our constituents before we'll give you the money," and called a special session of parliament to do so.

Three hundred years later we have the wonderful tale of Andrew Marvell, who was the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Hull in England for about 18 years. Most of us know Marvell as the great poet. As a politician writing to his constituency -- and his constituents, I hasten to point out, in the seventeenth century were not "the people"; they were the mayor, aldermen and councillors of the boroughs, who effectively chose him and told him what to do -- Marvell said as follows: "I desire that you will...consider whether there be anything that particularly relates to the state of your town, or of your neighbouring county...whereof you may think fit to advertise me, and therein to give me your instructions, to which I shall carefully conform." That's the old notion of parliament.

The other side, the independent judgment of a member, we have to wait until the next century for. That's when that gigantic figure of parliamentary history Edmund Burke enters the scene. We've all heard Burke in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol on the eve of the American Revolution, in which he says, in effect: "I will consult with you, my constituents. I will listen to you at great length, but above all I demand my own independence of judgment. If I give you only my vote, if I don't vote with my own conscience and my own judgment, I betray you." It's worth noting, by the way, that despite Burke's oratorical abilities, brilliance and parliamentary magnificence, he was turfed out rather unceremoniously by the same electors of Bristol because they didn't like to hear that. A caution for all of us, of course.

Burke's argument was also based on something else. There was the member's independence of judgment, but he also said that as a member, one has an obligation to represent a broader constituency than one's own small one: the general constituency -- the public will, if you like. In fact, it's worth noting that this tradition has carried on and is predominant even today.

John Stuart Mill, the great advocate of liberty -- probably the greatest defender of free speech in the English language -- writing in 1861, warns the electors that they will not do well if they insist on absolute conformity to their opinions. He argues essentially the same case that Burke does: you must allow the member his or her judgment. At that time Mill recognized that there weren't many women -- sadly -- in parliament and argued that we should do something about it. Nevertheless, he had to talk about "his."

The point, though, is that both Burke and Mill were unashamedly elitist -- perhaps with good reason, given that the community at large was not literate, was not educated. Nevertheless, they assumed that the elected members would somehow almost automatically be smarter and brighter and better informed than the people they served, and therefore they didn't really have to listen.

The notion about the virtual independence of the member of the legislature is not just a historical artifact. Far from it. Let me give you two examples, if I might. The Canada Elections Act specifically forbids a candidate for election to the House of Commons from signing any agreement that will limit his or her freedom of judgment and decision-making in Parliament. In other words, you can't make a commitment to your constituents that you will do X or Y and be bound to adhere to it. That's in the Canada Elections Act.

[11:00]

You'll note that I haven't quoted any of my witnesses at great length; rather, I've paraphrased them because I realized that I wouldn't have time. Sadly we've had to listen to the member for Nanaimo rather than the great Edmund Burke, but so be it. But I want to draw attention to the fact that the tradition that effectively says that it's your independent judgment that matters is alive and well. I shall return to that in the time remaining to me.

[ Page 4322 ]

C. Tanner: I would like to start off by congratulating the member for Nanaimo. The last time he made a member's statement in this House, as members will recall, he created havoc. This time he has given us a very interesting dialogue on what our jobs are here and what the public sees our positions to be.

I've got to tell him right off the bat that I am a fan of Mr. Burke and follow his example. Consequently I expect that my being in this House will be a one-term occasion, so enjoy me while you can. However, I will tell you that I told my constituents the same thing. When I ran a year ago, I said: "My view of a job that I do is that I've got to use my own best judgment." I think that is really true of all members of this House. I have a personal example -- which I'll tell you about in a minute or two -- about what happened to me in another House.

I seriously believe that we do have to use our own best judgment. I can give you an example of that. While you can talk to every constituent in your constituency, how on earth can you possibly represent, in our case, 40,000 different points of view? If you were going to talk to them every time on every subject, the best you could do is represent the majority view, and the minority view is going to be disallowed. So any member can converse with the constituents as often as he can and get a feeling of what they think, but in the end, he must use his own rational judgment.

Members will be interested to know that when I sat in another House I had an occasion to run for a particular plank in that election. When we got into the House we brought that legislation forward. A petition was signed by 75 percent of the population of the Yukon saying that they didn't want it. We had run on that plank, and the members of my political philosophy and I insisted that we should put the legislation through. When we did, there were plainclothes RCMP in the chamber to restrain the crowd from throwing tomatoes and other rotten fruit at us. We put it through at great expense to ourselves. Fellow members, that was medicare. The last place in Canada that got medicare was the Yukon, in 1972. We did it in spite of a petition by 75 percent of the population who said they didn't want it. If you went back to the Yukon today and said, "You were right; we're going to take it away from you," they'd have more than fruit to throw at you.

