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)
FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 8, Number 9
[ Page 4859 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Dalton presented a bill intituled Election Finances Reform Act.
J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, for too long -- far too long -- this province has had no election guidelines or laws in place to deal with things such as who can contribute to parties and candidates in elections, disclosure of contributors, and access for the public in general to information which is very pertinent to the whole democratic and electoral process.
Just to very quickly hit the highlights, this bill will create a commission on election contributions and elections, and the records submitted to that commission will be public documents. All political parties, constituency associations and candidates, by definition in the bill, will be registered with that commission. All commission documents will be available for public disclosure. The bill sets out contribution limits and limits on advertising spending. No contributions are permissible from outside the province of British Columbia, and there are election expense limits imposed according to the number of electors on the voters' list, both provincially and within ridings. Also, audited statements of contributions must be submitted annually.
Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of the motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, all 12 members of the committee became firm advocates of health promotion as a result of the work we did on this issue of stopping the sale of tobacco to children. Your committee is recommending that the privilege of selling tobacco be lifted from any merchant who sells tobacco products to children under age 18.
One of the things we learned is that it may be possible for any child to sneak the odd cigarette. We aren't so naive as to say that children won't smoke as a result of our recommendations. But we believe that our recommendations will stop children from becoming addicted to tobacco, because access to tobacco in quantities necessary to become a pack-a-day addict cannot be had without merchants selling tobacco to minors. We are sending a clear message that no one in this Legislature, and certainly no one on our committee, is going to tolerate the sale of tobacco to minors.
I move that the report be adopted.
Motion approved.
COMMUNITIES THAT WORK TOGETHER GROW TOGETHER
V. Anderson: "Communities that work together grow together" is a theme that has arisen out of the Vancouver-Langara constituency's activities. It is a description of the reality of us being together in a changing and evolving community. I appreciate that the process is similar in every community around the province. Thus I believe it is important that we examine the implications of this process for new directions in government at the provincial level. For it should go without saying that the present process of government is currently inadequate.
To focus on the local community, any specific community, is to realize that the strength of the community is based on how well the people who live there work together to meet their common needs and desires. The strength or the health of the community involves the well-being of the individuals who live there as well as the manner in which they interrelate with each other. This is an internal process, one which is unique to each group of people living in their particular circumstance and environment. It is not a fixed process, but one which is in continuous flux. It is a process in which members should, in the final analysis, be responsible for the style and manner of their living together.
However, communities are not isolated islands unto themselves, so neighbouring communities must interact. They often overlap, so there will be conflicting demands. Processes of coordination must be developed between communities, so regional bodies come into being. The same process of interaction between regional bodies takes place, so provincial mechanisms have been developed. These mechanisms have been focused in the provincial Legislature, a body responsible for overseeing the local community members of this province. Over the years the tendency has developed to have the central Legislature -- and to a lesser extent the regional bodies -- usurp the power of the local communities, where people are the real spokespeople and decision-makers. In part, this has happened because it has been the simplest way to go, but it is also the least satisfying.
Today the demand is -- and properly so -- for communities to take back the power to decide and to act for themselves. The challenge for communities is to discover how this is possible in a modern, urban-
[ Page 4860 ]
dominated society. Also, the challenge is for centralized government to let go and become not the director of the process, but the servant of the process. Easy to say, yet difficult to do. For what it is worth, the previous Social Credit government mainly ignored this concern. The present NDP government acknowledges the concern, but strives to organize it top-down.
[10:15]
Our challenge is to do neither of these, and to instead respond to and support the individual initiatives of our varied and unique communities. However, this is not as simple as the Healthy Communities project might suggest. Even apparently homogeneous communities have great variety within them. There are internal communities by age, language, culture, occupation, religion, hobbies and interests and much more. There are formal membership communities and informal relationships, and they exist at the same time in each neighbourhood.
It is often very easy to bring together like-minded persons for a time-limited program or project. It is all but impossible to bring a majority of the community together, except perhaps for a recreation event or something like the visit by the Queen.
How, then, does the modern community work together? Do we perhaps elect a representative from each block or set of blocks to a neighbourhood council, which develops a neighbourhood plan that is interrelated with other neighbourhood plans to form a community plan, as Vancouver is attempting to do with its circle groups and discussions? This plan is the basis for cooperative living in town A, B or C, as the case may be. This is the grass roots at work; this is the group to be represented by the government in Victoria. Indeed, government members are elected from these very communities; yet most community members will know little about the representative -- apart, perhaps, from her or his name. Is the system failing to meet expectations? Many would answer yes. Is there a better way? Would it be better if representatives spent three days in Victoria, three days in the constituency and one day at rest each week? Would one be better able to be an in-touch representative, on the spot when needed? Would it be better to have one week in and one week out of the Legislature on a rotating basis the year round? The point is, if the community is to be the hub of our lives, how does a reorganized government support each community's varied needs and desires?
What is the place of computers and videophones in future planning? Will we soon be working from home workstations, rather than leaving our communities for these elaborate and costly structures in which we now meet? Will sophisticated home and workplace voting machines replace our ineffective voting here in the Legislature? We need to be future-oriented by planning now for communities 20 or 30 years from now. Let us be realistic. The debt or whatever other heritage we leave will have its effect for at least that long.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise today to respond to the member for Vancouver-Langara, with whom I've had the opportunity of working. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I share many sensibilities with him.
I want to address some of the issues he presented. I think that communities working together is of fundamental importance to how a province -- indeed, our world -- is structured. I agree that centralization is a tendency that has developed more and more as our technological society has grown. As the member said, it is the simplest way to structure our communities. However, I think that the challenge of decentralizing the communities and our society has been taken on by this government. We're facing it with a great deal of initiative and verve.
For example, the CORE process allows communities and resource groups to sit together with certain interest groups and discuss issues in a manner that is far away from this assembly. It is very much a process of decentralization, and I think the member would agree with me on that.
Often when you try to break a structure, you need some kind of hammer with a wedge, which can be perceived as coming from the top down. However, I think there are ways of approaching this with some subtlety and sensitivity from the provincial perspective. I'd like to use an example in my constituency, where the Ministry of Women's Equality asked for a certain design of political structure in the granting of funds for violence intervention on behalf of women. My community has structured a very broadly based body of representatives, which didn't fit into the description that the Ministry of Women's Equality had for this body. But through the work with my office and through their own initiative they had the opportunity of winning the Ministry of Women's Equality over to their vision of how it should be structured. I think that's an indication that this government is indeed willing to take ideas from the bottom up and allow them to be structured in that way.
Another example of how this can be done is not something this government is necessarily practising at this time, but it has to do with allowing regional districts who want to work together the opportunity to structure it -- for example, how water should be used in the Okanagan, how waste should be disposed of. Once they decide how they want to work together, we can come in with incentives in terms of reinforcing their opportunities to work together by saying: "Yes, if you do that there can be a better level of funding, different types of breaks." The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing has indicated that he wants to see funding directed towards communities on that basis. Government can play the role of moving things on in a gentle manner, and this government has, I think, made the commitment to do that.
I support the democratic process, and I believe that by our actions within the community, by our willingness to go out into the community and hold accountability sessions and speak to the communities in broadly based groups -- and we all have the opportunity to do that -- we are making the contact with our constituents that is required from us. I like what the member says when he breaks down communities into blocks and smaller areas. I think that's very important.
[ Page 4861 ]
We can fulfil those responsibilities if we step out of this place and take a high profile in our communities. Hearing the people's voice doesn't necessarily mean always having to act directly in the manner that they suggest, but we build it into our thinking and our philosophy, we bring it back to this chamber, and we can help things roll in that direction.
Finally, I want to address the member's statements about technology. I think it's very appropriate. He and I worked with the aboriginal people in the last six or seven months talking about contact at a distance, and I think the use of computers and modems and so on is a very important direction for us to go in.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I regret your time has expired.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton and his comments and support of the general trend of this suggestion.
The trend is not enough to recognize what is happening in communities and the priorities that communities must have. We also need to remember that that involves a restructuring of how we organize ourselves here in the legislative chamber. In our own particular caucus, for instance, we have organized our critic committees into two areas. One is basically for community development, which brings together health, education, social services, municipal development and Attorney General -- all of those areas that impact upon people directly within the community in which they live. On the other hand, we have a second committee which brings together agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining and economic development -- all of the areas that are resource job creation opportunities within our particular undertaking.
