Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1992

Volume 7, Number 7

[ Page 4463 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon. P. Priddy: The first weeks of December are ones of great sadness for Canadians. During the days around the third anniversary of the 1989 massacre of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique, we are again remembering and mourning the terrifying reality that all women face on a daily basis.

The December 6 Montreal massacre has served to focus public awareness on the violence against women that pervades our society, not only on the degree of the violence but on the nature of it as well. We know that some men will seek out individual strangers and will torture and kill them simply because they are female. An appalling number of women and girls die this way each year.

Even more common, and in some ways more frightening and grim, are the number of women who die at the hands of men they know -- husbands, partners and boyfriends -- and with whom they have shared their home and their hearts. Two women in Canada will die this way this week, because, on average, two women in Canada die in their own homes every week, killed by people they loved. These are difficult and painful things to think about, but we must think about them.

During the week of December 6, we give them special and additional thought. To not do so would be to dishonour the memories of women who have been victims of violence and dishonour the pain and grief of their families. We give thought to the one million women in Canada each year who survive abuse by their male partners. We give thought to women with disabilities and the fact that one out of two have been victims of violence. We give thought to the women who, every 17 minutes, one after another in this country will be subjected to sexual assault involving forced intercourse. We give thought to the estimated 50,000 to 70,000 school-aged children in British Columbia who have witnessed violence directed at their mothers.

It's more than just statistics; it's more than the numbers I've talked about. All of these women have names and faces and their lives have been cut short. They are our mothers, wives, lovers, sisters, daughters and grandmothers. They are women we work with, and they are women we share our lives with. For some women the dangers are even greater: for very young women, older women, women of colour and immigrant women who don't yet have a circle of support to reach to. Who else are these women? They are women who can't talk; they're women who can't hear or move. They are at even more risk.

These reflections are important, but it's also about action: personal action and looking within ourselves, and our own actions and working within our own circle to stop the violence. It's about social action -- by joining hands and demanding change in our communities, in the justice system and in our laws.

As MLAs we have special responsibilities for action. We have responsibilities as role models, to set standards, to let women in this province know that abuse of women is intolerable and that we will do anything within our power to ensure that it does not happen. It's about government action: choosing to put resources where they will make a positive difference for women and acting to help stop the violence.

Last week I was able to announce the details of a $10 million initiative on the part of our government to help the women and men in our province who are working to stop this violence against women. Funding has gone directly to community agencies to provide counselling services to women who are victims of wife assault, sexual assault or childhood abuse. We are also funding ten new sexual assault centres and newer, expanded treatment programs for assaultive men. Aboriginal communities have received dollars for intervention and the prevention of violence in aboriginal families. Public awareness and education, including training for police officers, judges, teachers and others who provide services to women and children who are victims of violence.... Our government has provided this funding because we are committed to the elimination of violence against women.

December 6 of last year was declared a national day of remembrance and action concerning violence against women. This year we have issued a similar proclamation for provincial recognition of the day. Women and men throughout our province come together on this day to grieve, to comfort each other and to envision an end to the violence. Think about what we lose when we lose the lives of these women. We lose their stories, their poetry and the skills they could have brought to their communities. We lose sharing the joys of celebration with them. These are tragic losses to this province and this country.

I would like to extend an invitation to the members of this House to join me and women and men in Victoria on December 6 in a symbolic tree-planting ceremony on the grounds of Government House. The act of planting a tree, a symbol of growth and strength, focuses our attention on the ongoing work of women and men throughout B.C. to stop the violence and build a safer future for women. It will be an act of remembrance: remembrance of the 13 students and one CUPE worker who died in Montreal, remembrance of other Canadians who have been killed for no other reason than because they were women, and remembrance of the millions of women who have suffered and survived. It will be an act of hope for a safer future for B.C. women.

I most sincerely hope that members will be able to join me and other women and men in the Victoria and area community to mark this important day. The violence must stop, and we must help.

[10:15]

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, I rise in response to the ministerial statement. All of us today will be remember-

[ Page 4464 ]

ing the Montreal massacre of December 6, 1989. As the minister has stated, there are a number of tragedies in this province, in the country and in this world that happen on a daily basis, moment by moment. It is something we need to come to grips with as Canadians. It's something we need to come to grips with as human beings, because we have not completely understood the fear that lives in women in terms of not being able to travel freely in their communities or in their lives. We have, I believe, put women at a tremendous disadvantage.

The white ribbon campaign that is going on in this province and in this country is significant, because it is asking men to come on board and to understand what the issues truly are. The individual from CBC who wrote the letter, which I'm sure most of you in this House have received, indicated that he had never been involved in a conversation with other men about violence against women. That's a very significant statement, because I believe the only way we're going to come to grips with this issue is to talk about it. I refuse to believe that it will be only women who are prepared to talk about this issue as we proceed into the next decade.

If we're going to resolve this issue, all of us must stand together, as human beings, to resolve this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth than continually referring to this as "a women's issue." It absolutely is not. It is an issue that must be addressed, because we are civilized human beings. We have ways to have disputes and misunderstandings resolved other than violence. It is something that we have not done very well over time, but it is something that we must do in order to bring the violence against women and the war against women to an end, because it simply cannot go on.

