1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 4
[ Page 4741 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
Hon. A. Edwards: I very seldom have the opportunity to spend some time in this House to talk about my constituency, so I'm going to take the opportunity to do that today as I respond to the Speech from the Throne. As I've told people many times, there are four Kootenay constituencies, and mine is the one that bears the name. So when you say "Kootenay," I may answer. I always try to.
The Kootenay constituency has had a very difficult year this year. It has been a year that has brought many of us together to face many problems, which has brought us back to the realization that the most important part of a community, after all, is how well we work together.
Probably the only comparative community in British Columbia right now would be Alberni. We have communities based mainly on resource extraction, and the industry that has supported that activity and economy has come upon hard times. Both of our constituencies and communities have the basics for ecotourism, and we both use our beautiful land and our air, forests and rivers to entertain tourists to the extent that we possibly can. Nevertheless, the resources -- our wood fibre and minerals -- are the absolute base of our economy.
With the restructuring of our coal industry, we spent most of the year in Kootenay with thousands of people out of work, such as miners and people in the support industries, small businesses and services that supply the region. It was a long summer -- from the first of May -- and it still hasn't ended for some of the people working there. Some of our skilled miners are gone.
I see some of the faces across the way smiling. It has not been a happy occasion; it has not been pleasant or easy. Some of our small businesses have failed. All of us have looked to a future that denies us the promise that, until just recently, we thought was going to be there forever.
In the face of these challenges and experiences, the constituents of Kootenay, the rest of the east Kootenay and, for that matter, all of the Kootenay region have reached into their depths. Usually they have found the ability to carry themselves through the worst. For example, workers at the Balmer mine have been out of work since May 1 of last year and still have no promised date for return.
I have been honoured to lead the support that this government has offered the Elk Valley. Right from the time of our meetings early last year to establish a coal strategy for the province, to early this year when we established adjustment services in the valley, we have walked the road with those who are looking for solutions.
The coal strategy identified many of the problems that overtook the strategy. But because of that strategy we have had the opportunity to first look ahead to what the problems might be and to see where we wanted to go. As we work our way back to stability and to steady production in the mines -- in all of our mines -- I feel sure that we will achieve most of the goals that we articulated in the strategy, and our work with that strategy will continue.
We've moved from that strategy to a community adjustment strategy, and it's a model that has been designed specifically for the Elk Valley. It will support the people that need support in the community, those who are having to change their way of life. As well, we have put into place a small-business initiative to deal with the small businesses that suffered greatly, just as the direct workers in the mines and in the support industries suffered. Change is never easy. Unwanted change, change that is unwelcome and unasked for, is more difficult than any other kind, and Kootenay people have had to face that challenge. They will succeed.
Many ministries have worked with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the Elk Valley: Advanced Education, Finance, Labour, Economic Development, Education, Social Services, Health, Municipal Affairs -- and that's just to start the list. We have spent uncounted hours in consultation with the people in the valley and with the others who have an interest there. We have spent uncounted hours talking among ourselves to plan and see what can be done.
The job protection commissioner has been there, and he has been a central part of the strategy. Our MP, Sid Parker, has been there to support requests to CMHC and to UIC. Mayors and councils continue to work with the restructuring, work with the new owners of the Westar mines and work to nurture all five mines. We're there for the long term, and we're proud to know that that industry continues and will continue to be a healthy part of British Columbia.
I congratulate these people and the other people in the community who have lasted through these difficult times and who continue to put their faith in our community, in its beauty and its health; who remain ready to dig in again to rebuild a life and rebuild our economy, based as it is on a complex combination of their skills, the province's reputation as a worldwide trader, our provincewide transportation system, the industry's globally recognized ability and excellence and the grit that the whole community has mustered. I recognize the achievement of the southeast coal industry and I ask you, the other members of this assembly, to recognize it too. It's a rare achievement, even among British Columbians, who have many rare achievements. The long and the hard adjustment is not yet over, and I have faith that the people of the Elk Valley of Kootenay will come through in the best possible way.
The citizens of Kootenay constituency have been wrestling with other problems over the year as well, and in some cases they are enjoying some considerable help from the government's approach to the regions. For example, the reorganization of the Ministry of
[ Page 4742 ]
Economic Development, Small Business and Trade has brought another economic development officer to the East Kootenays, to Cranbrook, which is the largest city in the Kootenays and the commercial centre for the Elk Valley, the Columbia Valley and the corridor to Creston. These economic development officers will allow focus and attention to our area as we move forward in our economic recovery.
Hospitals, health officers, organizations and institutions have joined in the process of moving to wellness. Regionalization of health services is now seen as a reality in my constituency, and participants have begun the work of planning and moving to a new structure, one that is still based on hospitals and professionals but is a much decentralized system that is responsive to regional facts and regional needs. Women's centres and other agencies have responded to additional help for work against family violence, and they are expanding available day care with support offered by the Ministry of Women's Equality.
As important as any other work or change in our region is the process being led by the Commission on Resources and Environment, CORE. This work is slow and hard. No one knows that better than the residents of East Kootenay. No one knows better the difficulties of coming to a resolution when people's basic beliefs are different.
[10:15]
People in the Kootenays have a long history of resource conflict; they have a long history, as well, of resource conflict resolution. We have tried all manner of ways to resolve conflict among people with very different goals. We've had some degree of success. It's not total, and it has not been inevitable. Therefore the people in my constituency are ready to work with CORE. We know the consequences: if we don't, it will be a long and bitter conflict. Despite our strong views on the use of our resources and despite the various opinions, we are willing to refine what we have done before and to work together again toward the goals that we hold in common.
What is happening, hon. Speaker and hon. members, is no less an act of pioneering than the technological advances that are being made in industry today in British Columbia. In responding to the urgent and widespread demands of people for a say in their government and for their part in deciding what happens with their resources, with our land, with our rivers and with our forests, this government is pioneering processes to include the public. CORE is the most conspicuous example of this.
To go along with this and to make it work are our freedom-of-information legislation and our policy on participant funding. Our freedom-of-information legislation is the most advanced in the country, as we are told by many people. It is excellent legislation. It is the basis for our activity, and it is central to our beliefs and our actions. It allows people access to information held by this government.
We have policy on participant funding, and I've been proud to lead the work on that policy. We have a government policy as fair and as equitable as it can be. CORE, the B.C. Energy Council, the B.C. Utilities Commission, and the processes that will lead to settlement of aboriginal claims now have a policy to support public participation in the processes. There are many consultation processes. These central CORE activities are funded for participant funding. All of this work brings a new way to government in British Columbia. It accepts the challenge that the electorate gave us, and it helps along that difficult road to change, which I've talked about before. The road to change is never easy.
The past year has provided challenge: the challenge of change. Constituents in Kootenay have worked through that challenge to see opportunities. We have experienced the change; we have experienced our response to that change; we have experienced the opportunities for what can come in the future; and we look forward to achievement in response to the challenge. We welcome the opportunities that are coming the next year.
With that, I take my seat as we proceed with this session of the Legislature.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Labour. [Applause.]
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that hearty applause, particularly from the Social Credit ranks. I must say, I'm impressed.
I thought I would take this opportunity -- because it only arises once a year in the Legislature -- to talk a little bit about some of the achievements of this administration, and to talk a little bit about the plans that lay ahead with regard to this....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know that all members of the opposition are most interested in knowing about some of the achievements of the administration, particularly some of the goals and objectives of the Ministry of Labour and some of the accomplishments with regard to the needs of the people of Esquimalt-Metchosin, which is my constituency.