So we have two focuses in which we can interrelate the activities of the government, which are related to the kind of process that takes place in the local community. For too long the local community has had to relate itself to the kind of structure and organization that the Legislature and government has put forward. Therefore, by our many committees and critic roles, we have divided the community into pieces. It's time that we work in a community structure here in the Legislature, and that in responding to the community we undertake to gear ourselves so that we're open and accessible to them in the style and in the manner important to them.
We dare not continue to usurp from the communities their power and authority. We must remember that the children born in 1993 will be adults 20 years hence. It's their future we're planning for; it's not the present which is important, so much as the future. We need to be future-oriented and community-oriented in our planning and thinking, so that the people themselves will understand that they are the decision-makers, the spokespersons and the leaders.
RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
A. Cowie: My topic is the Commission on Resources and Environment. Stephen Owen, the commissioner for CORE -- which it is commonly called -- was appointed in July 1992, and the deputy is Denis O'Gorman, the former director of policy in Forests. Both of these men are widely respected by the industry, environmental groups and the community at large.
CORE has a mandate to develop and recommend a proposed strategy for land use and related resources and for environmental management for the whole province, to facilitate the development of regional planning processes, to facilitate a community-based participatory process, to develop a dispute resolution process for land use issues, and to encourage the participation of aboriginal peoples in the process that relates to the commission's mandate.
They have a staff of 18 dedicated people, who were drawn from different ministries in the same way Denis O'Gorman was drawn from Forests. They have the technical and process skills to do the job. But it's a small staff for such an enormous job. They have access to consultants if they need them for specialized work, and they can also draw on other agencies. The work has barely begun, even though it has been underway for over a year. They've gradually been getting into the participation process.
Early in the 1970s, I worked as a regional planner in private practice. I took on the management of the Cariboo regional plan. Cariboo is a very large area in the province, as you know. We barely touched on the resource industries; we concentrated mainly on the urban settlement patterns. That was certainly a less complicated task than Stephen Owen has today. That process took two years before it was approved by the province and the local regional district. We dealt with considerable detail in the settlement areas but with less detail valley by valley. There was simply no attempt to resolve resource issues. Even so, we had the full cooperation and approval of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and of resource industries at that time.
[10:30]
There are immediate concerns that I think CORE should concentrate on, such as determining which areas of the province are needed for future parks, which areas are needed for conservation and environmental purposes, and which areas are needed for working forests and mining. It seems to me that should be the main emphasis. In my opinion, the plan and the process should be largely technical, such as it was when they brought in the agricultural land reserve. As the Minister of Agriculture opposite me knows, that was primarily a technical process, and then it was fine-tuned. As I've discussed with him, it's now time to fine-tune it again after these many years. There are always areas where change takes place and where they weren't correct in the first place. I would suggest that CORE should concentrate on that task and then immediately set up a process for fine-tuning, using the consensus process that Stephen Owen is so well recognized for.
Today there are many special interests groups, and each has its own valid concerns. But it's absolutely impossible to satisfy everyone. That will never happen in the planning process. Even in the Cariboo process, it went on for two years, and there were small special
[ Page 4862 ]
interest groups that felt they weren't satisfied. I would say that in order to help CORE out, the government has a duty, at least on a couple of issues, to get on with making a decision. I recognize that it's not going to be easy and it's not going to satisfy some people. But I think the decision on Clayoquot Sound and the Tatshenshini have to be made, otherwise we're simply going to make it more difficult for Stephen Owen and the CORE process to work.
We referred the Tatshenshini to CORE for a brief report. There's already all the resource information on Clayoquot. I suggest that the government has to make a decision, which will take the heat off CORE at the present time, hopefully cool everything down as far as the environmental groups go, and we can get on with CORE doing the whole provincial process.
Parallel with that, the government has to look at the settlement patterns of this province. It's long overdue. The last settlement pattern review was in the early 1970s, by Dan Campbell. The process of looking at the settlement patterns has to be linked with the CORE process. But it's a different process, because we already have an elected structure through our municipalities and regional districts, which is coordinated through the UBCM. It's a very good organization which can work well in reviewing the settlement patterns in this province.
I personally believe we can reduce a lot of the government structure in this province if we go about it gradually, working through UBCM. I've been quoted before as saying that I think regional districts can be cut down to eight or nine, much like in the CORE process.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, your time has expired.
A. Cowie: Thank you. I'll await the response.
D. Lovick: Let me begin by thanking the member opposite for his remarks and especially for his courtesy in providing me with a copy of those remarks this morning. I think that speaks well for the way we can do business in this chamber, and I commend the member for doing so.
I appreciated his comments. I think he made some worthwhile suggestions. I hope those will be passed along to Stephen Owen, the chair of the Commission on Resources and Environment. Also, perhaps some of those other suggestions -- for example, the settlement arguments and comments -- might be raised in estimates. I'm sure various ministers within our government will be interested to hear what he had to say.
A few comments, ever so briefly, on CORE, if I might. I would draw the member's attention to a recent issue of Mining in B.C. and a letter therein from Stephen Owen, the commissioner, in which he says: "The commission's expenditures are on target and our mandate on schedule." Owen has responded to his critics, and he goes on to do so at some length, saying that yes, indeed, everything is proceeding as it ought to be. I would also draw the member's attention to the reference to the Tatshenshini -- and I agree with him that it's a major question in environmental, social and economic development terms that must be addressed. The latest word from Stephen Owen is: "The interim report was published in January 1993, and the commission will report finally in the summer of 1993." So again, I think we're on schedule.
I want now to turn to that broad and important subject the member referred to -- namely, resources and conservation. I'm especially delighted to do so, because one of the jobs I do as an MLA is serve as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Therefore I have a special interest there. We usually think of resources as consisting of three things: natural resources, human resources and financial ones. It's probably a truism to say that financial and economic resources are usually a result of the putting together of the natural and the human. When we talk about resources, I think it's safe to say that we normally mean natural resources. When we talk about conservation, that's certainly what we mean; in fact, conservation is normally defined as the official care and protection of natural resources. The first premise of that, of course, is that we need to care especially for our natural endowment, our natural resources. I don't think anybody in this chamber would dispute that. Certainly this government is committed to doing so.
I would like to use as a starting point a recent statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a collection of Nobel laureates in science for about the last 50 years. Some 80 percent of the scientists who have won the Nobel prize and are still living have joined together to issue a document they refer to as Global Warning. The opening statement of that document, which I think captures the context for all of us, reads as follows:
"Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about."
I think that's the context all of us have to grapple with. It's not some fringe element speaking; it is probably the most respectable, blue-chip voice of science that we can find. It offers a challenge to us about our common future and what we need to do.
Our government, I'm happy to report, is thoroughly committed to resource conservation. The member opposite referred to CORE and commended CORE and its activities; so do we all. I would mention also that we have in place a protected areas strategy that is committed to doubling the area of parks and wilderness in this province. The Ministry of Environment has issued something called a progress report, and if you haven't seen it, I would encourage all members here and outside the chamber to get a copy. It tells us the good things we are doing.
In short, I'm proud to say that our government is indeed committed to resource protection and conservation, and I thank the member for his comments.
[ Page 4863 ]
A. Cowie: I want to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for his kind remarks. I appreciate the comments regarding the world-scale environment. A number of members on our side are also concerned about that; we actually have one researcher who dedicates himself to the ozone layer.
I also appreciate the comments on the provincial scale. I would like, however, to go back and talk about the settlement pattern, because I think it's very important. It carries on from what the hon. member from the riding next to mine talked about this morning -- community interests and the fact that we do have to go through fundamental change. It has to happen not only on the provincial scale, because that's what CORE is all about, but also from the bottom up, which the hon. member has talked about. We have to talk about how it's going to fit in on a provincial scale. Municipal Affairs has got to get back into doing some planning and taking some strong leadership, working not only with the resource industries but with Tourism on what the settlement patterns are, and especially with Economic Development, because we are going to see resettlement in the forest industry. That's bound to happen.
We're already seeing the most valued parts of the province gobbled up by land settlement when perhaps a lot of that land should be preserved. I'm talking about up the valley: the Okanagan, Osoyoos, all those areas. Those are tourist attractions. We have to preserve the open space; we have to preserve the visual quality. We to have look at how we plan for the corridors. It's always disappointing for me each time I go up the valley. There's always another house on a farm -- there's just one more. I really feel we have to preserve that farm quality where it's the highest.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: The hon. member says that he will look after that and make sure there aren't any more homes going in there. I trust him on that account.
For instance, 15 years ago I worked up in the Okanagan, in Kelowna. I looked north of Kelowna, and as you went north of Orchard Park.... What a disaster that turned out to be! Our friends the Socreds did away with planning. I appeal to this government that when we look at the resources, we also go back and look at the similar patterns and at all the sensitive things involved if we are going to undertake this fundamental change.