The official opposition stands strongly behind zero tolerance for violence against women. We must come together to ensure that not just our understandings, not just our discussions, but our actual actions lead to significant legislative change, to ensure that prosecution is mandatory in all cases of violence against women. We are well beyond the days when we can continue to discuss this. We must send a very strong message to all human beings that this is absolutely intolerable.

R. Neufeld: I was moved by the message from the Minister of Women's Equality. In her statement she said a lot of things that come to everyone's mind in the world we live in today. It has been said before that it's maybe not the same as before, and violence is increasing. But maybe violence has always been there and is just coming more and more to the front these days.

We also feel that we, as MLAs, must be role models to the people of British Columbia, and MLAs in each respective province must be to the people of their province. We must show that we disagree totally with violence against women and children, and violence of any kind in the home. It's probably one of the major factors in the breakup of homes. I think each one of us has been witness to that in our different constituencies. I think a lot of the violence in our society that we accept today comes from the TV programs about violence of every kind that we see daily. You wonder how much further we can go in being so realistic in some of the TV violence and still having it be acceptable to us as a society. I think there comes a time -- and it's unfortunate -- when rules have to be put in place to reduce that type of violence. I'm sure it leads to a lot of the problems that we face today within society.

I'm glad that the issue of violence against women and children is being brought more to the forefront all the time across our country, so that we can deal with it fairly and in a knowledgeable way -- and the sooner, the better. I think all of us feel that way, and certainly our caucus feels that way. I know that our leader would have liked to respond to this initiative, but he happens to be out of town, so I've taken the opportunity. I commend the minister on what she brought forward today to the House. We will work along with her in any way that we can to try and eliminate violence against women and children in our society.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

STOPPING THE VIOLENCE

J. MacPhail: I am pleased to be able to follow the statement made by the Minister of Women's Equality and to add my own voice to the views on this horrendous, consuming issue. I'll be pleased to have others join in the debate along with me. I will try not to repeat what has been said before, but some facts do bear repeating.

I remember very clearly December 6, 1989, when Marc Lepine massacred 14 young women. The action stunned and revolted and enraged women of this nation, but it also enraged the husbands and sons and fathers of the nation as well. Huge numbers of women, not just friends and relatives or Montrealers, were horrified. When we ask ourselves why, we see that the threat of violence is common to so many women's lives. The violence done to those women was just one incident in a continuum of violence directed against women in every society, on every day and everywhere in the world.

Studies here and around the world show that women are victims of all kinds of violence -- societal, economic, racial and psychological, as well as domestic. We have had some statistics today on violence, but there are many more that we need to be confronted with and need to feel shame about. In this country 90 percent of the victims of sexual assault are women. In Canada a woman is sexually assaulted every six minutes, and every 17 minutes a sexual assault involves forced intercourse. Of the victims of forced sexual intercourse, 62 percent are physically injured during the assault, and 9 percent are severely beaten. One Canadian woman out of every four has been sexually assaulted at some time in her life. Of the sexual assaults that happen, 80 percent happen in a victim's home; 67 percent of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows. Of the victims of spousal assault, 95 percent are women; one million Canadian women are physically

[ Page 4465 ]

abused by their husbands or male partners each year. The Minister of Women's Equality told us that two women a week are killed by their husbands or male partners. That was the average in 1990; it has not gone down. We are also confronted with the fact that almost 70,000 of our children have witnessed violence directed against their mothers. In B.C. today a woman is more likely to be killed by her partner than by anyone else. She is more likely to be injured by her partner than she is to be injured in a car accident. One-quarter of Vancouver's 41 homicides in 1991 were a result of male violence within the family.

In Prince George a study of 500 women from nine neighbourhoods found that six out of ten had experienced physical violence by their husbands or boyfriends. It is not enough to look at these grim statistics and shake our heads in despair. We all, men and women, must gather our courage and stop the violence. I join with my colleague from Richmond on the other side to say that we respect and admire all the men who are wearing white ribbons today. They are saying to violent men: "I cannot claim you as my brother. I will not support you or declare you of good character, for what you do to my sister, lover, wife, friend and mother, you do to me. When you degrade and abuse her, you degrade and abuse me. When you commit the crime of assault, you involve me in your act, and I will not have that."

That is one tangible result of the campaign to stop violence against women. There is another initiative going on that we, as MLAs, government and opposition members, can join in support of as a committed act in favour of stopping the violence against women: the Women's Monument Project. It's ongoing across the country. I would like to quote one of the former members of this Legislature, who said: "It is up to us to take responsibility for naming our own martyrs, as well as our own heroines, and it is up to us to honour and remember them." That is what the Women's Monument Project is all about. It is the reason that the Capilano College women's centre is planning to build the monument and place it in Vancouver, naming the 14 women from Montreal and dedicating it to all women murdered by men. A pathway to the monument will name all of the donors who contributed to its construction. Its material will be slate, so that people can write their own feelings directly on the monument. The inscription will read: "In memory and in grief for all the women murdered by men; for women of all countries, all classes, all ages, all colours. We, their sisters and brothers, remember and work for a better world." The monument will symbolize the understanding among us that violence against women is wrong and that a more just social order is possible.