It occurs to me that every day when we listen to the news on the radio, watch television or read a newspaper, there is an enormous amount of time focused on dealing with the fiscal problems that face this province and other governments in Canada. I think we've seen the impact of those fiscal problems in provinces like Newfoundland and Saskatchewan in the past few weeks, and some of the drastic and radical changes that they've had to make to their budgets as a consequence of the difficulties they face. I think that often obscured in all of our obsession with regard to the debt problems faced by various administrations is the remarkable potential and promise of this province. I think that we as a province are better poised than any other portion of this country to be able to work through the challenges that are posed by our fiscal problems and to be able to build adequately on the potential and the promise of British Columbia.
[ Page 4743 ]
Let me elaborate on that. We have enormous benefits in this province. We are, first of all, blessed by incredible natural resources: our hydroelectric resources, our forest resources and our mineral resources. Those resources give us an economic advantage that is not available to other provinces. We also have the advantage of geography. We are, after all, located on the west coast of North America, close to a lot of the emerging nations of the world, which allows us to take advantage of our unique geography to engage in perhaps better trade with the Asia-Pacific markets. To a large degree we as a province have been able to take advantage of that. I don't limit that to just simply this administration; that's true historically in British Columbia. I think it's noted by all members of this House that we have had, because of our unique geography, tremendous opportunities with regard to trade with overseas nations. It shows itself in many ways. It shows itself, for example, most recently with a decision of a number of investors in the shipbuilding industry to relocate their head offices to Vancouver and to create 200 new shipping jobs there. I think that's an example of us using our geography to advantage in trade with other nations.
Our geography also works to our advantage with regard to the rest of Canada. As more and more Canadians want to leave the difficulty of winter and the climate in eastern Canada and move or retire to British Columbia -- be it Vancouver Island, the Okanagan or other portions of the province -- it gives us all sorts of promise and potential to grow. Clearly we're seeing that as well. The challenge, it seems to me, for a government these days is to build on that promise and potential by building the infrastructure of this province to make sure we can take advantage of the unique situation that we find ourselves in.
And it clearly is a unique situation. If I might digress for just a moment, I was talking yesterday to investors from the Asia-Pacific markets who are looking at investing here in B.C. It was interesting: when you chipped away all of their views and concerns, it became highly apparent to me that one of the major reasons they were looking at British Columbia was that we're just a safer place to live. People who look at Oregon or Washington or California and reflect on the situation in Los Angeles would just prefer to invest and live in British Columbia. They recognize that we offer our citizens a social safety system that is a Cadillac system in terms of what is offered elsewhere in the world. They want to invest in British Columbia for a lot of reasons, in part because of our geography, in part because of our attributes and in part because of the social safety programs that we offer, which gives us a leg up and an advantage over jurisdictions to the south of us.
F. Gingell: It's not enough.
Hon. M. Sihota: As the Leader of the Opposition correctly says, and as I was saying, it is not enough. The challenge for all of us in this House, as public administrators, is to build on that potential and that promise. And there are a number of ways, I would suggest, in which this government is beginning to do the necessary work. Let me share with hon. members a few of the initiatives that we've taken, both provincially and locally -- and with regard to my constituency.
We made a conscious decision very early on in our mandate as a government to build the second superferry. There were a number of reasons for that. It wasn't simply to deal with the transportation problems between Vancouver Island and Vancouver. We also recognized, as a government, that it was important to employ the talent, the skills and the expertise of our shipworkers here on the west coast of Canada, particularly at Yarrows in Esquimalt. It was important to make sure there was a steady base of employment at that facility and to allow the company the opportunity, using that provincial government contract, to bridge into procuring contracts in the private sector.
Hon. Speaker, let me give you an example in terms of what happened. Twelve hundred new jobs have been created at Yarrows since this government came to power, in part because of the second superferry contract. I would give the previous administration some credit, if I may say so, for taking the initiative with regard to the first superferry contract. It allowed us to bid at that facility for private sector work. We secured, for the first time since we lost them to Portland in 1985, contracts to refit and refurbish the Princess cruise line. That's a public sector investment made at Yarrows which creates a continual employment base at that facility and at the same time allows the company the luxury to try to secure other, private sector work. It's happening in British Columbia, and Yarrows is a success story in terms of what's transpiring.
I think it's fair to say that there is an obligation on government to make sure that this kind of infrastructure work remains. For example, we have 40 B.C. Ferries vessels that are up to 40 years old. We have not replaced any of the SeaBuses in Vancouver, despite remarkable growth there since they were last built in 1975 under an NDP initiative. It seems to me that there are remarkable opportunities to maintain and sustain our shipbuilding industry for the next ten, 15 or 20 years in British Columbia. I want to make it clear to hon. members today that this government, through the Crown corporation mandate that it has now restructured with B.C. Ferries, is working and will continue to work on an ongoing capitalization program to make sure that our shipyard workers have employment opportunities in the future. We must build on the infrastructure within this province.
Clearly it ought not to be limited simply to developments at Yarrows in my riding. There are other things that my ministry is doing to create employment opportunities elsewhere in British Columbia to make sure that all regions of this province will be able to achieve their economic potential. Let me quickly give hon. members some examples.
I see the Social Credit member for Prince George-Omineca commenting. I'm sure that he would applaud the government's decision last week to expend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 million in his community to make sure that there are ongoing hydroelectric programs provided to the city of Prince George. He's well aware of the fact that the Patricia substation work will make sure that as Prince George grows, as it
[ Page 4744 ]
should as part of the hub of this province, its future hydroelectric demands will be met.
I see my colleague from Mission in this House. He knows that this government recently made a decision to make sure that the Stave Falls hydroelectric project is carried out and that this power plant, which is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 75 years old, is upgraded to be able to provide for the electricity needs in that portion of the province, the Fraser Valley, which is growing at a remarkable clip. The government has accordingly proceeded with infrastructure improvements which in the long run can generate somewhere in the neighbourhood of $121 million of economic activity in his region.
[10:30]
My colleague from the Kootenays spoke before me. I'm pleased to advise this House that as part of our regional economic development initiatives using B.C. Hydro as the vehicle to trigger those kinds of developments, this government will proceed with a series of turbine upgrades, starting with the Kootenay Canal in July 1994. This work is part of our Resource Smart initiative to upgrade the generating stations in the Kootenay area. The generating stations at Mica, Seaton and Seven Mile, for example, will be updated as a part of another $121 million project, with the first $11 million dedicated to the Kootenay Canal -- again, to provide opportunities and paycheques in all regions of British Columbia, be it Prince George, Mission or in the Kootenays.
I think the hon. Liberal member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove was talking about highways. Clearly this government has now started to work toward making sure that we build on the infrastructure on Vancouver Island by proceeding with much-needed highway work on the Island. I'm pleased to say, and advise all members of this House, that a series of significant initiatives have been taken, even within my own constituency, with regard to solving the transportation problems at the Colwood crawl. This year we have made improvements at the Thetis exchange and old Island Highway intersections of Highway 14 to make sure that we deal on a short-term basis with some of the problems with the Colwood crawl. We have provided additional lanes and opportunities to access the Trans-Canada Highway at the Millstream Road intersection. We have allocated funds for upgrading of the Ocean Boulevard-Highway 14 intersection. We have worked with the CRD to lift the moratorium on highway improvements from the Thetis exchange to Goldstream Avenue. And we have just started making changes with respect to the intersection of Helmcken Road and the Trans-Canada Highway to solve the traffic flow problems in that area.