A. Warnke: Point of order under standing order 25A(2). While I think we in the caucus here would like to hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- I'm certainly looking forward to it -- it is nonetheless clear that, under the standing orders, the order of presenters appearing on the order paper must be followed. I would suggest that leave be granted by the House before the member for Kamloops-North Thompson speaks.
Leave granted.
STEWARDSHIP OF WATER
F. Jackson: I appreciate the point, and I apologize for my absence earlier in the day when I should have been here.
Today I want to speak about water, and in particular about water export schemes and the diversion of the North Thompson River. Since all of our constituencies contain lakes, rivers and streams, I hope that my comments will be of more general interest. Water is a vital element for British Columbia's development and it's equally vital for our future. The availability of an adequate and usable water supply underpins our entire economy. Transportation, power generation, waste disposal, recreation, agriculture and fisheries all depend on water.
There are at least two groups of entrepreneurs who are sufficiently persuaded that Canada and British Columbia will allow the export of water to be prepared to risk private money to promote the project. One group is headed up by Mr. Frank Dale, the distinguished and dynamic American entrepreneur. Mr. Dale was President Nixon's Ambassador to the United Nations, and he is president of a foundation for water and power for North America. Mr. Dale's idea is to flood the Rocky Mountain Trench, and turn it into a giant reservoir to funnel millions of acre-feet into the parched areas of the U.S. and Mexico. That may seem to be a little far-fetched, but it is a serious consideration for Mr. Dale.
[10:45]
The other group, Multinational Water and Power, is headed up by Mr. Bill Clancey. Some members will know that Mr. Clancey was an aide to Premier W.A.C. Bennett when the Columbia River Treaty was negotiated. I do not underestimate his organizing abilities. He arranged a precedent-setting meeting between the Premier and then-President Kennedy that bypassed the Canadian federal government. Mr. Clancey cites the Columbia River Treaty he helped to negotiate as a precedent, and claims that public policy has already conceded the principle of transborder movement of water. Mr. Clancey says we should have no fears about exporting water because, after all, we have such a lot of it and it's a renewable resource.
There seems to be a curious mind-set at work there, because my constituents tell me in no uncertain terms that we have every reason to be concerned about the export of water or the diversion of our rivers. Some of them say that the water is not ours to sell, but something that we are only stewards of and an integral element of our survival -- as are the air, the sun and the soil.
First Nations view water as the life force of their nations. The aboriginal people of the North Thompson Valley are strongly opposed to water diversion. They always stress that our relationship to water is one of stewardship rather than one of ownership. Chief Nathan Matthew has appeared in various forums, including CBC-Radio coast to coast, saying exactly that. And he says that water and life cannot be separated and that his people's lives depend on the water of the North Thompson River. Even the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce has taken a position officially opposed to
[ Page 4864 ]
water exports and the river diversion. Like Chief Matthews, part of their concern is that the city's well-being depends on the North Thompson, too. Some of my constituents point out that Ethiopia used to be the breadbasket of the world, with lots of productive and irrigated land. I don't think anybody's got any idea of Ethiopia being the breadbasket of the world today.
Still others suggest that Mr. Clancey should pay some attention to Owens Lake, which I think is east of Los Angeles. It is now almost completely dry. The reason it's dry is that in 1930 the city of Los Angeles bought the rights to the Owens River. Then, as now, money was scarce, and the people of central California were very happy with the revenue that they received. But they were most unhappy when Owens Lake dried up. Having destroyed Owens Lake, they saw the levels in Mono Lake begin to drop, affecting the towns along its shore. It took ten years and a state election to stop the environmental damage and to limit Los Angeles's ability to draw water from the Owens River.
There are lots of people who say these schemes will never come to pass. The federal Tories in Kamloops tell me that the federal International Trade minister, Michael Wilson, says it will never happen. He said in the House of Commons that section 7 of the NAFTA, the implementing legislation, takes precedence over the terms of the actual agreement. I have no idea what the court of international law would make of that, but there certainly are other opinions on it.
Canadian resource economist Ms. Wendy Holm certainly doesn't agree with it. Ms. Holm observed that water is a tradeable commodity under both the free trade agreement and NAFTA, and that once the tap is turned on you can't turn it off. Mr. Bill Clancey and Mr. Frank Dale were betting big bucks that the tap would be turned on. Mr. Dale just organized a conference in Los Angeles to discuss his project, and it was seen that neither he nor Bill Clancey are persuaded by the federal government's assurances. So why should we be? British Columbia asked that water be exempted from NAFTA, and we were disappointed -- some would say betrayed -- by the federal government.
There is a risk to Canadian sovereignty in water exports. When he spoke to our caucus sustainable development committee, Dr. Ehor Boyanowsky of Simon Fraser put it this way: "The risk that Canada is seen as the source of water to support U.S. cities, industries and farms would become a national issue -- in fact, a national security issue."
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Unfortunately, your time has expired.
C. Serwa: I sincerely thank and appreciate the member for Kamloops-North Thompson bringing this very important issue forward and to a higher profile. It's a major issue in British Columbia. We're certainly not short of an abundant water supply; the west coast of British Columbia receives an enormous amount of water. And really, water is one of the strongest and greatest of the natural resources that we enjoy in this particular province.
I thought that the reference to stewardship of water was an important statement. The word "steward" says a great deal; it implies an incumbent responsibility to perhaps utilize the interest on a resource but to not utilize the principal. I truly think this applies to water in British Columbia. The member is certainly correct that water is the source of all life. The member is also correct to recognize native concerns and their recognition of water's importance. But it goes beyond that. All British Columbians are exceedingly concerned about the future and the need for conservation of an abundant water supply, even in this province. W.A.C. Bennett was a great advocate of the development of hydroelectricity and of creating economic opportunities for people in the interior. But he was not an advocate of exporting water.
As the Minister of Environment, I brought in a moratorium on the handling of bulk water export licences because of the number of issues that were reaching a high level of concern: the drought situation in the state of California; enormous pressures and demands to export water, albeit from coastal streams, but obviously from an interior bulk water source as well. I brought that in because of the complexities involved, situations that would change the ecosystem and a lot of dimensions that we were not aware of.
Certainly the bilateral trade negotiations indicated a number of things that I in the Okanagan had a great deal of concern about. If we sold water on an international market, we would have to sell that water on the domestic market at the same price. The Okanagan members could not afford that. The entire Okanagan agricultural industry depends on our water resources. So there were a number of complicating factors, some to do with free trade, with actual volume -- and with the concept of stewardship.
I took the opportunity to travel privately to California, and I met with officials from the Goleta water board. I saw what they had done with the refusal and with the high cost of desalination projects, although they have gone in that direction. They had utilized conservation principles: the recycling of used water to irrigate lawns, parks and sports fields; reducing the quantity of water required by better and more effective management -- for example, in irrigation; and to some degree, implementing restrictions on actual water use by residents in that particular area.
With the variability of water cycles, we will always be faced with the challenge that there will be a demand. But I'm very confident that if we use our water to generate hydroelectric power, to strengthen our agricultural opportunities, to attract more individuals, more industry and more commerce, and to strengthen the economy of this province, then we'll be utilizing our resources very wisely.
The Carter report is in the hands of the government and the Minister of Environment for action. I hope that the recommendations to be implemented by this government are such that they severely restrict any water exports from British Columbia. It's in the hands of this government now, but I feel very strongly -- as obviously the member for Kamloops-North Thompson does -- about the export of bulk water shipments from
[ Page 4865 ]
surface water sources, be they rivers or lakes. There is some question about the coastal waters, and there are ecological studies going on to see what the impact there will be.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to that private member's statement.
F. Jackson: Hon. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Okanagan West for his support today. The member, coming from the Okanagan Valley, and I, from Kamloops, are very much aware of what happens to a country when water becomes scarce. We live in the semi-arid area of this province. One need only travel from here to Kamloops and turn the corner at Lytton in order to see the difference that natural irrigation makes. Boston Bar is almost rain forest, and Kamloops is almost desert. That is the difference that water makes.
We need the utilization of our water to be considered very carefully, as the member for Okanagan West said. We have to consider that that utilization must first be within the borders of British Columbia. I think we must resist the pressure on us to export this water. Looking at our history, the member mentioned the generation of electricity. Two of our major environmental problems -- concerns, anyway -- are caused by the Kemano project of Alcan and the Columbia River system for power generation. I think that any future tampering with water in the province has to be considered very carefully before we get into that kind of situation again. We're still dealing with the effects of Kemano 40 years later. I would hate to think that the decisions we make in this House as government are going to cause concern for the citizens of the province 40 years from now.