Tommy Douglas said that the philosophy of his government was humanity first. We have a vision of a province, indeed of a world, that achieves humanity. Men and women, in equal partnership, are capable of reaching a state of freedom and liberation from violence. Let us never forget the women who have suffered in the past. Let us learn from them, and let us befriend those who suffer now. For the future, let us say: "Never again."

L. Reid: I rise today to share with you, in some detail, correspondence written by Eric Peterson, the individual who wrote to men in this country asking them to support the white ribbon campaign. A number of the points he makes in his letter are ones that we have not touched on in a great deal of detail in debate. I think it's really significant that there is a spokesperson who is not female but is prepared to stand for these issues. It is our issue, but it also has to be a people issue before anything else.

He's writing to men in this province:

"When was the last time you talked to another man about...violence against women? If you're like me, it might take you a few moments to answer that. You might answer quite some time ago, or maybe never. Until last year I couldn't tell you if I'd ever had a serious conversation about it.

"Last winter, when members of the white ribbon campaign asked me" -- if I would become involved -- "I thought: 'Why not? I don't know if it'll help, but it certainly can't hurt.'

"Then someone on the set of 'Street Legal' asked me why I was wearing the ribbon, and I stumbled through an explanation. I realized that this was the first time I had talked to any other actors or crew about this issue. It's not like we don't talk about issues. In breaks or in between setups, we talk about a lot of things: politics, free trade...the end of the Cold War. Everybody's got an opinion on everything, but for some reason no one ever offered one on violence against women.

"I went back to take another look at the statistics and I suddenly realized: these aren't just numbers on a page. They are a horrifying portrayal of what's happening to women across this country. I thought: 'Wait a minute. I've got a sister, a woman I live with, a...daughter. What am I doing to help them?' They don't have the luxury of not thinking about it. Women have to worry about violence against women every day.

"It's funny what a small step like wearing a ribbon can do. Because of the ribbon, I talked about the issue" -- it signified that he had some connection, some involvement -- "I thought about it, and for the first time I took action."

A lot of men he knew and worked with were thinking about it as well."

He's reaching out to men and saying: "I'm hoping that you will take this campaign further. I'm hoping you will work with me." The only way we're going to bring an end to this is if we have men discussing it. A lot of people don't believe the statistics and don't believe that it can occur in such horrifying numbers. So if more men were participating in the discussion, I think we'd go a long way towards educating people. At the end of the day, I'm standing firmly behind prosecution and legislation, but that has to go hand in hand with education. It has to be people understanding more about the issue than they currently do.

He asks again in his letter: "Will men talking about violence actually bring it to an end?" Perhaps not, but there are millions of Canadian men who can help lessen the threat by becoming informed, by supporting change and by getting personally involved.

This is the first letter that I have ever seen written by a man to other men on the issue of violence against women. I was very moved by this letter, because I think this is the message that needs to come. It needs to come

[ Page 4466 ]

from women, but equally importantly it needs to come from all people in society. He was pleased to be one of the first men considered to take this message forward. He didn't understand it at the outset, but now he truly believes that men talking about it can bring an end to violence against women. I trust that he will have some success, because I know he has tremendous support from the members of the Legislature.

[10:30]

J. MacPhail: I join with my colleagues in taking any action we can to stop the violence against women. I sense from the House that each and every one of us is committed in our hearts and souls to stopping the violence. The hon. member for Peace River North suggested that we have too much violence in all aspects of our lives and perhaps we can control it -- TV, toys, advertisements. He is absolutely correct. We have areas that we as legislators can take control of to stop violence, so that those who are provoked by such influences will no longer be provoked, and we will be able to assist in stopping the violence against human beings.

I would say, as the parent of a young son, that I'm going to take my son to the women's monument project and have him etch his commitment against violence in slate. He and I will visit that on a regular basis throughout our lives so we can show our commitment to such plans of action. I would hope that each and every one of us would make a similar commitment with our families.

TRAINING

D. Mitchell: After the very important topic of the previous statement, I move on to another topic which I think is a crucial one for British Columbia: training.

What is training, hon. Speaker? We think of that word, and different images will come to mind. We think of apprenticeship programs, vocational programs. We think of retraining in the workforce, skills development. We think of the concept of life-long learning. And, of course, we think about education in the largest sense of the word. Whatever the word, whatever the image, whatever the definition, it's the impulse that's important here, the desire to provide education and skills to British Columbians so our economy can grow and prosper, and so the standard of living of the next generation of British Columbians will be at least as good as the one we enjoy today. That's why we need training.

Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that many people in my own constituency of West Vancouver-Garibaldi have had the benefits of university education. They've gone on to post-secondary education in various forms. We have an excellent college, one of the best in British Columbia -- Capilano College -- serving the North Shore. In Squamish we're working on the opportunity now to develop a permanent campus of Capilano College to serve the training requirements of people who live in the Sea to Sky Country, which stretches from Horseshoe Bay all the way north of Whistler. We have a number of private post-secondary institutions offering training as well; I might offer one example. We have a very interesting centre in Whistler called the Whistler Centre for Business and the Arts, which offers very creative and imaginative management and training programs. Just this past weekend a major national conference on aboriginal self-government was hosted there. These are some examples of the variety of training programs which exist in my own constituency and certainly elsewhere in the province.

But, tragically, too few British Columbians have the opportunity to participate in post-secondary education and training. Just last fall, an estimated 20,000 British Columbians were turned away from universities, colleges and training institutes in the province. That's 20,000 British Columbians who couldn't participate in training programs, who wanted to improve their job skills and who wanted to participate in the labour market that's changing so rapidly in our province, yet were denied the opportunity to do so. That's why I don't think it's too harsh to say that we are actually in a crisis in British Columbia in terms of training and advanced education. The question is why. It's certainly not for lack of money. It's not for lack of spending -- not by any means, because we're spending millions of dollars every day and billions of dollars every year on training in British Columbia.

But there has to be a question asked: are we receiving value for the money that's being spent? The reason I ask that is that other governments in Canada are not spending any more per capita than we are in British Columbia on training or advanced education, but it appears that they're getting better value for the money they're spending. It appears that way when you look at the various measurements, such as the participation rate in training and education programs. Unfortunately -- tragically, in my view -- in British Columbia we're at the bottom of the barrel. We are ninth out of ten provinces in Canada in terms of the participation rate in post-secondary education and training programs. Our turnaway rate is very high: 20,000 British Columbians turned away this fall. Our completion rate for those individuals who are fortunate enough to get accepted into a training institute, college or university is unfortunately very low.

So something is wrong. We need to think about spending the taxpayers' dollars much more carefully in this area, and we need a much more focused strategy. In the short term, we need to boost training. We need to think about the fact that 75 percent of students are directed into academic programs today in British Columbia. That might not be right, because the participation rate is disastrously low in science and technology programs -- an area of future competitiveness for our province. We need to focus on career, technical and vocational programs in a new way. That's where the waiting lists are the longest and where people can't get in.

At BCIT, for instance, there are three and a half applicants for every position that they're allowed to fill in career and vocational programs. We also need to have much more in the way of public-private co-op programs. These co-op programs are very successful. Students who have been lucky enough to enter these

[ Page 4467 ]

programs are very successful in finding employment afterward. So we need to expand those.

We need to, over the long term, have a major shift in our thinking on training programs, so that we don't look at training as part of the so-called social safety net, which one federal Conservative cabinet minister referred to recently -- unwittingly, I think -- as being something that is so effective that people get caught in it and can't get out. We don't need a social safety net that is so effective that people can't get disentangled from it. We actually need a new metaphor completely, and the metaphor I might employ would be one of a trampoline, rather than a safety net, where people can use that trampoline as a springboard to employment or to retraining, so that they can get back into the workforce when they've lost a job. So we need a new trampoline.

We need to take into account the fact that the Minister of Social Services earlier this year admitted that one out of ten British Columbians is receiving social assistance. We know that another one out of ten working adults is receiving unemployment insurance. More than $3 billion a year, in British Columbia alone, is spent on these kinds of passive income maintenance programs, when we should be spending that money much more carefully on aggressive job training skills and skills development in order to get greater value.

I think we need a major shift in thinking. Training is key to the future of our economy. We have a Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology in this province which should be working in one of the most creative, imaginative and valuable areas of public policy in our province, and instead, it seems to be languishing. We don't have the right focus. The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology should be the most important ministry in government today; sadly, it isn't. We need a new focus and a major shift in thinking, and I hope the government is up to that challenge.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's statement. There are a number of points he addressed that I think are worth noting and responding to.

He is quite correct that training is important. It's something that doesn't take place just after high school between the ages of, say, 18 and 23 or 24; it's a lifelong process. Training can take many forms throughout our lives, whether it's through a formalized educational process or because of our instinctive desire to learn, follow our interests and self-train. It can also take the form of retraining after workers have been laid off or because of a desire to follow a new career path later on in life. It can be an initiative to learn about a new area that one takes upon oneself. In the minds of many people, training focuses on how we prepare ourselves for the career we choose.

The hon. member talked about post-secondary institutions and some of the problems that we're facing today as a society and as a government. Some of those problems are, in large part, societal problems. I talked about them before when we talked about literacy. For many people, particularly older people, education wasn't seen as a priority. We looked to the forests and the mines and the fish in this province, and that was where we made our career opportunities. Education didn't figure highly in that. Those days are gone, but we're still in that transition period. Today more and more students -- young adults and adults -- are availing themselves of post-secondary opportunities, and the government is providing those opportunities.