The point I'm illustrating is that in the end you must, inevitably, use your own good judgment. I urge all members to do so.

C. Serwa: I appreciate the government member's statement on this. It brings up an area that I have had a concern with for a long time, which is a reform of the role of the private member. The member speaks quite rightfully. I believe that representing constituents is first and foremost. But as the official opposition member indicated, obviously there are a variety of views among 40,000 constituents. So it's difficult. We're not going to run a government simply on the basis of polls.

The important element here is the utilization of the independent minds of all members of the Legislature. It is my sincere belief that that is where the future of democracy lies. That use of the individual's independent mind is the very essence of the foundation of the Athenian model of democracy. My concern is that we do not utilize our independent minds nearly as well or as effectively as we should or could do. The reason for that is party discipline, which all too frequently controls members.

It's my sincere and devout belief that if the government of the day allowed for such things as free votes -- and it's an issue that I've recognized and worked for over the past five years -- we would change the level of debate. We would change this Legislature from being a fractionalized group of individuals to being a group that collectively accepts and recognizes their responsibility not only to their constituents but also to all constituents in the province. I've worked on standing legislative committees, and I know that diverse philosophical bases can in fact work together. Not all of the things that we attend to relate to our philosophical base. As a matter of fact, it's a small percentage.

All members in this Legislature have been given the confidence of their electorate. That confidence and faith in the quality of the individual should rise to the fore here. Altogether too often we find that we get into a partisan political debate, and the qualities, the education, the experience and the expertise of individual members is not utilized.

D. Lovick: I want to thank both of my colleagues from across the way for their generous comments. If I were in a partisan political mood, I would, of course, draw attention to the fact that one's model is the nineteenth century and the other's is the fourth century; but I shan't do that. Instead, what I want to do is simply pick up at the point I tried to leave off on and wasn't able to. The conclusion is, I think, the one offered by the late Norman Ward, professor emeritus for all political scientists in Canada. He said that a conscientious member is both a representative and a delegate at the same time. I think that's the message I wanted to end with.

Let me now pick it up and add just a couple of other points, if I may. Talking about serving one's constituents today is contentious and is difficult for precisely the reasons that my friend from the Okanagan alluded to. In post-referendum Canada, we may well have to conduct our business in a somewhat different way. The people have spoken. The people have said: "We want a greater say in what goes on." That may be a good idea. It may not be. In any event, I suspect that the notion of differential electorates and members doing, frankly, whatever they choose without much regard for the people is gone. I suspect that will happen, however juxtaposed with the other sentiment in the public that says: "You were elected to lead, not to go back and talk to us. You were elected to make the tough decisions and do that job." So the battle, the debate, still goes on.

We're also witnessing today a questioning of traditional parliamentary institutions, what I would refer to as the effort to graft -- and I don't mean to say this unkindly -- some populist Americanisms onto a British parliamentary tradition. I'm referring to initiative, recall, referendum -- areas that one of our select standing committees is now grappling with.

[ Page 4323 ]

My conclusion is very simple. It's just that we treat our parliament and the traditions it embraces with some gentleness and some reverence. It has over lo these many centuries served us very well. Moreover, I would argue that the great majority of members by their own best lights and by their considered judgment have served their constituents very well.

The Speaker: I thank all hon. members again for a very interesting private members' statement time.

C. Tanner: An anticipatory point of order, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: The Chair does not recognize such a point of order, hon. member.

C. Tanner: Then as soon as a member rises on the opposite side, I'll be on my feet.

The Speaker: What is your point of order, hon. member?

C. Tanner: My point of order, hon. Speaker, is that for the last four Fridays this House has been adjourned at this time. This is the only time that all private members have an opportunity to speak. I want to know why we haven't been allowed that and why the Speaker hasn't ruled on it.

The Speaker: I can only take your point of order, hon. member. At this time the Chair does not feel that the Chair can respond with the reasons that you asked for at this time. Certainly it has been the will of the House in the last couple of weeks to adjourn, and the Chair can only respect the will of that House.

Hon. L. Boone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

The House adjourned at 11:18 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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