Although the larger project is still very much a dream for the future, the idea of diverting the North Thompson River is very close to us. I'm glad that the member for Okanagan West has supported me in keeping the profile of the issue very high, so that the public is always concerned about it, this House is concerned about it and our government is concerned about it. I will take this opportunity to send a message through the House to our government that our constituencies and our members share that concern.
[11:00]
EXTRA BILLINGS BY PHYSICIANS
P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House about extra billing being done by a small number of physicians in Prince George. I want to begin by illustrating what extra billing means with a couple of true stories.
This January a 55-year-old woman in Prince George went to see her orthopedic surgeon about a knee-replacement operation. She suffers from very serious arthritis, has great difficulty walking and had been waiting for surgery -- sometimes in severe pain -- for over a year. She had originally been scheduled for knee surgery last April, but the operation had to be delayed while she underwent chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer. Her cancer was under control, and her wait was near an end -- or so she thought. However, her orthopedic surgeon had chosen to opt out of medicare in early January and was now charging extra fees for his services. The surgeon's staff told the patient that she would have to pay a fee of $570, in addition to the fees which would be collected through the Medical Services Plan. She was also told that she would have to pay this fee in advance, before her surgery took place. She is amazed and distraught. She told the surgeon straightforwardly that she just didn't have that sort of money. After further discussion, she was told that her surgery had been rescheduled -- possibly for April. She can't prove that this further delay was caused by her inability to pay, nor does she know for sure whether or not she's going to get an additional bill from this surgeon. Be thankful that you aren't facing knee-replacement surgery in Prince George.
Another woman in Prince George has been seeing her physician for several months about a far happier condition. She is pregnant and expecting the birth of her child in early May. Her family physician of some seven years told her in January, five months into her pregnancy, that he had decided to opt out and extra-bill. He had her sign an agreement giving his billing agency the power of attorney to collect and endorse cheques paid by the Medical Services Plan. You may be amazed, but signing such forms is standard practice for patients of opted-out physicians in Prince George.
She was told by her physician that from now on there would an extra fee of $10 for each prenatal visit. Once she expressed anger at this, the fee was reduced to $5 per visit, but in addition, she was told that she'd be billed an extra $72 for the delivery of her child. What had been a happy pregnancy for her is now tinged with anger. She feels that her doctor's decision to opt out isn't hurting him at all. She told me the patient is the one who is losing out.
I'm sure that some members of this assembly are amazed by these stories. After all, didn't the Canada Health Act ban extra billing in 1984? Well, sort of. The federal government will deduct fees for extra billing from its transfer payments to the province, and physicians enrolled in the Medical Services Plan are prohibited from extra billing by the laws of British Columbia. But nothing in those laws explicitly prohibits extra billing by physicians who have chosen to opt out of the Medical Services Plan. A small number of physicians have decided to crawl through that legal loophole and harass their patients with extra fees.
They say that they are protesting the dispute between the BCMA and this government, but civil protest usually involves some sacrifice of time, money or energy by the protester. People who demonstrate on the steps of our Legislature usually pay the costs of their travel and accommodation when they come here to make their point, and strikers forfeit their regular wages. But the only sacrifice these extra-billing physicians are making is the sacrifice of their patients.
They say that they must charge these extra fees -- administration fees, they call them -- to make up for the government-paid malpractice insurance, education fund and disability fund, which they lost when they opted out of the Medical Services Plan. I say that the taxpayers of this province, including their patients, have already paid for those fringe benefits once; they
[ Page 4866 ]
shouldn't have to pay for them again. If physicians want to opt out in protest, they should at least have the guts to pay for the consequences of their action. They can certainly afford to do so much better than most of their patients.
I want to make it clear that only a small number of physicians have chosen this avenue. Only 17 physicians in Prince George have opted out of the Medical Services Plan, and not all of them are extra-billing. For most physicians, the dispute with the BCMA has not affected their relationship with their patients; they have not allowed it to. But a small number of physicians in Prince George are acting in a way which, I believe, is contrary to the intent of the Canada Health Act, to the expectations of the public who pay for health care and, in some cases, to the ethical code of their own profession.
My office in Prince George has been contacted by numerous patients who are incensed at being charged what they see as exorbitant fees by physicians who sometimes seem to have no regard or concern for their ability to pay. Their extra billing, though legal, is ethically reprehensible and professionally disgraceful. For the sake of their profession and their reputation, they should stop.
D. Symons: I rise in response to the statement of the member for Prince George North, and I thank him very much for his comments.
I'm sure there are many people in the province who are badly disadvantaged by the fact that doctors have opted out of the Medical Services Plan, and are disadvantaged even further by those doctors that are doing extra billing. Extra billing is not a position that's supported by the official opposition; however, I can well understand the frustration many physicians in this province are feeling in their attempts to deal with this government.
Physicians in this province have been working without a master agreement for 12 months. This week these same physicians presented to the Premier some 400,000 signatures from British Columbians who are equally frustrated with this government's inability to make a decision about the future of medicare.
Medical Services Plan billings currently allow for an education benefit, as well as coverage under the Canadian Medical Protective Association, and I wish to elaborate on these two issues. First, extra billing refers to physicians who bill above the Medical Services Plan schedule. As the member mentioned, it's a very small number that are doing that. The majority that have opted out of the Medical Services Plan are simply billing the amount they would receive if they had belonged to the plan. Secondly, the opted-out physicians are physicians who have elected not to bill through the Medical Services Plan an addition to the fees charged to their patients. These physicians have elected to bill their patients an administrative fee -- which was referred to -- to allow for an education benefit and for the coverage of the Canadian Medical Protective Association. These are different scenarios that must be understood as such.
Physicians in this province are looking for a commitment from this government to a process of dispute resolution. This is the problem that is occurring in this province. They need a firm, fair process of dispute resolution. On the one hand, New Democrats deem a contract not to have existed, and Bill 14 is just one example. On the other hand, they commit to mediation and binding arbitration, as in the current contract with some health care providers.
I want to see this government commit to consultation and process for every British Columbian, not to the hammer approach used in the first session with the introduction of the draconian measures of Bills 13 and 14, then replacing Bill 13 with an equally heavy-handed Bill 72. Hammer first and then offer to negotiate is not the proper approach to negotiations. It's time to value every British Columbian for the work they perform. Medicine is an honourable profession, and it is time this government approached every health care provider with equal respect.
P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments. He is quite right. This situation affects a very small number of physicians. Of the some 6,500 physicians in the province, only 66 have so far chosen to opt out of the Medical Services Plan, and only 17 in Prince George. I might note, however, that 17 in Prince George is equivalent to the number who opted out in all of Vancouver, including Richmond. I think the member might feel a little differently if his constituents were affected to the extent that mine are.
The member asks for a firm, fair process. I believe that we have such a process. This Legislature is explicitly charged with setting the budget for doctors' fees, and that is appropriate and right. We have also offered a variety of concessions in negotiations with them, and I hope that that can be resolved. The member also refers to Bill 14 as if it had become law. Perhaps the member is unaware that that legislation was withdrawn.
Finally, the member refers to what he calls a hammer approach. Well, I'm not sure what hammer he means. If he means legislation to ban extra billing, that would not be unique in this country. Legislation to ban extra billing was passed in Manitoba and Nova Scotia in the mid-eighties. It allowed physicians the right to opt out of the provincial health plan, but it also prohibited them from extra billing above and beyond fees set in the provincial schedule. Quebec has always banned extra billing, in case the member is unaware, since the time of their original health act in 1970. If extra billing occurs, neither the physician nor the patient may be reimbursed in any way by the government plan. Alberta and Saskatchewan have also adopted such legislation.
In short, extra billing is not normal or expected in Canada. The Minister of Health in this government has clearly and repeatedly warned physicians across the province and in Prince George that if she finds extra billing is presenting a barrier to access to health care, legislation will be introduced to ban it. I hoped that the member opposite would pay a little more attention to the concerns of the citizens in Prince George, rather
[ Page 4867 ]
than to the physicians. I found very little compassion in his statement and much rhetoric.
I want to close with one more example of what's going on in my city. Patients at Prince George Regional Hospital may be faced with additional fees for anaesthetists of up to $135. While only one anaesthetist has opted out so far, patients don't know whether he will be attending at their operation until they check in. So bring your wallet to the hospital. One patient recently checked in for surgery, and she drew the opted-out anaesthetist. Although that person saw her in surgery the day before, he didn't ask her to sign the consent form until the next day after she had already received her pre-operative relaxant shot. That is disgraceful.