For a long time post-secondary opportunities were very much centred in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. The University of Northern British Columbia is one way to address the real problem of people in other areas of this province who had significantly lower participation rates than those in the lower mainland. We are well aware of the low participation rate in this province in general. Steps are being taken that will enable youth, young adults and adults in northern communities to take advantage of educational opportunities in their own areas, so they won't be forced to put out large sums of money to travel to the lower mainland or Vancouver Island to pursue educational opportunities. We're looking at educational opportunities in the Fraser Valley through Langley college. Out in my own area, Coquitlam, there is an expansion of the Douglas College system.

More importantly, we as a society also have to shift our attitudes. We often tend to focus on training as being strictly post-secondary -- it must either be a college or a university. The emphasis is often placed on that. We forget that education doesn't fit into only that mould. Technical training is becoming more and more important.

The member talked about the problems at BCIT. Some courses are overcrowded, yet there are other courses that have a great technological impact on the future of this province that are going empty. The geological program at BCIT, for example, often can't be filled. They have spaces sitting empty. We have to show people who are looking for a career path, whether through a university or a college, that there are also other opportunities available. So training doesn't just focus on post-secondary education; it encompasses a much broader and wider field of opportunities. Our challenge is making those options available, and it's a challenge that this government is meeting.

D. Mitchell: Thank you to the member for Port Coquitlam for his comments. I don't disagree with the comments that he made, but I think he may have missed the point that I was trying to make in my statement earlier, which is that the government is being far too timid in its approach to training. He's perfectly right: training takes place at all levels in our society. It's not just public training; there are many private post-secondary institutions. Training takes place in the workplace and on the job site on a continual basis. We're all committed to the principle and concept of lifelong learning.

But how are we going achieve it? How are we going to get through the crisis that we're in, in British Columbia? How are we going to equip ourselves and the next generation for the competitive challenges of the future, if we're at the lowest level in Canada in terms of participation rates?

[10:45]

[ Page 4468 ]

Why can't we strive to be not just average? Why can't we strive to be the best? In British Columbia we should strive to be number one; we can be the best. We can't do that unless we're prepared to take some new ideas -- not timid thinking or outdated ideas that are committed to the status quo. We're going to have to change in some fundamental ways and get away from the concept that education and training are part of the social safety net that I referred to earlier.

The truth is that fewer British Columbians want to be on welfare. The truth is that we want fewer participants in the health care system, because we want a healthy population. But when it comes to advanced education and training, we want more participation. We want more British Columbians -- every British Columbian who wants to participate in training programs -- to have that opportunity. So we have to energize rather than paralyze British Columbians. We have to reorient our education and training system so that students of all ages will have the opportunity not only to broaden their horizons, but to equip themselves with the skills they need to earn an income. We need to create better linkages wherever possible between the needs of the labour market and the education system itself.

One indication to me of where the government if off track on this is in the area of labour relations, because today we have a crisis in labour relations that's impacting on education and training programs. There is the tragic dispute at Langara, where over 6,000 students are, even as we speak, at risk of losing an entire year of study. We've had disputes earlier this year at BCIT and UBC. Education and training -- if it is important, as we all agree and as the member for Port Coquitlam seems to agree -- must take precedence over labour relations. Therefore we must be concerned when the government brings in legislation that tries to eliminate education from any possible designation as an essential service. That's something we'll debate further when we return to Bill 84.

The government's priorities are wrong. We need a major shift in thinking. Education and training are the key to the future. This government has to prove that they're committed to that. So far they have not done a good job in this area.

GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND BUSINESS
COOPERATION IN ECONOMIC PLANNING

D. Miller: I applaud the statements I've heard this morning in the House. There seems to be a general mood of cooperation and a recognition that cooperation is necessary to move forward, whether it's in the economy or in dealing with the very difficult issue of the violence that occurs in our society.

I would take issue with some of the remarks I've heard by the preceding speaker. If they fit within the comments that I'm going to make, I might offer some response. It is indeed difficult, given the times, to maintain a focus on what I think is an area that has been too long ignored. That is the need, on a broader basis, for government, labour and capital -- I'll use the word "capital" as opposed to "business" or "industry" -- to cooperate in trying to shape our economic future. It is certainly not a new idea. I don't claim authorship at all; it's a very old idea. Anybody who has ever read John Stuart Mill about the situation that emerged as we first started to industrialize in Great Britain should be well aware of what essentially gave rise to the growth of the labour movement -- the dark, satanic mills. I don't think it's altogether utopian to talk about this concept. I think it's quite a practical one. But I will say that it's one that is talked about a lot, and very little is done. Perhaps I can outline for the members this morning some concrete examples of how we might be making some progress.

In terms of the world stage there certainly has been, if I can characterize it this way, a demise of economic extremism. It's often hard to make this claim in the face of some of the terrible inhumanities that we witness, whether in Somalia or the former Yugoslavia. The system of the former Soviet Union did not work, and I would submit that neither did the sort of Reaganomics practised in the United States by successive Republican administrations. One only needs to look at the devastation and decay in that society to find some proof of this. What that tells me, and what I think is a positive sign, is that the push is more and more toward the centre, more toward a cooperative model as opposed to a confrontational model.