Those are all short-term changes. Hon. Speaker, those are just the beginning of the kinds of....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! I regret I must interrupt the minister. The Chair is trying to be patient. I would like to remind all hon. members that every member will have an opportunity to speak on this throne speech debate, I am sure, but at this time the minister has the floor.
Hon. M. Sihota: I know it gives great irritation to the opposition, obviously, to hear some of the good things that this government is doing. Quite frankly, we don't spend enough time in this House talking about some of the good things that this government has done.
This government deeply believes that in the long run the solution to the transportation problems in the Western Communities lies with the development of light rail transit. We as a government, through the initiatives of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks just last year, acquired new lands in Vic West to make sure that there's a continuous corridor for light rail transit from the Western Communities to Victoria. We as a government, as part of our desire to make sure we look at transportation alternatives such as light rail and bus systems -- and more about buses in a second -- have already proceeded through the Victoria accord to develop an integrated trolley system in downtown Victoria so that it can in the future connect up with light rail transit.
I think that's an important point. Hon. members should understand that the most difficult area in terms of any type of light rail transit is developing an appropriate scheme within the urban core. We're doing that first with the trolley system that we're developing in downtown Victoria, while at the same time acquiring the land base necessary for an LRT system using the E&N and CNR rights-of-way to provide commuter services from Cobble Hill all the way to downtown Victoria through the Western Communities. In that regard I'm pleased to advise members of the House that discussions are under way with the federal government to look at accessing the E&N line for light rail work.
With regard to the Colwood crawl, I don't think we should be putting all of our eggs in one basket. Therefore this government is not only proceeding with highway improvements on the Trans-Canada Highway, and not only starting to assemble the land for the LRT, but we've also moved quickly and expeditiously within the first few months of our mandate to make sure that there are upgraded transit services to provide more vehicles and more service in the Western Communities. I'm pleased to say that we have now managed to increase by 18 hours the number of services, so there's an added quantum of service to the Western Communities. We expect to do more by September 1994.
In an effort to divert provincial jobs to the Western Communities and to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, I'm pleased to advise members of the House that we have also proceeded with a satellite telecommuting project in Langford. The project allows civil servants to do their work out of substations in Langford rather than driving every morning to their offices in Victoria. That kind of innovative project is an example of our effort to try to deal in a creative way with some of this province's transportation problems.
Not only must we build on the infrastructure and improve economic development opportunities within the province, but we must also take concrete steps to improve the quality of life in British Columbia, to build
[ Page 4745 ]
on the quality of life that we have here -- as a part of our theme of building British Columbia.
I'm pleased to note that in the past few months this government has taken a series of initiatives which I know have improved the quality of life in my riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin. We have now completed upgrading of the Lampson Street School.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the heckling from the Social Credit members. I remember, during the 1979 election campaign, the then Social Credit Minister of Finance coming to our riding and saying: "You vote Social Credit, and we'll provide lottery funds for Lampson Street School." Well, people did vote Social Credit, and the Social Credit government did not provide the lottery funds for upgrading the Lampson Street School. But I'm pleased to report that not only have we completed the work at Lampson Street School in terms of upgrading that heritage school site, but it is now available to young students -- at contemporary earthquake standards -- to make sure there will be educational opportunities in Esquimalt at Lampson Street School.
We have worked with the municipality of Esquimalt and the school board in a creative way to make sure that there is funding for a new community theatre in Esquimalt, which has long been a desire of the educational community in our constituency. We have provided funds this year for expansion and rebuilding of the Rockheights school library. Again, I must confess to a bit of a conflict there, since my daughter goes to that school. But nonetheless, it is, in my view, a significant improvement in this the twenty-fifth anniversary of that facility.
We have, through a creative process with the Knights of Columbus and the Sooke School District, provided a program of day care for young parents attending Belmont High School. In the past, young parents had to interrupt their educational opportunities because of day care responsibilities and the absence of day care within the high school. That problem has now been remedied, and my hat is off to the school board and the Knights of Columbus, who have worked in conjunction with the provincial government to make sure that adequate funding is provided through the Ministry of Women's Equality.
In this past year we have -- in terms of quality-of-life improvements -- in conjunction with the Esquimalt Anglers, upgraded facilities at Fleming Beach to make sure that our recreation users have the opportunity to access Fleming Beach. We have worked with the South Vancouver Island Rangers to make sure funds are provided for upgrading the Rangers' park in that area.
We have just concluded discussions, and will proceed with site acquisition for a new school to deal with the overcrowding at View Royal Elementary. We have just concluded an agreement with the city of Victoria to proceed with a beautification project in Vic West for the removal of unsightly hydro poles along Tyee Road.
Those are all examples of good things this government is doing: looking after the interests of people in communities from one end of the province to the other, and from one end of the riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin to the other. We take pleasure in making those kinds of improvements, not only building on the economic potential of this province, but building upon our opportunities to enjoy our quality of life.
There are, of course, other challenges that await this administration, and in my mind one of the most critical is to meet the challenge of protecting and renewing our medicare system in the face of our environment of rapidly rising costs and a changing society. The challenge for us as a government is to be able to make sure we preserve and maintain the integrity of medicare, and to make sure taxpayers get best value for expenditures with regard to medicare. That means a number of changes have to be made, and tough decisions have to be made by government -- changes in building a new and positive health care system that gives priority attention to removing obstacles that prevent equal access to health care for all. We need new and positive changes to our health care system, which keeps on getting bigger, more institutional, more expensive, more centralized and more remote. As a major new emphasis for medicare, we need to make changes with regard to the promotion of good health and the prevention of illness and injury. We need to manage our health care system by better shifting of resources to where they are needed, by spending more carefully, by cutting waste and inefficiencies and by making sure that local communities have a greater ability to provide, closer to home, a range of health care services to both families and seniors.
In a nutshell, what this government is trying to do is make sure that we shift to community care and put a greater emphasis on prevention. We have a lot of beds in our institutions that are taken up by acute care patients. We need to move those acute care patients closer to the communities, closer to home, to community care facilities such as the Priory in Langford. We then need to reduce the surgical waiting list in this province by taking advantage of those bed openings that have been created by the removal of the acute care patients into community care and make sure the surgical patients have access to those beds that are then opened in hospitals.
But in order to do that we must make some significant decisions, and one of the decisions is that we have to make sure adequate community care facilities are provided within local communities to bring about this kind of shift in health care. Again I'm pleased to say that this is starting to happen in the greater Victoria area, and it is certainly starting to happen within the boundaries of my own constituency. Over the past year we have worked arduously to make sure that the Esquimalt Wellness Centre continues to operate and provide preventive and health counselling services to the seniors living in Esquimalt.
About a year ago, there was a threat that the funding for that much-needed and much-applauded service in Esquimalt would be terminated. Well, that hasn't happened. We've managed to save the Esquimalt Wellness Centre to make sure that seniors secure the kind of services that they need. We have opened a new
[ Page 4746 ]
health clinic in Esquimalt to service the health care needs of our community under an initiative that was started some time ago and completed approximately a year and a half ago. We now have a new CRD health clinic to service the needs of the people of Esquimalt. It allows them to engage in a series of preventive and educational programs for our seniors and for others in our community, so as to make sure that educational services are delivered closer to home.
We have, through associations such as the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House, been able to provide innovative programs like the Best Babies program, again within our community, so that single parents -- I know we have our share of them in our community -- and families have the opportunity to make sure they've got access to the best literature available on providing health and nutrition services for infants and the unborn. The Esquimalt Neighbourhood House should be congratulated for the preventive program that it's launched with regard to Best Babies.