Throne Speech Debate
(continued)
H. Giesbrecht: Yesterday I began my address by commenting on the throne speech and on how difficult it would be not to respond to some of the comments by the opposition. I commented on the previous government's neglect and how that affected the decisions and challenges that we face. I haven't said much about the official opposition, so allow me to proceed with my comments.
The official opposition is in the unique situation where they can claim to be innocent, but they are also naive. That naivety shows every day. In listening to their comments, there seem to be many contradictions. They want to spend more and to cut taxes; they want government to move faster on a lot of issues, but they want government to consult. They talk about 60-year plans. They want government to consult the public, but they want us to do it quickly -- overnight, if possible. To them, all decisions are simply a matter of running on both sides of the political fence and trying to be all things to all people. When you ask them what their decisions would be, they give the excuse that the opposition's role is to criticize, not to offer solutions. If this government paid heed to their comments, B.C. would likely be in the same mess as their party is. Fortunately, under strong leadership, B.C. is doing better than the other provinces. B.C. deserves more than the hypocrisy of an official opposition still searching for a political power which will give them some credibility.
[11:15]
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I watched in amazement yesterday as the Minister of Forests attempted to provide information in response....
W. Hurd: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. This is a fascinating debate, but I'm struggling to find any reference to the throne speech in the member's comments. I welcome any direction from the Chair.
Deputy Speaker: I would just remind the member that we're on the throne speech debate. Would the hon. member please continue.
H. Giesbrecht: Speaking on the throne speech, I watched in amazement yesterday as the Minister of Forests attempted to provide information to a question that was asked by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, and the member refused the information. I couldn't believe it. It was the first real example that I've seen in this House of "my mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts." The same member refers to other members of this House with words like "smug" and "arrogant." It occurred to me that it was a little like the pot calling the kettle black. The challenges facing B.C. are real, and this government has the courage, as written in the throne speech, to make the tough decisions necessary to ensure a strong economic future.
In debating the throne speech last year I commented on the situation in the community of Kitwanga. The mill's been shut down for most of three years. The previous administration, at its shortsighted worst, allowed an overcapacity of processing facilities in the area with a declining wood supply. To make matters even worse, the previous administration gave timber which had been destined for the mills in the Hazelton-Kitwanga area to Prince George firms. Three years of unemployment have put many on income assistance who had never experienced it before, let alone the social problems that result from lack of employment in a small village. No single issue in Skeena has torn at me more in the past 18 months than the issue of the workers, the community and the affected families. This is an example of a problem that was made much worse by the continuing neglect and poor decisions of the previous administration. They created the problem; this government will accept the challenge.
For the past six months or more a senior adviser from the Economic Development ministry has been working with the Gitwangak band council and employees of the mill. They've completed a short-term/long-term viability study of the mill itself. They've completed an industrial adjustment strategy that looks at employment options and retraining for the workers. The solutions are not easy. Forest areas are being removed from harvesting, and the AAC is being reduced. We're by no means out of the woods -- or should I say in the woods? -- on this challenge, but it is a classic example of the previous government's neglect and this government's accepting of a challenge from local groups to try to build a better local economy.
The throne speech mentions "a new initiative of strategic investments in people, our regions and key sectors to begin immediately and expand over the long term." It goes on to talk about "expansion and diversification of our private sector economy for the twenty-first century." Finally, it states: "We must move in partnership to create new training opportunities for our current workforce and prepare our workers for tomorrow." I look forward to the introduction of the legislation and the programs that deal with this issue.
The Throne Speech says: "First and foremost, this government is making the difficult decisions necessary to control spending growth and cap the deficit." It must seem odd to British Columbians that this is necessary. For years they've been sold the myth of the previous administration's financial wizardry. It must seem even
[ Page 4868 ]
stranger that the purveyors of the BS fund would now offer financial advice.
The official opposition has developed its own form of fiscal reality. They want to spend more one day, yet cut spending the next. They deny the recent report of the C.D. Howe Institute which confirmed what we've been saying all along about federal off-loading of costs. But then, of course, their universe started the day they got elected. They offer B.C. more warm fuzzies, more platitudes. If they would consider carefully and read the throne speech, they'd see that we are slowly but surely keeping the promises we made to all British Columbians in our pre-election 48-point platform. We're doing it by cleaning up the mess left behind and by keeping the most important promise of all: we're doing it within the means of British Columbians.
Spending growth is a little like a moving train. The official opposition would have us stop it on a dime or let it hit a brick wall, and then criticize us for the carnage that would result -- the damage to the economy, the injury to people, the dislocation in their lives. The opposition wants us to cut all spending to equal the revenue today. But then if you listen carefully, they want us to spend extra -- to move the train ahead a little bit for their special causes.
How would a sudden, overnight, dramatic reduction in spending to where it matches revenue affect the economy? How would the resulting massive unemployment stimulate economic activity? This government has the courage to deal with government spending in a balanced way. It also has the courage to deal sensitively with people who are subjected to change when forces over which they have no control affect their lives. It takes courage to seek an accord with labour groups in the implementation of change, as this government has done with the HEU. It takes courage to make the changes in a reasonable, balanced way.
I recently had a discussion with a constituent about the province's financial situation and taxation. She said: "I know the province's financial situation is not good, and I know this government isn't responsible, but I still resent having to pay to clean up the mess." I think she reflects a common sentiment: no one likes to pay more -- no matter what the reason, how important the cause or who is to blame. But failure to deal with the tough issues would risk B.C.'s future and its long-term economic stability.
The throne speech ensures that medical care is a very high priority. The federal government's continual off-loading of health care costs compels us to make changes in service delivery. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Health announced that Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace would receive operating funds for a CT scanner. The local R.E.M. Lee Hospital Foundation has raised the $610,000 for the equipment. No longer will residents in the northwest be required to travel to Prince George, 400 miles away, or to fly to Vancouver to access a service that most people in the lower mainland take for granted and maybe drive a half-hour to access. This government has recognized the additional costs to the individual who needs the service, and it will now provide the service closer to home for people in the northwest. We're meeting the challenge, while the opposition continues to demand that things stay the same in health care in B.C. -- that we keep the same hospitals in the same places, never mind cost-efficiencies.
The Health minister also announced that Kitimat would receive a new health centre, a one-stop-shopping health facility which would encompass an acute care, multi-level extended care, community health facility -- final cost, $27 million. It will replace a costly, outdated building. The result will be cost savings over the long term and better-quality health care, again closer to home and with a focus on prevention. This government is meeting the challenge.
The previous announcements in Terrace and Kitimat were made possible through the dedicated work of many local citizens, hospital board trustees, doctors, nurses and HEU workers. But I need to pay particular tribute to Bill and Helene McRae, who were the driving force behind the R.E.M. Lee Hospital Foundation, which raised the funds. I also want to thank a constituent, David Lane, who first bent my ear on the need for a CT scanner. Through some of his efforts, we've managed to get the Ministry of Health to do something about our request. I am pleased that this government has recognized their initiatives and, within the recommendations of the Seaton commission report, has shown the courage to support the local health care providers.
The throne speech addresses the government's continued commitment to resolve land use disputes. These conflicts have discouraged economic activity and created a very difficult financial climate for many British Columbians. Compared to any other issue but provincial finances, this issue is more serious and the passion more intense because of the cowardice of the previous administration. It's more of a serious issue in ridings like Skeena. The depth of frustration felt by people on both sides of the land use conflict is a legacy that we have inherited; the challenge is greater because of it. Today the passion in the debate over land use has intensified. As forest lands are removed from harvest, and as we have AAC reductions to encourage sustainable yields in our forest, people are finding themselves out of work. Mills are closing. Why? Much of this was predicted ten years ago. Tough decisions will have to be made -- decisions that are reasonable.
A few days ago, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock suggested that the unruly behaviour during the opening session was "nevertheless instructive" because "it represents yet another interest group of British Columbians -- no matter how unruly, violent or misguided -- who feel betrayed." He attempts to excuse the actions. I want to deplore the excuse offered by the member. No acceptable excuse exists. Exploiting the actions of those few for whatever purpose is crass, cheap politics; it legitimizes the actions of the few and demeans the many who feel passionately about the same issue. No matter how frustrated one may be, nothing excuses the contempt for the very institution which protects the right of lawful expressions of frustration, i.e., protests.
If you want to know how intense the emotion is on the other side of this equation, talk to a worker who is about to lose his or her livelihood. Talk to them about
[ Page 4869 ]
anxiety for the future of their families. They too have protested. They make their case passionately and with resolve. They make it rationally, and more often than not, they show the courage to change when change is necessary.