Let's bring that home to British Columbia and examine why it's important for British Columbians to try to engage in this concept, this model of cooperation between the sectors that I've talked about. It's almost trite to say it, but we live in a changing world. There have been some fundamental changes with respect to our economy. We were a resource-rich province, with almost limitless resources. Our economy was based on the exploitation of what appeared to be limitless and low-cost resources. There has been a fundamental change. We have lost the competitive advantage that those resources once afforded us. We were once price-setters; we are now price-takers.

So how do we compete, and who are we competing with when we look at similar economies around the world? We're competing with the Europeans -- with the Scandinavians and with the Germans -- who have adopted and practised for generations the model I'm speaking about. We are competing to a lesser degree, in terms of trying to get into that economy, with the Japanese, who have their own unique model of what I'm talking about. Each country has taken the approach that suits it, that works in that country. I'd submit that British Columbia needs to do the same.

I also want to say -- and I want to stress this -- that when I talk about labour, capital and government cooperating, I'm not talking about labour abandoning its traditional position and rights with respect to negotiating for wages, working conditions and all of those other things. I'm not talking about diluting that in the least. I'm quite surprised by the comments made by the previous speaker with respect to Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. What really surprises me is the dogmatic approach that the opposition parties have taken to that piece of legislation.

How do we proceed? I would say with understanding, recognizing in our present times the deficits as they

[ Page 4469 ]

are, both provincially and federally; the difficulties that any government would have in terms of budgeting, and being mindful of not wanting to expand those deficits; and the conflicts that we have seen both here and in other provinces, where labour disputes do cause pain and suffering. Let's not be deterred by those incidents; they come and they go. Let's keep ourselves focused on the larger issue.

Hon. Speaker, I think the government is moving in a concrete way to develop this concept of cooperation. Certainly, during the Premier's economic summit this past June, that was a major topic, and there has been follow-through. The Working Opportunity Fund, initiated by the government, was another example where labour and business has come together. I think there are some exciting prospects for that Working Opportunity Fund. Quebec, as hon. members may be aware, through the Solidarity Fund, had current assets of about $400 million. It looks as though we may eventually have assets of about $100 million in equity capital for new business ventures in the Working Opportunity Fund. It's an opportunity for labour and capital to cooperate in terms of the economy.

I think CORE is an example. The Labour Code is an example.

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

D. Miller: I do as well, hon. Speaker. I look forward to the comments and my rebuttal.

C. Serwa: I'm rising on a point of order, hon. Speaker. The statement by that member clearly violates the principles that you've set forward on private members' statements, as well as the standing orders on private members' statements.

The Speaker: It is true that the Speaker has brought forward expanded guidelines, if one may call them that, in the previous session. I would ask hon. members, in preparing their private members' statements, to stick to the spirit of those guidelines.

F. Gingell: It gives me a great deal of pleasure, as we come to the end of 1992, to respond to the member for North Coast's statement. He's indeed right when he says that the world is changing, that globalization has overtaken us. It is changing, and it's changing more for us in British Columbia than it is in many other parts of the world. He was right when he spoke about our rich resources in B.C. They brought capital to this country. It started at the turn of the century; and until the end of the 1970s we were the heirs of a rich inheritance. But times have changed dramatically. British Columbians can no longer depend on their resources to maintain and improve the standard of living we are used to. Government has to recognize that times have changed. We have to recognize that maintenance of the standard of living in British Columbia into the 1990s and the twenty-first century requires firm foundation stones to be laid.

The previous speakers were dealing with the subject of training. Without training, education or an improvement in our standards in those areas, we will not succeed. It is critically important that British Columbia creates an environment that entices capital to come here. We have to have a well-trained and well-educated workforce. We need a clear understanding of the guidelines with which industry and business can work. We need rules that can be understood. We not only have to have a progressive approach that requires development, particularly resource development to meet today's environmental standards, we have to have the regulatory process proceed in such a manner that everybody understands what the steps are and what the results will be when they successfully meet those standards. We have to have a clear understanding that when capital comes to British Columbia to invest, there has to be fair recompense if those rights and opportunities that they have invested in are expropriated from them.

Hon. Speaker, a lot of things are required to create good economic growth in British Columbia, and the most important of those is the statement that the member for North Coast made. Government, labour and capital all have to understand that they must work together, that they must cooperate, that barriers must not be placed in the road of creating a productive and efficient economy in British Columbia that will allow us to look after the responsibilities that the provincial government accepts for all British Columbians.

[11:00]

D. Miller: I always appreciate listening to the member for Delta South. I just want to comment on a couple of things.

I did outline the initiatives that have been undertaken thus far by the government, and I want to say that there will be more initiatives in the future. But let's also concentrate on one other aspect of this marriage that I'm proposing and how that relates, in terms of B.C.'s position or Canada's position, to the question of the changing nature of global trade. It seems that the failure of countries to grasp one essential fact is making life more difficult. And that is that the issues of global trade should not be driven by a corporate agenda; they should be driven by a national agenda.