I had the opportunity to attend at the just-completed Capital Mental Health Association facility on Skinner Road in Vic West, which is part of the decentralization of mental health programs in this province.
[10:45]
The Wellness Centre in Esquimalt, the CRD health clinic, the Esquimalt Neighbourhood House programs and the new Capital Mental Health Association facility, together with the Priory in Langford, are all examples of what this government is trying to do to bring health care closer to home by shifting resources away from the institutions throughout the province and into the communities. So we are making tough choices with regard to health care, and we have the courage to make those tough choices and to meet the challenges of the changes that we have to make. But we are also making sure that there is concrete evidence in communities throughout British Columbia -- and I just referred to some that are happening in mine -- which is a testimony to our success in bringing about the kinds of changes that we need with regard to medicare.
Hon. Speaker, as I said at the outset, let me say in summary that there is tremendous potential in this province. There is a remarkable opportunity for all of us, as members of this House, to make sure that we build and achieve that potential, and that we take advantage of the economic opportunities through trade and through initiatives such as building on the infrastructure of our shipyard industry. There are opportunities for economic development elsewhere through programs we are running through Hydro and as part of the programs that my ministry is responsible for. There are steps we can take to improve the quality of life and to ensure that health care is adequately provided closer to home to all citizens of British Columbia.
Hon. Speaker, if one looks at the record of this administration to date, I think we have been remarkably successful in bringing about a transition in health care and in building on the economic potential and promise of this province.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I promise a lot less condescension and more reality. It's a privilege to rise in my seat today as a member of this assembly to offer my view on last week's Speech from the Throne. It will certainly not be remembered for its content. There was nothing in the throne speech for people seeking a job, nothing for people who are interested in the security of their employment and certainly nothing for the beleaguered B.C. taxpayers who are still coping with the assault on their pocketbooks in last year's budget.
There is very little in the throne speech for forestry -- I'm glad to see that the Minister of Forests has dropped in for this debate -- mining or tourism, which collectively generate the wealth that sustains the economy and the institutions of government in British Columbia. No, this throne speech will not be remembered for its content. It will be remembered for the fact that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was almost unable to deliver it. It was disrupted by an angry mob that almost succeeded in battering down the doors of this hallowed assembly. It was an ugly display which every member of this assembly has condemned, but which was nevertheless instructive. It represented yet another interest group of British Columbians -- no matter how unruly, violent and misguided -- who feel they have been betrayed by this government which promised so much and has utterly failed to deliver. That failure is highlighted by an anemic Speech from the Throne. This government is out of step with British Columbians and with the way our economy must grow and prosper. Finally, it is lacking in credibility on the international stage to encourage investors to confidently invest in our province.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
What we have in this throne speech is not the stuff of political leadership; it is an ideological agenda. It is not a pragmatic document; it's a political one. It's a document that attempts to reinvent the history of the past 16 months, which has been so destructive to investor confidence in our province. In its throne speech, the government claims that it is redefining government. And so it is: bigger government, more intrusive government, less responsible government and a government more captive of special interest groups than the last government was. It is a government with a new set of friends and insiders. It is a government that has indulged in some of the most shameless acts of pork-barrelling witnessed in the history of this assembly, and it is a government bereft of a vision for the province.
As British Columbians examine this throne speech, they have reason to ask themselves some basic questions. Am I better off now than I was 16 months ago? Is my job more secure? Will my access to health care be easier or more difficult in the weeks and months ahead? If I am a business person, a logger, an accountant, a medical doctor, a trucker or a worker, am I more confident about the future than I was 16 months ago? If this government had been really listening to the people, as it claims, the answer it received would have been an emphatic no. This government is sapping the strength of the British Columbians it claims to serve, with higher
[ Page 4747 ]
taxes, higher fees, higher ICBC rates and an unprecedented assault on the rights of private property owners.
Hon. Speaker, I'd like to dwell on the issue of private property for a moment. A commitment to the rights of private property owners was most certainly and ominously absent from the throne speech. In the last session of this Legislature the government capriciously cancelled the supplemental homeowner's grant, disadvantaging thousands of homeowners. There was no warning or consultation as it tried to introduce Bill 32, the most disturbing bill on private property ever to come before this assembly. It would have denied reasonable compensation to resource rights holders and eliminated their right to appeal to the courts. This bill was abandoned amid public outrage, but the government will undoubtedly reintroduce it this session with the able assistance of Professor Schwindt, who will legitimize this theft of private property.
Hon. Speaker, given the history, the government has had the audacity to pompously pronounce in its throne speech that it will represent the interests of third parties in negotiations with B.C.'s first nations to establish the costs of settling lease claims. One supposes that the government will represent the interests of property and licence holders in the same way they represented the interests of small and medium-sized businesses with the introduction of draconian labour legislation last fall.
In its throne speech, the government claims it is radically redefining health care. British Columbians are now coming to the realization, however, that the Closer to Home concept is nothing more than less service for more money. This government has cut a deal with the health care unions but has declared war on the doctors. It has closed Shaughnessy Hospital, supposedly to offer more service to the suburbs, but suburban hospitals have learned that the beds and services they are supposedly getting are in fact already there.
There is no rational plan for the Shaughnessy closure. There was no consultation; there was only deceit and deception. My office has received hundreds of calls from people in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies of Surrey who relied on the services of this institution and who have not received an adequate explanation of where those services are going. There was no word in the throne speech about the future of the programs at Shaughnessy, no idea of where and when they will be relocated. The hallmark of the government and its throne speech is a lack of consultation, the lack of a plan and a lack of vision.
Let there be no mistake about this government's approach to health care. It is involved in a radical experiment which could jeopardize the very future of our medicare system if it fails. The speed at which this government is moving in an untried and highly experimental direction will drive up the costs of administration and reduce patient services over the short term. Any savings to taxpayers could be as much as ten years away. By then we could have a two-tiered system of medicare, which this government piously claims it's trying to avoid.
The government promised in its throne speech to rein in the budget. History will show that last year its solution was to raise government spending by 7 percent. Let us examine the last two fiscal years in this province and what they have meant to British Columbians. The last Social Credit administration, in a vain attempt at re-election, brought in a budget of desperation that contained a 12 percent spending increase. For its part, the NDP government boasted that its spending increase was only 7 percent. When this government talks about reducing spending, it really means that it is reducing the rate of the increase in spending. There's a huge difference, but an increase is still an increase.
Over the past two fiscal years, the insatiable demands of government have caused a 20 percent increase in spending, while the economy of the province grew by slightly more than 6 percent. How has this difference been made up, hon. Speaker? Where does the money come from? It has come out of the pockets of taxpayers, business people and working men and women of this province. The government has an insatiable appetite for tax dollars. That was proven in the last budget and undoubtedly will be proven in this one.
There is no commitment in this throne speech to controlling the growth and size of government. It would be the antithesis of this government to recommend that and alienate its financial godfathers in organized labour.
Let us consider some of the other highlights in the throne speech -- or should I say lowlights? The speech claims that the Premier is continuing to strengthen relations with trading partners in the Pacific Rim. Yet last year, shortly after returning from just such a junket, his government introduced the corporate capital tax without even informing his trading partners. This year the Premier's trips are more in the realm of damage control, as Asian investment in B.C. is largely confined to the lower mainland property market.
Hon. Speaker, it is in building the wealth and health of the province that this government has performed so dismally. The throne speech uses a lot of the right buzzwords; it talks a good ball game on investment, but where's the beef?