Not two hours after the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock spoke, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour stated that the issue has been around for ten years. The understanding that delayed decisions are more difficult ones is lost on the opposition. Once they are made more complicated by neglect, it requires courage to make decisions that are good for the long term.
Skeena has its own potential conflict area: the Kitlope Valley, apparently one of the last untouched temperate rainforests in the world. I say potential conflict because there is still time on this issue. Both sides are talking; both sides are being reasonable. The progress, albeit slow, is a credit to the Haisla people, the traditional inhabitants of the valley, and Eurocan, which holds the cutting rights to the timber.
The throne speech mentions economic revitalization of the regions. In the last few days, the opposition has criticized Economic Development ministry initiatives to get some of its people out of Victoria and into the regions. The interim Leader of the Opposition even ridiculed the concept of regional economic development officers. Apparently the opposition is more comfortable with leaving things as they were: a provincial economy fuelled by raw resources from the north and the interior, and directed by and for the benefit of the lower mainland. Economic revitalization is an important issue for us in the north, and we in the northwest were pleased to receive five community regional economic development officers, one regional economic development director and a regional manager. Before that change, we had one economic development officer for everything from Hazelton to Haida Gwaii and north to the Yukon border. I'm pleased that the Economic Development ministry is looking at changes which will help ensure a solid economy in the northwest.
The opposition has even criticized the throne speech for what is not in it. The throne speech is short and concise. We only wish the ranting of the opposition was equally concise. If we on this side of the House are to be criticized for the absence of platitudes in the throne speech, then the opposition can at least take comfort in having provided all the platitudes and rhetoric that anyone would want. The throne speech gives the important directions: (1) get our financial house in order; (2) build a stronger economy -- that's jobs, hon. members; (3) resolve land use conflict, and that includes the land claims issue; and (4) make health care a priority. How could anyone disagree with these?
[11:30]
The throne speech also mentions the introduction of a treaty commission act and of an environmental assessment act. It talks about ensuring that polluters clean up contaminated sites. It talks about making government accountable at every level. It talks about abolishing direct ALR appeals to the cabinet. It talks about extending the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and so on. The throne speech sets a course, and the budget and future legislation will provide the details.
If we are going to deal with the future, it will truly take courage to change. The doomsday crew in the opposition can criticize all they like, because that's their job. It's probably also the only thing they will ever be able to do. It reminds me of the old adage: those who can, do; those who can't, sit in opposition. They have no vision or courage and, now, no permanent leadership and no sense of direction. They can get stuck in an elevator, when the only two directions are up and down.
Let me say one more time that this government will meet the challenge which will take us into the twenty-first century. We're making the changes necessary to lay the groundwork for a stronger economy. This government has the courage to make the tough decisions which will benefit all British Columbians in the long term. That is why I'm pleased to support the throne speech.
V. Anderson: It is my privilege to reply to the Speech from the Throne. However, the vagueness of what was promised makes it difficult to reply directly. Further, the presentations of the mover and seconder, plus all of those who have spoken from the government side, for the most part, did not help. The grandiose nature of their comments about the actions of this government left me wondering if we were referring to the same province. I listened to the throne speech. Having heard the government members' comments, I reflect that someone is in need of humility. Indeed, all of us from time to time need to eat humble pie.
Let us be realistic. The mood in British Columbia today is, at best, apprehensive. The frustration experienced at the Legislature during last Thursday's demonstration was a symbol of that. For many, the foreseeable future holds no bright promises. The unemployment rate is extremely high, with no prospects of an immediate turnaround. Those who have the need of advanced education find that there are no college or university openings. If there were openings, they could not afford to attend. People in jobs have no guarantee about tomorrow or even next week. The uncertainty about forest usage and mining opportunities means that companies are slow to expand or invest. Research and development programs are diminishing, instead of expanding to meet technological change. Our leading edge is being lost.
We are still regarded as a have province, but in reality it is a have-less province for many of our children and their parents. The anguish of many who contact the constituency office is heartrending. They are caught up in bureaucratic miscommunication and administrative doubletalk. The wheels of injustice grind ever so relentlessly. Newspaper reports remind us of the increasing financial demand on the provincial treasury. What they fail to report is the immeasurable amount of pain and suffering which is hidden behind those figures. We look at the clearcut forests and are outraged. But this is nothing compared to the ravage to the lives of children and youth who do not have the opportunity to reach full maturity. Environmental
[ Page 4870 ]
pollution, as dreadful as it is, is nothing compared to the devastation faced by those who have nowhere to live except on the streets, under the bridge or by the roadside.
Some two weeks ago I met with a representative of SKIDS -- some of the street people in downtown Vancouver who last winter undertook to turn themselves around. They asked only for the freedom and support to develop their own plans, and literally and figuratively they were frozen out. In that cold, weather that froze the pipes in our own house, they stayed all night in their office in order to keep warm, and as a result were evicted. The office was not licensed to be slept in, even in frigid winter weather.
They had a developmental plan, but it didn't fit with the status quo. They tried to cooperate with the government system, but the system couldn't cooperate with them. They were forced back on the streets. We failed them.
Time and again on behalf of constituents, I have attempted to open communication lines and failed. But worst of all, those seeking assistance were often left with the feeling that they didn't matter. The system, not the people, came first. Regulations were more important than persons. I personally phoned one ministry about a case and was told that it was the responsibility of another ministry. Dutifully I phoned the other ministry and was referred back to the first. Only when I insisted that A talk to B did they finally get together to work on it.
Just this week I received a report that the number of complaints about disrespectful treatment of Human Resources clients is currently higher than ever, even though a directive has gone out from the minister responsible that clients are to be treated with respect at all times. The report indicated that though it was bad under Social Credit, it has now become worse than ever. Why the difference between policy and action? I hasten to say this was not the fault of the workers but the fault of the system and the environment in which they are forced to work. It is not easy to continually have to refuse the needs of people for consignments of food, for beds or clothing or for prescriptions and medical needs. The devastated workers bear a pain that few understand.
At best the throne speech refers to symptoms rather than causes. The throne speech also makes only passing reference to multiculturalism and human rights and nowhere mentions responsibilities -- which must be the basis on which human rights are founded. We live in a new era of multiculturalism, to which no reference is made in the throne speech. This is the era, for lack of a better term, of dual or multiracial personalities.
A recent survey reported by the Vancouver Sun indicated that 35 percent of the population -- the largest section of our population -- are of dual or multiracial descent. That is, they are not Caucasian or Asian; they are Caucasian-Asian, Asian-Caucasian or some other mix. What is our planning for a country in which everyone is part of a visible minority? This is not something for the future; it is here and now.
In many classrooms the visible minority is the white Anglo-Saxon. That is good, for it reflects more accurately the real world in which we live. However, the throne speech does not reflect this dynamic change, nor does it appear to respond to the opportunities open to us because of this change. True, the shipping companies of the world are reported to be setting up headquarters in Vancouver. What social and cultural planning has been done to make this change both economical and socially successful?
I cannot fail to comment on the travesty of the proposed health care regimentation now being forced upon an unsuspecting public. I have nearly 2,000 letters in my constituency office protesting the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital, which impacts upon my constituency. Shaughnessy Hospital is a place I often visited in my former profession. It's a health care institution that has earned great respect. The clear-cut policy by which it is being treated is unworthy of this government. It is a contradiction of the social principles of this government's social heritage.
I understand the social system implied by community health care centres as outlined in social health policy. It was called "state medicine" back in the 1940s in Saskatchewan. Indeed, it was the topic of my oratorical competition in grade 12. It was to me then, as now, a proposal that had many sound elements. But it was not a proposal that destroyed one good to develop another, that sacrificed one principle to support another. It was a proposal that interrelated and integrated many different units into a cohesive whole.
With all their validity, community health centres do not stand on their own. They must be part of a integrated, interacting system, the nucleus of which is what we have in Shaughnessy. It may be modified and rationalized as part of a comprehensive plan. It must not be destroyed.
Further, in one of the most drastic events to occur in the Vancouver community, who in this community was consulted? The staff at all levels of the hospital say they were not consulted, the patients were not consulted and the community was not consulted. In checking with a member of the city council, I discovered it has not been on their agenda. How come? In reports from other parts of the province, we hear the same story. Boards of hospitals are being fired and replaced by government administrators. The people of these communities are also left out of the planning process. Who pays the final bill? Those not consulted, of course.
The history of this government provides the context in which one reads the current throne speech. History indicates a misdirected use of community consultation. I commend the government for initiating a more open opportunity for citizens that they may have input concerning their needs and wishes. However, where I break ranks with the government is when they take the results of those consultations and selectively interpret the findings to support their preconceived ideology. They then develop a plan and set to implement it without further consultation, and in the process they anger those they supposedly consulted in the first place.