It is quite legitimate for nations to protect their positions not in artificial ways but in terms of, say, natural resource policies, etc. When nations cede the authority for trade to capital, then we all pay the price no matter which country we're living in, and I think we're suffering from that in terms of these emerging global trading issues. So I would hope that the Liberals would understand and recognize that.

Capital seeks to maximize its return over the shortest possible time. So capital, as well, needs to make or be prepared to make, in return for long-term stability and long-term returns, those sacrifices that we demand of government and labour. I'm not talking about a one-sided issue. I'm not talking about labour suddenly becoming tame and all our problems being solved.

[ Page 4470 ]

Yes, I agree that training is vital, and I think we need to do more. Again, those issues tend to be difficult given the economic circumstances that we live under.

So let's not be fooled about the equality or lack of equality with respect to the three partners in the process that I'm proposing. It requires sacrifice, understanding and cooperation from all three levels.

A MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITY
AND OPPORTUNITY

C. Serwa: A few weeks ago the hon. member for Nanaimo rose to give a private member's statement on MLAs' duties and serving our constituents. Today, too, I would like to talk about our role as members of the Legislature, but more specifically, I would like to focus on the role of private members.

In spring 1990 and spring 1991, I delivered two private members' statements in this Legislature with respect to the reform of the role of private members in the Legislature. The intent was to promote reform and decrease the anger, perhaps, and cynicism of the general public with politicians and politics collectively. That's a responsibility that we all share. It's a responsibility of all elected leaders throughout this jurisdiction -- British Columbia -- and others, whether they be local, provincial or federal in nature.

I made a number of recommendations in those private members' statements. I really believe in free votes. I respect party discipline. There are three situations the Mother of Parliaments in Great Britain utilizes -- for example, three levels of Whip -- to determine the ability of members to exercise free votes and a free rein in debate in matters brought forward, be they government or opposition private members. Fundamentally, I believe that free votes would change the nature of the House and provide a climate where objectivity would surface.

I indicated other things, such as recommendations for fixed dates for sessions of the Legislature, so members as well as constituents would know and understand when the House is in session, and we could plan our lives in a more orderly fashion.

Fixed terms between elections was another recommendation, as well as expanded use of all-party committees. I'm pleased to see that the current government is using all-party committees effectively. It's a fundamental aspect in parliamentary reform, and I'm pleased to see that.

I also support the concept of referenda. One standing legislative committee is in fact looking at how it can be implemented.

There are a number of things happening. The intent of my statement today is to again strive to defeat that crisis of confidence that we're facing, not only within our constituency of British Columbia, but in other jurisdictions across Canada.

When a government is elected for four or five years, fundamentally the executive council is created with about 20 members, who form cabinet. From there it is the ministers in cabinet who introduce government bills that are debated in the House. What about the other 57 members in the Legislature? This discussion crosses party lines and rhetoric. After all, the opposition side has only 24 private members; the government side has 33 private members.

The role of the private member is threefold: the private member has a responsibility as the legislator, critic and facilitator. Private members have a three-way accountability: to constituents, parties and conscience. Private members, including those on the government and opposition sides, are given an opportunity to debate government bills, participate in committees, ask questions of ministers during question period; more significantly, private members may also make private members' statements, move motions or introduce private members' bills.

We had a situation occur in this Legislature over the past three weeks which is, from my findings, unparalleled in other jurisdictions across Canada. Private members' day is rigidly adhered to in all other jurisdictions -- federal and other provincial jurisdictions. In the last three weeks we've had early adjournment on private members' day. I want to talk about some of the initiatives that exist in other provinces. In Alberta, private members' business is conducted on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. At least two motions are usually debated on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 4:30 p.m. Public bills and orders other than government bills and orders are called to debate. In Saskatchewan private members' day of debate is Tuesdays for 75 minutes. The topic of debate is chosen by government and opposition members alternatively. In Manitoba private members' business is considered from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock every day from Monday to Thursday inclusive. This time is called private members' hour. The business considered during that hour can range from private members' resolutions to private bills and public bills by private members. Ontario has an interesting and quite effective system. Thursday mornings from ten to 12 are reserved for private members' business. There are no more than two items taken up each day; therefore each item receives one hour. All 130 members of the legislature put their names, numbered from one to 130, in a pool to be selected. They are assigned a private member's hour from there. Each member has their item of business debated for a full hour, whether it is a motion or a bill.

What is interesting with the methods in other jurisdictions is that they are effective. They enable private members to bring forward issues that are close to their hearts and to their constituents' needs. This opportunity should exist in this jurisdiction. We have standing orders that define private members' day and create that opportunity. All private members in this Legislature are equal; the executive branch is government. So when I speak for the rights of private members to bring forward either motions or public bills in the hands of private members for debate, I'm speaking on behalf of all of us. I believe this is very important.

D. Lovick: I suspect that I'm not going to use up all of the time allotted to me. The issues touched on by the member opposite are of interest to large numbers of people in this House, and perhaps a number of people would like to respond. I will respond briefly, though.