Let's talk about specific projects in the province which are stalled by this government's approach to the resource-based industries. Geddes Resources proposal for copper extraction is bogged down. The restructuring effort for Cominco in Trail is limping through a paper trail in government. The lower mainland race track controversy continues to simmer while private investment sits parked. The busiest man in Victoria these days is Doug Kerley, the job protection commissioner, who struggles to save yet another company going down the tube in British Columbia.
This government likes to compare its agenda to the reformist agenda of the Clinton administration in the United States, but it's an odious comparison indeed. The new U.S. President is investing in infrastructure and roads in America to create jobs; we've virtually frozen highway construction and downloaded on local government, and now we're talking about tolls and charges. The Clinton administration is talking about major commitment to research and development in post-secondary education; this government is driving the cost of post-secondary education beyond the reach
[ Page 4748 ]
of most students and shutting down B.C. Research for purely partisan political reasons. The Clinton administration wants to make strategic investments in the future; we're too busy rewarding friends and insiders in this province. The incoming U.S. President would neither endorse nor recognize the direction of this government, and the comparisons are odious rather than complimentary.
I'd like also to address the virtual absence in the throne speech of the forest industry, which is a most important industry. Other than a vague commitment to enact a forest practices code, there is no mention of the challenges facing this vital sector of the industry in British Columbia, which I might add generates $9 billion in exports and is still reeling from the string of vague and contradictory policies of this government. The combination of the protected-area strategy, the aboriginal land claims agenda, reductions in the annual allowable cut and the heavy-handed Schwindt recommendations on resource compensation have plunged forest industry planning into chaos. At a time when this industry needs a vast pool of capital to extract more value from less wood, when it needs more capital to address environmental changes in the pulp and paper sector and when it must spend more money to retrain its workforce and reorganize its marketing, there is little capital to be had. In fact, given the pressure on the land base, a company in 1993 would have to be out of its mind to invest money in a forest industry venture in this province. That's happened over the past 16 months of this government's mandate.
Let There Be No Mistake: the lack of capital investment in this province will jeopardize the standard of living of every British Columbian. It will reduce our ability to meet the demands in health care, to fix our roads and to meet our social obligations to the disadvantaged. Our government cannot deficit-finance its way to prosperity; it cannot take money out of the economy in the form of taxes and fees and at the same time sustain the standard of living for British Columbians.
The government challenges the people of the province to change. As a member of the opposition, I challenge the government to change. I challenge them to tie the rate of the spending increase of government to the rate of growth in the B.C. economy. It's a modest challenge, but will they meet it when the budget is handed down next week? I challenge this government to change its pork-barrelling commitment to friends and insiders. This government should be challenged to define the difference between the oppressive wealth of government taxes and fees, and the real wealth created by a thriving private sector.
[11:00]
The real agenda of the government is carefully masked and emerges only slowly, and it certainly isn't contained in the throne speech. Last spring this Minister of Finance stood in the assembly and said there was freedom to move in taxation in British Columbia. He said that wealthy people and corporations hadn't been paying their way and that it was time to redistribute the wealth in this province and for government to finally debunk the trickle-down effect of real economic growth and replace it with the heavy hand of government intervention. The real challenge for the NDP government is to reject the dogma of its past, to recognize that the real challenge in a global economy is to invest in education and post-secondary education and to challenge its citizens to take control of the economic agenda, rather than Bob Williams and government Crown corporations.
Will this government have the courage to change? Will the government recognize that its policies are taking British Columbians in the opposite direction to where we should be going? Will this government recognize that the world changed while it languished on the opposition benches for the past five years? Will this government pay more than lip service to the pleas in its own throne speech that we must stand firm in the face of criticism, resist entrenched interests -- even if they be organized labour, hon. Speaker -- and dedicate ourselves to the future of the province?
The throne speech urges us to draw inspiration from those who have gone before: from W.A.C. Bennett, who built dams and roads, and from Dave Barrett, who protected farmland. How will history judge the first 16 months of this government? Perhaps the government's election propaganda, "A Better Way," will provide a clue.
"You won't need an inside track to get fair treatment from a Harcourt government" -- promise No. 2. We defer on this one to Robyn Allan, John Pollard, Bob Williams and a steady stream of patronage appointments by this government.
Another missing ingredient in the throne speech: "We'll balance the budget over the business cycle and keep taxes fair for everyone" -- promise No. 4, gone within months of taking office.
"A prosperous British Columbia needs a dynamic market economy" -- promise No. 5. That was before the capital tax, the fax tax, the legal services tax, the small business tax and the jet fuel tax.
"We want small business to grow" -- promise No. 6. Translation: "So we give them Bill 84, the biggest labour bill sellout in B.C. history."
"Jobs and paycheques for working men and women are a priority" -- promise No. 8. Try telling that to the workers at Cominco, Fording Coal, Cassiar, Youbou, Victoria Plywood Cooperative, Elk Valley and the Sunshine Coast. These workers are walking the line -- and it isn't a picket line, it's an unemployment line.
"B.C. needs a balanced forest policy to guarantee jobs in our forests for generations to come" -- promise No. 17. Translation: a dramatic cut in annual allowable cuts, with the sawmills figuring out who shuts down first.
This Is The One I Really Love: "Local services are running down and need fixing. We'll help" -- promise No. 27. Translation: "We'll download our problems onto local governments."
"Local governments need help to clean up toxic wastes and dangerous chemicals. They'll get it" -- promise No. 29. Translation: "We'll charge local governments tariffs for sewage spills."
"We'll make sure energy conservation no longer takes a back seat" -- promise No. 31. Translation: a
[ Page 4749 ]
faithful patronage appointment to head an energy council to duplicate the work of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
"We will fight to protect B.C.'s fishing industry, threatened by the Mulroney trade deal" -- promise No. 34. That's the reason the fishermen held a huge rally outside on the very steps of these precincts: because they were getting such excellent protection from this government.
"Tourism is vital to our economy. We'll boost it" -- promise No. 35. Some minister; some rocket booster!
"Better public transit will improve mobility and the quality of life in our suburbs" -- promise No. 38. Translation: "We'll leave transit with a deficit problem they can't solve and force transit hikes that drive people back into their cars."
"Hospitals and health care throughout B.C. that we can count on" -- promise No. 39. Yes, that's what it says. Translation: if you're a member of the Hospital Employees' Union, you can count on this government; if you're a doctor or a patient you can't.
"Workers' health and safety come first" -- promise No. 40. Translation: the unions on public construction projects will get health, safety and a generous boost from the taxpayers via the fixed-wage policy.
"Education is the key to everyone's future...yet we're falling behind" -- promise No. 41. Translation: "We're also falling behind in school days, as labour disruptions affect the students and teachers in classrooms from Langara, Surrey, Nanaimo and Quesnel."
"We will stand up to the Mulroney government in Ottawa. We will negotiate hard for a fair share of federal spending in B.C. instead of lecturing Ottawa to further cut needed programs" -- promise No. 47. Some negotiations! According to our Finance minister, these negotiations are so successful we're headed for a $2.3 billion deficit because of federal downloading.
Finally: "New Democrats stand for a united Canada." They will push hard for constitutional reforms -- promise No. 48. Translation: "We'll stand up to Mulroney on spending and NAFTA, but not on the Charlottetown accord."
There You Have It: 48 points, and half of them are gone within 16 months. And somehow we're told the throne speech will be different: "This one we'll deliver on."