[11:45]
This government does not seem to realize that once one opens dialogue, it must continue. It is ongoing, and
[ Page 4871 ]
every new action must be seen as a continuing part of the process. One cannot simply dismiss the consultants with a thank-you. They are the owners of the ideas and must now be part of the implementing team. They have not been so considered.
Just look at the facts. Those most active in challenging the government are often those who worked hardest to bring it into being. When we object, the reply comes back that we don't know what we are talking about. The implication is that only the government knows what is right and proper and what is good for the rest of us. I humbly beg to disagree. The people must always maintain the right to speak and to act for themselves. We must maintain the right to choose -- not once every four or five years but continually -- the manner of our political lifestyle. Thus the ongoing responsibility of government is to listen to the people and to respond accordingly.
I maintain that this government is not doing this. It appears that this government takes the election of 1991 as a mandate to rule, regardless of public opinion, for the next five years. This was not the mandate; the mandate was to exercise leadership for the people. A dictator rules; a democratic government governs. What is the history of the present government? Its history is to pass laws that dictate the conditions by which we the subjects live and to abolish the opportunity to appeal. This is not the way to govern in a democratic state. No wonder the citizens are restless.
Democracy, as we know so well, is a fragile instrument by which to govern our lives. Men, women and children give their lives to fight for and to maintain democracy. A democracy has to be built upon open and honest communication and on the trust that what one says, one will do. When trust is lost, then apprehension, fear and revolution result.
The March 17th report of the B.C. Youth Advisory Council, a non-partisan advisory board, issued a report card on the government after studying five issues of key importance to the province's youth. In part, the report states: "Council members gave the government the following grades based on its performance since being elected in 1991: student and youth employment, C minus; advanced education, D; youth and environment, C minus; amendments to the Infants Act, B plus; amendments to the child protection legislation, Incomplete." In less than 18 months this government has managed to axe the Environment Youth Corps, virtually eliminate funding for student summer employment and renege on a promise to freeze tuition fees.
Dean Crawford, council chairperson, asked what kind of signal this type of agenda sends to young British Columbians. "As young people, we are constantly being told that we are the future leaders of this province," said council vice-chair, Heather Workman. "Yet when push comes to shove, this government is unwilling to make the investment necessary to help us prepare for the challenge ahead." Crawford said: "It's a sad commentary on the state of our society when government attacks the jobs, education and environmental interests of young people in order to meet its fiscal objectives."
In the last session of the Legislature we spent many hours on a labour bill. One key element in that bill was to take away the opportunity for workers to have the right to vote either for or against certification of a union. The loss of this right is a sign and symbol of the trend of this government to undercut the very basis of our democratic government. This process is further portrayed in the strong suggestions that lands and rights, once held, be appropriated by government without compensation, or that landowners paying taxes in certain communities should not have the right to vote.
This trend is very serious, for if this government does not understand the implications of what they are doing and are not willing to learn, then it is like a train rolling down a hill without any brakes or brakeperson -- a catastrophe. However, if this government does understand what it is doing and thus is consciously moving step by step to a certain kind of controlled society by a certain chosen group, then the situation is even worse.
As I read the Speech from the Throne, and as I review the actions of the legislation of this government, I find two conflicting results. On one hand, they speak loudly for human rights -- a commendable direction -- but fail to balance it with responsibility. On the other hand, the exercise of regulations and legislation in ever-broadening areas curtails the rights which we have long held dear.
Whereas the previous Social Credit government put us in an imbalance to the right, the present government puts us in an opposite imbalance to the left. On the scales of real justice, the balance must never be shifted to the right or the left. This is a democratic reality. I do not find this balance reflected in the throne speech now before us, and I am very concerned.
Another concern is that perhaps all sides of the Legislature have failed to think seriously about our common need to build a future for our children and to evaluate all of our actions against this need.
Reflecting on this century, which is fast coming to a close, is very sobering. In Canada the first 14 years were a time of pioneering from coast to coast. Indeed, in Saskatchewan where I grew up, we only became a province in 1905. The country was wild and untamed. From 1914 to 1918 and on to 1920, we had the first great world war, with all its calamities. There were a few years of recovery and then came the great Depression of the thirties, with social upheavals not seen since. Out of this came the Second World War of 1939-45 with its devastations. Following this was an era in which industry grew, airplane technology expanded, television appeared and the whole civilization was re-made. This was followed by rapid change: a time of rebuilding in the fifties, the questioning of the sixties and seventies, and the recession of the eighties -- from which we have not yet recovered. The pinnacle of prosperity was somewhere back in those years when we squandered both our resources and our people. Both were believed to be expendable, and the world was our playground. Now it is different -- drastically different. We are the world's playground. We call it tourism, and we are their servants. We depend on their money. Our resources are
[ Page 4872 ]
extremely limited. We are like people in a rowboat with emergency rations who will only survive if we are careful stewards of every morsel. The chorus today, which was the one on the legislative lawn last week, is in effect: "Will we eat today and our children starve tomorrow, or will we diet now, that they may eat just as well?"
The reality is that our choices are our children's future. I don't believe that the throne speech speaks to these realities. It hints at them, but it also hints that the government, all by itself, will save us. I'm sorry, I don't believe it. These are crucial times, and we have crucial choices, and the time is very short. In B.C. we cannot continue to swing between the right and left spectrums of political life. We cannot continue to be "them" and "us." If we are to grow and indeed survive, we must do it together. This throne speech does not point that way forward. I must vote against it.
W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave Granted.
W. Hurd: I want to welcome to the precincts a friend from Kamloops, Leo Burstyn, who is visiting Victoria today.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I also seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. T. Perry: I just spotted in the gallery the chairman of the interim governing council of the University of Northern British Columbia, Murray Sadler of Prince George. He's put a phenomenal amount of effort into getting the University of Northern British Columbia started, and I'd like the House to help welcome him to Victoria.
C. Serwa: I welcome the opportunity to rise in debate on the throne speech. I probably will take a slightly different tack than many other members have taken, but before I get into it I would like to talk briefly about an event last night. Speaking on behalf of the Okanagan MLAs -- Okanagan North, Okanagan East and West, Okanagan-Penticton, and OkanaganBoundary, the Minister of Agriculture's constituency -- I think we were all very pleased and proud to see the exhibition of the fine premium quality wines now being produced in British Columbia, specifically in the Okanagan Valley. I'm particularly proud because a number of those represented last night are from my constituency of Okanagan West: Calona Wines, the oldest commercial winery in western Canada; Mission Hill Winery, which was a pathfinder in producing premium quality wines; and others like Quail's Gate, Gray Monk, Cedar Creek -- new entrants in an exciting field of opportunity, and all doing an outstanding job. So last night was a good night for the Okanagan Valley family of communities.
[12:00]
It is said that the best friendship must be based on honesty and positive criticism. I'd like to say that I'm here to help, and I intend to be a very good friend of government. There is a great deal that I could criticize. You know, that was my first thought, but over the last couple of days I have listened to comments of various members who have responded to the throne speech. I thought about previous throne speeches and debates that I have participated in. Much of the debate, in my experience, is like being caught in the revolving doors at your end of the chamber, hon. Speaker. We seem to go round and round, and in the end we get nowhere. And I thought, too, about the excellent quality of the community that I represent, where the motto of the city of Kelowna is "Fruitful in Unity," the Kelowna General Hospital fundraiser motto is "Together We Care," the School District 23 motto is "Together We Learn," and where people in my community, in business and industry, recognize that we're interdependent and not independent. I thought too about the comments of His Honour David Lam prior to his reading of the throne speech:
"Some of you may have noticed that I am not wearing the traditional civil uniform that has been used these past years to open the legislative sessions of the parliaments of British Columbia. Our world is changing; and traditions, while being honoured and respected, must also change to make institutions relevant in today's time.
"I trust that you will understand my decision and join with me in moving forward in harmony, preaching established ideals with contemporary reality."
At the end of the throne speech there is another quote, and I would like to put that into the record as well. The last part of it is:
"These British Columbians, along with countless others who have built this province from its beginning, all have one quality in common: they had the courage to change. Do we dare follow in their footsteps, or will we cling to the status quo? Do we have the courage to renew medicare? Do we have the courage to peacefully resolve our land disputes? Do we have the courage and imagination and commitment to lead this province into the twenty-first century and build a British Columbia we are proud to leave to our children? Hon. Speaker and hon. members, history shall be our judge. Let us agree today to accept the challenge. Let us have the courage to change."