[ Page 4471 ]

The first point I would make is that if the private members in this chamber are not taking full advantage of the opportunities available to them to make statements and have motions discussed, that fault lies with the private members themselves. We have regular meetings between House Leaders. At that time, those House leaders can agree to use Friday morning, for example, for that purpose. I dearly hope that will happen in subsequent sessions, but it hasn't so far. I want the member opposite to know that we on this side, as government members, aren't doing anything to interfere with that process.

More importantly, though, the remedy suggested by the member opposite -- that is, to give private members more opportunities to participate and take an active and initiating role in this chamber -- doesn't necessarily solve the problem he addresses. The essential problem addressed in the member's statement is growing anger and cynicism on the part of the electorate -- what he refers to, and I think I quote him correctly, as the "crisis of confidence." I suspect that the crisis of confidence has precious little to do with what happens or doesn't happen in this chamber. Rather, it is the result of a revolution in rising expectations on the part of the people in terms of what politicians and government ought to deliver and make possible, juxtaposed with another reality, which is the closing of the horizons of opportunity -- namely, the end of easy, cheap and accessible resources; namely, the end of the expanding and burgeoning onward and upward economy. As a result of that revolution going on in people's minds, they look for easy targets. They look for convenient ways to say what's wrong, and they have been conditioned by many years of experience to accept that government and politicians must be to blame if the world has changed -- therefore the cynicism, therefore the disillusionment that inevitably sets in.

I don't think that a free vote in this chamber on a more or less regular basis is going to address the problem, though, frankly, I have no great objection to free votes as in the British model, where they are allowed on motions that aren't matters of confidence in government. But I don't think a free vote is going to address the problem, and let me give you a brief example of why.

First of all, I think the reality of ideology and of political parties is such that we don't belong to political parties or get elected to political parties simply as matters of convenience. Rather, they represent aggregations of interests, ideas and general principles we all agree on. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that you would find it hard to find any member on this side of the House -- and, I suspect, on the other side of the House -- who would find occasions to disagree with how his particular caucus members happen to be voting on any given issue. For instance, we had four independent members in the last session of the House. They never voted against the government, however, because they still apparently believed in what the government was doing. Similarly, we have one member of this House sitting as an independent, who has the freedom to vote differently from his colleagues. However, there have been no differences so far. I think, then, that the notion of free votes is somewhat mythological and overstated. The reality is that there are very few significant major divisions between individual members and other members of any given caucus.

[11:15]

I realize, Madam Speaker, that I am perhaps fomenting the cynicism and crisis of confidence because I am going longer than I said I would. Therefore I will defer to some others and give them an opportunity.

The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, for about one minute.

D. Mitchell: The member for Nanaimo should not be afraid of the revolution that is taking place in our democracy today -- the urge for a more direct say by the public in the affairs of our province and our land. He should not fear the revolution that is taking place, he should embrace it. Otherwise he should step aside. The member for Okanagan West is very correct in his statements that the reform of this institution that we all try to serve is crucial if we're going to keep pace with the expectations that do exist. They are not unrealistic expectations. The people of British Columbia want their legislators to represent them -- not blind devotion to parties, not blind devotion to dogma or rhetoric. The people of British Columbia want to be represented by their members. They want to have constituency-based politics, not party-based politics any longer.

The Speaker: In response to the replies, the hon. member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: I thank both hon. members for their responses.

Cynicism is sort of like an infectious disease. Not only does it affect the public, but it also affects members within the Legislature, and it's a very sad situation. The reality is that there are splendid opportunities with the concept of free votes. Not all matters in this Legislature are partisan and political. A lot of the legislation brought forward actually arises from the needs of specific ministries. There have been times when I've worked closely with opposition members to hold up legislation and actually have legislation amended. But with free votes, for the first time ever we would be able to construct arguments in debate designed to actually change the minds of members in this Legislature. That is an element which really is missing in the Legislature. It does not utilize the potential, the ability and the knowledge of individual members.

On private members' day, on our orders of the day we have some eight private members' bills that could be brought forward; we have some 66 motions on notice that could and should be brought forward for debate. All private members should have the opportunity to exercise their thoughts, their ideas and their experience in this Legislature. By encouraging greater participation on that basis, I think we will achieve what the hon. Deputy Speaker has. He has an absolute faith and confidence in people, and absolute faith and confidence in the system. Until all of us have that type of faith and

[ Page 4472 ]

confidence in the system, then we will not serve the people nearly as well as he has.

The hon. member for Nanaimo has made several concrete suggestions. First of all, I would say that we have to have the private members in this Legislature indicating their wish to have private members' day. Last week we had a division, and that wish was denied. I would really appreciate it if all private members, including government private members, would think and reflect about what I've spoken about today, and perhaps we can work with the House leaders, with the direction and the good will of all private members, to encourage private members' day as it is set out in Standing Orders.

J. Tyabji: I ask leave of the House to table a letter.

The Speaker: The subject of the letter, hon. member?

J. Tyabji: It's a letter to the Speaker with regard to private members' day.

Leave granted.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Interesting debate this morning, and food for thought for all of us. I would like to now move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

The House adjourned at 11:27 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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