I certainly support the opposition's amendment to the throne speech. It's only unfortunate that this government can't go back and amend its election promises, or that the people of the province don't have some way of amending the mandate of this government.
G. Farrell-collins: Recall.
W. Hurd: Recall.
I suspect the throne speech will carry about the same weight in this province as the 48-point election platform. It will be like investment, fitting into three categories: going, going and gone.
As the people of this province contemplate this throne speech, it's important for us to reflect on their mood in the last 16 months. In 1991 the voters of this province voted for fundamental change and returned British Columbia to a pluralistic party system in this chamber. History will show that this was not a whim; it was not an aberration. I believe it marked the turning of a page in a chapter of the political history in this province. Even as discontent with this government blossoms with the onset of spring, I certainly find that British Columbians have no appetite to return to the coalitionist days of the past. They have sought change -- real change. Therein lies the extreme disappointment in this government. They promised more and delivered less. They promised something different and delivered the same; even down to the bogus budget householder that was mailed to every home in the province.
The electorate in British Columbia is restless. They wanted change, and now they are frustrated. In that frustration there is a warning for the government, which even now somehow believes that it will be immune from the kind of policies it brings forward. It is a warning that comes from Ottawa, where the NDP has become marginalized on the left and now faces an even more marginalized future as a mainstream party in Canadian politics. I can tell you the same fate awaits this NDP in British Columbia, which promised the courage to change and instead brought change to the meaning of courage.
Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the hon. member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, I would like to acknowledge the presence of a former Speaker of the Legislature, the Hon. Gordon Dowding, who is seated with us. I would conclude by saying that I had the pleasure of being in the opposition -- pardon me, the government -- between '72 and '75 when Gordon served as the Speaker of the Legislature.
R. Kasper: It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents from the riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca to address some of the points laid out in the throne speech.
Despite the flannelmouthing and rhetoric we've heard from the opposite side of the House, it's important to lay out what this government has committed to, both in the past and the present, for the constituents I represent. Dealing with education, it should be pointed out that there's been an overall increase of 3 percent committed this year towards education. There have been substantial increases of funding for School Districts 62 and 65 within my constituency. Dealing with areas such as the school meals program, over $200,000 was committed by the government for this program. We had a new middle school constructed within the Sooke area, an $11 million facility creating over 200 person-years of employment, plus additional capital projects totalling some $2.6 million serving the students and the constituents of the Sooke School District.
Some of the opportunities that will assist students include the installation of wheelchair lifts at six schools. These will enhance education quality for those students with disabilities. I'd also like to point out that some $15 million was allocated for the new high school in the Mill Bay area, which is included in Cowichan School District and which will create over 250 person-years of employment. Not only did the Ministry of Education deal with those types of projects, but there was an additional $2
[ Page 4750 ]
million for capital planning, including a new 350-student elementary school in the Cobble Hill area.
I feel that this government is listening to what the people want. These issues were raised both prior to and during the election, and they continue to be raised by many people within my riding. I take my hat off to the Minister of Education for listening to what the people have to say and addressing the challenges of supplying decent education for the people who live within my riding.
Not only that, but it was touched on by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin that additional day care spaces have been supplied to serve students from my riding. This was done in concert with the Ministry of Women's Equality, School District 62 and a very longstanding community organization, the Langford Knights of Columbus. This day care facility allows for students to continue their education process while having a family. I should also note that the Ministry of Women's Equality was instrumental in supplying funding for the Sooke Residents in Need Society, assisting them in a special project which would train volunteers to deal with crisis matters affecting all citizens within the Sooke area.
I've heard comments about the lack of action by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on issues relating to road improvement in areas such as the Island Highway. It was this minister and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, in concert with the Capital Regional District, that lifted the moratorium on a section of the Island Highway, which has allowed a preliminary design process to take place. There will be a liaison committee established, with representatives from the communities affected -- Langford, Colwood, etc. -- to deal with aspects of this preliminary design. This is the first phase of major transportation upgrading and planning.
[11:15]
I think we all know that the Island Highway is fraught with problems throughout the Island area. I am pleased that the minister has given the Island Highway, out of the total of $5 billion in capital projects throughout British Columbia that have been identified by that ministry, number one priority for British Columbia, in order to fulfil that capital project demand for the Island Highway. I commend the government on its initiative to deal with capital construction within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways through the establishment of a Crown corporation which would give such projects the high priority they justly deserve.
I'd also like to touch on other capital projects that have been completed in my riding. In order to give accurate figures, I will read some of the major accomplishments. We've had rehabilitation work on Fisher Road, which is south of Duncan in the South Cowichan area, at a cost of $272,000. We've had resurfacing on Highways 14A and 1A, which is replacing and recycling the existing asphalt surface -- $277,000. We've had bridge construction and restoration on projects such as the Lines Creek Bridge on Highway 14 -- $700,000; seismic rehabilitation evaluations on other bridges, totalling $30,000; the No. 2 Bridge on Highway 14 in Sombrio, $670,000; Jordan River Bridge replacement, $622,000; the East Branch Bridge, $68,000; Sachts and Hammond Bridge, $7,700; and Shawyer Bridge, $18,000.
We've had minor capital improvements on Highway 14 in the Port Renfrew area -- $3,000; and the Lake Cowichan-Alberni circle route, which links with Port Renfrew -- $9,900. We've had highway and road upgrading and improvements for Highway 14 in the Cooper Cove area -- $80,000; Highway 14, Colwood to Sooke, at Awsworth Road, four-laning -- $51,000; bridges and tunnel work in certain parts of my riding -- $15,000.
Not only does the Ministry of Transportation and Highways feel that there should be improvements for the safe transportation of vehicles and goods, it also recognizes that the safety of pedestrians has to be addressed. With careful consultation with school board representatives, parent-teacher organizations and principals from two schools in my riding, the ministry recognized that by upgrading Grant Road for a cost of $35,000 and Church Road for $40,000, which will allow for safe student-pedestrian traffic going to and from school.
I'm also pleased that the ministry has been securing funding to complete this year the remaining link of the Gillespie Road pavement project. Some $175,000 will be spent prior to this fiscal year-end. I should point out that the total figure exceeds $3 million -- $3 million which not only will serve the community well but has created employment opportunities for a number of small contractors in my riding.
I'd also like to touch on other ways that we can address transportation problems. The telecommuting satellite office in the Langford area was mentioned earlier. I'm pleased to point out that this is the first such facility in the province. It was a trial project that will be carefully monitored through the Ministry of Government Services. But I'd also like to point out that this project was not developed strictly with the interests of government or politicians in mind; this project was initiated in concert with management, with workers and with the ministry in order to afford to workers opportunities to create a better work atmosphere, to improve morale and to help relieve and reduce hours of transportation to and from work. It gives workers additional opportunity to be with their families, and it will make overall improvements to the delivery of government services that affect my community. I feel that this is a worthwhile project. It is the wave of the future.
Another key area that I would like to touch on is the issue relating to tenant protection. As members of the House may well know, I conducted a review on manufactured housing within the province of British Columbia at the request of the hon. Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. During that review I conducted nine public hearings throughout the province, with some 1,350 attendees, almost 600 written submissions and 185 oral presentations. I have to stress that those hearings and that consultation are examples of the government taking steps and making efforts to consult with both the tenants and the owners of such facilities. I am pleased to note in my report that consensus was reached by representatives of park
[ Page 4751 ]
owners and homeowners throughout British Columbia who are affected by manufactured housing. It's very heartening to see that the government has responded by recognizing that there should be tenant protection for those in manufactured housing.
Hon. Speaker, I know that the throne speech is a blueprint for what we can expect both as legislators and as citizens of this province for the coming session and the year. Our government made commitments last year, and I want to stress that the government has lived up to its commitments. Over the course of the year I have received many letters and statements from my constituents saying that where the government was approached and where the government sought their advice, the government acted upon both. The government is not afraid of meeting the challenges of this decade. Furthermore, I think the government has the insight and vision to address the issues that are going to face each and every one of us in the twenty-first century.
In closing, I look forward to partaking in additional debate in this House, in particular on the budget. I know that money is very scarce, but I am very trustful of this government. It will make use of its dollar and spend it more wisely, because it is the taxpayer's dollar. Based on the experience in my riding, we have been very careful as to how we spend the dollar, and we've made sure we get the biggest bang for it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, it's good to see you in your position this morning. Thinking about your reference to the former Speaker, who was in the chamber earlier this morning, and to having been a member of the opposition back in '72-75 brought back some fond memories for me too. We were both, of course -- as you corrected yourself -- members of the government at the time. On occasion you and I had cause to challenge the government on issues. Those were good and memorable days for you and I.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Do you want to bet?
I want to take a few minutes this morning just to talk about some of the initiatives, goals and directions that are now being pursued in the Ministry of Attorney General. We have now had -- as other ministers have had -- close to a year and a half to begin to evaluate the systems and programs that are in place and to begin, through that evaluation and determination of alternatives, to make changes in a variety of areas. As I said, I want to share some of that with members of the House.
In my view, there really is a need to develop a fundamental shift in the way we deliver justice in our society. Traditionally, the justice system has been very much something the public is not part of. It has been a system run by professionals of various kinds, and the public has encountered the system only when it gets into trouble, or when family or close friends get into trouble with the law. What we're trying to do is change what is essentially a legal system to one that is truly a justice system, one that involves the community, that involves all members of society. It's clear to me, and I think clear to people who work in the system, that you can never hire enough police officers or build enough jails at the other end of the system to solve all of the problems that communities face. There isn't enough money to do that, and it would be an endless chase, in any event. We have to think about ways to involve the community in solutions, in terms of prevention of problems, and throughout the whole process in developing alternatives to traditional kinds of treatment. In our ministry we are working very actively to try to develop systems and processes and programs that open up the system to create a kind of integrated justice system that involves the people who live in the communities of British Columbia.
We're beginning that process in a number of ways, and I want to talk about some of those today. Before I do, I want to say that government, before it goes out and preaches to the public about its role and responsibility and need to be involved, must lead by example. I think we've had a tradition in British Columbia where government has not been particularly effective at leading by example in respect to justice issues -- issues involving respect for the law and involving fairness and openness -- by demonstrating trust with people.
[11:30]
As members know, last session we began a process for trying to develop some public respect for government and public institutions. We did some of that with the introduction of the freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy legislation. We did that as well with the introduction of conflict-of-interest legislation that governs members of this House, which is probably the toughest legislation in the country. This year we intend to bring to the House recommendations to extend the freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy legislation to governments beyond our own and in the community. Members know that the member for Burnaby North has been involved in a consultative process for many months, which is leading to recommendations that will come forward by way of legislation later this session, I trust. In order to allay communities' concerns -- municipalities' concerns in particular -- we have been offering assistance in training, and we have been trying to ensure that we can be as helpful as possible in making their lives easier as they move toward this more open kind of legislative framework in respect of public information.
I mentioned the conflict-of-interest legislation that governs members of the House. We are in the process, at a staff level, of trying to sort out all the issues involved in extending conflict-of-interest legislation beyond just members of this House to members of the public service and others. These are complex issues which, I think, will take some time to sort through. We will take the necessary time to ensure that we do it right, but we are continuing to move on those issues.
In my years of being an MLA, my own concerns about justice issues have related to what I perceive as a great unfairness in our society in the way the system treats aboriginal people, women and poor people in general. If I could sum up my major initiatives by slogans or by just a few words, it would be by saying that I am determined to try to help develop and shape a system which provides equitability in the justice system for all. That includes not just theoretical equitability in
[ Page 4752 ]
terms of access to the system, but equitability in terms of outcome after having been through the system. We have much to do with respect to these issues when they relate to aboriginal people, women and poor people.
In 1988 Ted Hughes delivered a report, which we're still using, that began some of the work. Earlier this year -- in fact, it was in 1992 -- Ted Hughes also delivered a report to the Law Society of B.C. dealing with gender equality in the justice system. We are taking that report seriously and developing programs and policies that come out of that committee's very excellent recommendations. Members should know that we are also involved in a working group with the federal, territorial and provincial governments on issues of gender equality in the justice system. Some of that committee's work will be dealt with at a justice ministers' meeting in Quebec City in late May.
Members know that we have tried in all government ministries to effect change with respect to composition of boards, commissions and tribunals to enable women in particular, and people of different ethnic backgrounds, aboriginal peoples and people with disabilities, to share in the decision-making that so many of these boards and commissions are involved in.
I'm particularly proud that in our ministry we have followed the same goal of trying to broaden these groups. I'll just give you an example. Cabinet has been able to make nine appointments to the Provincial Court since we were elected. Of those nine individuals appointed to the Provincial Court, five have been women. That doesn't begin to address the great imbalance that exists on the Provincial Court vis-�-vis female representation, but it does begin the process and it does send some signals about where we want to go. We've done the same thing in many of the other appointments, certainly from this ministry, where most of the appointments have had majority female composition. This changes decades -- in fact, centuries -- of representation almost exclusively by men.
We are very concerned about and are developing a number of programs to deal with violence against women. In my view, a great many of the social issues that develop in communities, a great many of the behavioural patterns we see, often among some young people, stem from what young people have learned at home. Many young people at home learn about violence as they watch their fathers beating their mothers. We don't talk about that much in our society, but it's far more common, far more prolific than many of us are prepared to admit.
Our ministry, together with the Ministry of Women's Equality, is determined to send a clear message to every British Columbian that violence against women, wherever it occurs, is a serious crime. We've issued a policy declaration -- members may want to get a copy of this -- entitled "Violence Against Women and Children." It's a policy of the criminal justice system, and part 1 is "Violence Against Women in Relationships," which is where so much of the problem begins.
We're developing a long-term anti-violence strategy that includes provision for victims, who for too long have been the forgotten element in the justice system, and treatment for offenders. For the short term, we're also developing an unequivocal approach to arresting, charging and prosecuting offenders. Men who beat their wives or their common-law spouses at home will face the full force of law in this province from here on in. These are criminal acts of violence, and we will treat them as such.
In the course of developing these kinds of policies we have a lot of education to do within the system. We're in the process of educating police, Crown counsel and social workers -- everyone who works with offenders and with victims. This policy -- outlined in this booklet -- is part of a larger policy dealing with issues of violence against women and children, and we'll continue to work with the Ministry of Women's Equality to enhance those particular programs.
I want to talk about issues in the protection of children from known abusers, an issue that has received a great deal of media attention, particularly in the pages of the Vancouver Province in recent months. I've said publicly -- and I want to repeat today here in the House -- that the government is very concerned about protecting children from sexual offenders. I think everyone would agree that protection of children in our society is paramount; their rights come first. It's a complex issue. There are no simple answers, despite the World War III-sized headlines in the Vancouver Province.
These issues cannot be solved simply by adopting the rhetorical, simple-minded solutions that some would propose. There are things that can be done, and we are proceeding to implement policies in respect of known abusers. In doing so, we have to deal with the the Charter of Rights and how it deals with individual rights as opposed to collective rights. We have to deal with the federal Privacy Act -- legislation outside our jurisdiction. And in the course of developing these policies we have to tread that line between individual and collective rights.
Yesterday a reporter asked me where I came down on the side of individual versus collective rights in respect of known abusers. If we can protect a child by trampling on some individual rights, then I'm prepared to do so. I'm prepared to say that individual rights are not paramount. In fact, collective rights, in many situations, have paramountcy. And when those collective rights can be used to effectively -- and I stress that word -- protect children, then I am certainly in favour of initiatives that may detract from individual rights as we have come to know them in this country.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I'm sure members know that the federal government is also examining these issues. Both the federal Solicitor General and the federal Justice minister have made public comments in recent weeks about the need to proceed, particularly following a nasty incident in Ontario. Since looking at the issue, I think they have pulled back a little bit from their initial rhetorical political comments. I'm sure that in examining the issue, they have learned, as we have, that you can't simply throw magic solutions at this problem. But they're working at it, and we're working at it. As I said
[ Page 4753 ]
earlier, we're going to be meeting in Quebec City later this spring, and we're going to have this item very high on our agenda. I hope to be able to present to the House during this session some further comments in more specific terms about initiatives that we may be able to take here in British Columbia, within our jurisdiction.
I was going to say, because we didn't mention a lot about it last year, just a few words about the Limitation Amendment Act that we introduced and that members both debated and voted on in the last session. This was the removal of the time limit on civil actions in respect of child abuse, so that someone who was abused as an eight- or ten-year-old, or whatever, could, on beginning to understand that issue at age 25 or whenever, proceed to take civil action. Of course, that was prohibited by law by the Limitation Act prior to last year's amendment. I must say that of all the things I was involved in in terms of legislative initiative and action last year, that's the one I feel best about, because we recognized a very serious problem and we dealt with it. All members of this House dealt with it in a very mature and appropriate way, and I think we have made a lot of women's lives a little bit better by that initiative. And we certainly opened the door for the kind of healing that can take place following actions that may or may not be chosen to be followed under civil law.
Last September, as part of my work, I spent a week at the UBCM in Vernon, as did some other members of the House. I spent the whole of this past weekend meeting with municipal councils at the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities convention in Port Hardy. Almost without exception, in those dozens of meetings at both conventions, the Young Offenders Act was raised as the major concern of local government in respect of AG issues. They all had concerns about policing costs and a variety of other things, but the problem of crime committed by young people is the issue at the top of their agenda. It is often characterized as simply a complaint about the Young Offenders Act, and it's clear there are problems with the act. Amendments are required to it, and we have been in consultation with the federal Minister of Justice -- both of them: the previous one and the current one -- about our views in respect of trying to make the act more reflective of the reality in our community and of the kind of crime now being committed, too often by young offenders. The issue is very much a priority, I think, with every community in this province, with every municipal council, and obviously with members of this House.
[11:45]
There is a perception -- and the perception is probably a little larger than the reality; nonetheless, it is still very real -- that there is a massive rate of increase in youth crime. There is certainly great devastation to our young people and our communities as a result of the certain increase not only in volume, but in the intensity and violence of youth crime. One of the issues I'm particularly concerned with is the ability to raise young offenders who commit certain crimes to adult court. That's an issue we want to spend more time talking to the federal government about; we're going to talk about it in May at the federal-provincial meeting.
Despite all of the community concern and the instinctive response of many to punish, to provide more punitive solutions and more jails, that's not the answer to this particular problem. In British Columbia we now incarcerate twice as many young people as we did when the Juvenile Delinquents Act was in place. Since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act, the rate of incarceration has doubled. I wouldn't tie the two together necessarily, because I think that society and social conditions have changed, and the rate and intensity of crime has certainly increased among young people. But contrary to much public perception, the fact is that we now jail twice as many kids. I think we jail too many, frankly.
I want us, through our ministry and our society, to find different ways of dealing with this problem of youth crime. Simply throwing someone in jail, where they can learn how to be a better criminal by watching and learning from their peers, is not necessarily a good solution. We need to find community solutions and different ways of doing community service. We need to find those not by having some uniform policy that we apply across the province, but by responding to what communities can provide. Different communities have different solutions. Certainly native communities have different solutions than non-native communities. Some rural communities will have a different solution than suburban communities in greater Vancouver. We should find a way -- and I want to find one -- to ensure that sentencing and supervision will be allowed to be conducted in appropriate ways that reflect community needs.
I want to talk for a minute about a few things that are going on. Because there has been a concern -- and properly -- about the activities of youth gangs, particularly in some of the built-up suburban and urban communities in this province, we've appointed an individual as our coordinator of youth gang programs. We actually have a program, which is working much beyond our expectations at the moment, called a youth gang contact telephone line. This is an experimental program at this stage. Young people can phone anonymously in a certain number of municipalities in the lower mainland to talk about youth gang activities and about their concerns. They will be offered some advice and assistance, and give us information, as we try to deal with the problem. This telephone contact line has been responded to in an overwhelming way, and I think it will help us to really begin to get a grip on the youth gang problem.
We are also actively encouraging communities to provide other proposals and initiatives that they think would be suitable in their community. For example, the mayor of Campbell River, in my home riding, initiated a mayors' task force on youth crime some time ago and came up with a number of recommendations to divert first-time minor offenders. It was an imaginative idea, and the criminal justice branch of my ministry in now meeting with the Campbell River people to see how we can help them develop their particular program. In the Fraser Valley, in Langley and Surrey -- and also in Kelowna, incidentally -- there's a victim-offender reconciliation program, so that victims and offenders can,
[ Page 4754 ]
where it's appropriate, desirable and agreeable, get together and, hopefully, try to persuade some of these young people of the consequences of their actions and try to deal with their behaviour in a way that is not so traditional but may well be more effective.
Again, instead of incarceration we have a wide variety of other programs, including 70 residential and non-residential attendance programs. It's cheaper and far more effective than jail. We're also working with aboriginal communities, as I indicated, to try to develop programs and procedures that are appropriate to them.
In conclusion, I want to just briefly mention that, as members know, Mr. Justice Wallace Oppal has been conducting hearings in the province in respect to policing. Just a few weeks ago he presented an interim report to me of what he's heard in the preceding months. I expect we will get his report in December. I look forward to having government consider the recommendations that Mr. Justice Oppal presents, because I think we will be able to implement some changes -- 20 years after the last major review of policing in B.C. -- that will be very useful in terms of how policing is conducted.
Members know also about the Sarich inquiry in the Chilcotin dealing with native justice issues. The relationships there -- and elsewhere in British Columbia, but particularly there -- between the aboriginal community on the one hand, and police, prosecutors, probation officers and family court counsellors on the other, have not been particularly productive and are not always amicable; there has been a great deal of difficulty. Judge Sarich is in the middle of an examination of those issues, and I hope to be able to launch some initiatives following his report.
Members know that we are now involving native people in policing. We have a tribal policing pilot project in Lillooet: six native officers who are trained through the Justice Institute, as other municipal police officers are trained in B.C. We intend to expand that initiative as well. Negotiations are now underway with the Squamish nation and the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en nation to provide similar kinds of policing services in their communities. We've also, through the RCMP, done a variety of other initiatives with First Nations. We have 47 aboriginal positions operating out of 38 detachments in B.C., and more is happening.
I was going to talk about legal aid and guardianship, but members will have an opportunity later in the session to hear discussions about both of those subjects. So I'll move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]