They're very interesting statements, and that's what I really want to talk about today in my response to the throne speech. I decided to make this response because I recognize the wisdom and the validity of His Honour's comments. And while to some I may appear to stray, and to others I may falter and stumble, I will strive for a suitable level of objective thought here. It is my intention to address and make my response to those aspects of the throne speech that have suggested change in a positive way.
I recognize that a great deal of thought and effort has been put into the responses in this debate. Colleagues from all three parties have used virtually every technique to score effective points in this very competitive
[ Page 4873 ]
forum. My Social Credit colleagues have been especially effective with their speeches, and the government members have responded by focusing their attention on our caucus and the former administration.
The NDP government's tactics have confirmed that Social Credit is alive and well and rebounding in British Columbia. Lighter pressure on the Liberals, the official opposition, and greater pressure on the Socred six seems to be the order for this session. I take that as a compliment, and it encourages us to work harder and become more effective in quality opposition in this particular Legislature. I think that if we do anything in the service of people, that is an appropriate measure to take.
As is customary in throne speech debate, the government members have heaped praise on the throne speech, while we in the opposition have concentrated on its shortcomings. Quite frankly, and with no disrespect to any member of this House, I suspect that the citizens of British Columbia -- those whom we have been elected to serve -- will assess this exercise as pointless and perhaps fruitless.
After all is said and done, we will have spent eight days discussing a document which has little, if any, practical meaning for the citizens whom we represent. In an earlier time, when communication links were not as well developed, throne speeches had a purpose. They informed the public of the government's agenda, provided an opportunity for government MLAs to make a plea for local need or interest in their constituency, and enabled the opposition to broadly criticize the government record. Today, however, I believe that the throne speech has outlived its usefulness. It is no longer necessary for the Legislature to provide a forum for MLAs to get written up in their local press, to receive a sound bite on the local radio or a 30-second clip on the local television. Yet it often appears that this is the main purpose of throne speech debate. In today's age of instant communication there are a variety of options available to get the government's message or the MLAs' message out to the public.
I'm not singularly critical of this throne speech or of this government since, as with all throne speeches, there are good points and not-so-good points. Other than the traditional role, the throne speech has little relevancy and does not warrant any debate, let alone the statutory eight days.
Change is the message that I want to focus on -- change and the courage to change. It's a recurring theme. But what should we change? How should we bring about change? Why should we change? Should change occur only on the surface, or should we encourage and institute changes closer to the heart of our democracy and legislative processes? I see surface changes as only cosmetic; they vanish very quickly. We need to make a difference, and the difference, I think, begins with us here in this Legislature.
The best opportunity lies in involving a greater number of the public, to increase public interest and public awareness in the political process. I'm an advocate of more members of the public becoming members of political parties, whatever their political stripe may be. Individuals who understand the process, who are involved and have a hand in nominating candidates, tend to spread that awareness to other members of the community. I believe that positive changes such as greater public involvement will lead to the best possible people being nominated for the role of MLA, and greater public awareness will lead to the election of the best possible candidates.
As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we all have received a large measure of faith, trust and confidence from our electors. Yet there remains a great deal of cynicism of politicians and the whole political process. I believe that change is necessary -- as it states in the throne speech -- to restore public confidence in the process that we who stand here represent. The challenge to change the way that our institution operates, to change the legislative process, and to change party discipline practices may be difficult, but this change must come. It must come for a variety of reasons: first and foremost, it is clear that what we do as legislators within the confines of this assembly actually has very little substantive effect. The reality is that the first minister and the executive council are really the government, the ones that are making the decisions.
While this Legislature may make for great theatre at times, we know that at the end of the day the government will have its way and many ministry estimates and bills will pass. Given that governments have the mandate to rule, there appears to be nothing wrong with this approach. However, the problem lies not so much in the fact that estimates and legislation are passed but in how we reach that stage. For example, when a minister defends his or her estimates, they highlight the work their ministry is doing and they outline the objectives for the coming year. We in opposition respond by asking questions about the ministry as it relates to the government's agenda, and, when possible, we look to score political points. It is a very partisan exercise, and, in my opinion, it is often not very productive. Ministers will be asked questions. They'll either answer the question in a general sense with the usual political gamesmanship, or failing that, they will have their deputy or assistant deputy ministers flick through a briefing book to find the appropriate response. In turn, we legislators -- on the government side as well as the opposition side -- receive a filtered answer that has passed through a hierarchical process. All of this takes place under the notion of ministerial responsibility. In the final analysis, we legislators end up just scratching the surface, perhaps as ill-informed and as confused as our constituents appear to be. Quite frankly, I don't find the process satisfactory, and given the comments I've heard over more than six years as an MLA, neither do our taxpayers.
Our present approach is adversarial by its very nature. This was exemplified during last session's debate on the labour code. Aside from a couple of very minor technical amendments, the government was not prepared to entertain any amendment put forth by opposition parties. It's not surprising, because the process is such that the government of day rules as it sees fit. For the most part, the opposition's views are given very little attention; they are most often dismissed by the government of day. This is indeed
[ Page 4874 ]
unfortunate, because the opposition is representative of the views and opinions of a sizable portion of the population. In fact, in British Columbia the two opposition parties represent the majority of the population. Yet when it comes to the Legislature, the opposition parties are little more than voices in the wilderness. This malaise also befalls government backbenchers. Under our present system, cabinet calls the shots and government backbenchers toe the party line. This results in an us-and-them mentality that dominates much of our legislative activity. This is most unfortunate.
Such an approach is not conducive to good decision-making, and, more importantly, we members are putting the interests of our respective parties ahead of our respective constituents. As a backbencher on the government side, I often stated my order of priorities: (1) the constituents, who indeed elected me; (2) the party that nominated and worked so hard -- literally a small army working to have me elected; and (3) my government -- and as I indicated, that had to be earned on a continued basis to deserve my support.
Again, let me say that this is not a criticism of the current administration. I raised similar concerns when I was on the government benches, and I made two private member's statements to publicly express my views on this particular issue. I make these comments to highlight the shortcomings of our present legislative process. Another pitfall of the present process is that it does not provide for direct citizen input into major decisions. As members know, our citizens increasingly demand a greater say in the decision-making process. For example, there are a wide array of bodies the government has appointed to consult the public on issues ranging from housing to municipal policing. While governments consult, there is no obligation on the government to do as the public says or wishes.
Given these shortcomings, what can be done to improve the legislative process? I have made the following suggestions. I believe it is time that we, as legislators, should have the right and, more importantly, the responsibility to question ministerial employees about government spending. Estimates could be moved from this legislative chamber into the Douglas Fir Room, giving all members -- government as well as opposition -- the opportunity to ask not only political questions of the minister but also technical questions of the deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers and perhaps even directors. I believe that process, along with additional information, would facilitate our involvement in government and give us a greater and more comprehensive understanding of some of the economic realities and other realities that prevail for the government when making their decisions. In the end, I think we would be doing far more credible justice to our constituents by addressing the matter of the estimates in a situation such as the Douglas Fir Room. The process I've outlined could occur within the confines of the committee system and would lead to a meaningful analysis of government spending.
[12:15]
Secondly, there should be more emphasis on the development of a consensus-based approach to decision-making. Legislators should be able to discuss and analyze legislation with a view to achieving some type of consensus. The present adversarial, winner-take-all approaches have proven to be counterproductive and have served to make the public more distrustful, exhibiting what I consider to be a disturbing level of cynicism toward our political process.
Compared to our present adversarial approach, the consensus approach offers a viable solution, because it works. In our federal government in Ottawa, once a bill is tabled for first reading, it is then referred to a committee of all party members. Witnesses may be called, a review of that particular bill is carried out and revisions are perhaps put forward prior to it being presented to the chamber again. I think that process enables a better quality of legislation to be put forward by the House, because in reality it takes into consideration all the views expressed by the citizens we collectively represent.
I've had the opportunity to work on standing legislative committees of the former government and this government. I believe deeply in that particular process. I worked on the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, and the present Minister of Forests was a member of that committee. The hon. Attorney General was also a member of that committee. We worked together for about four years, and we were given a legislative initiative by this Legislature, without any sense of direction. It was given to us in an objective form. We worked together on that committee and slowly developed a consensus that crossed party lines. We were given a task, and we sought to resolve the challenge.
In all those years of working together and letting our hair down when discussing this matter in meetings and in the evenings, not once was a private confidence ever betrayed. We were objective in our effort. The end result was the quality recommendations that were brought to this Legislature, which were enshrined in legislation. That is a part of the process that I applaud. It is a very valuable process. We must continue to work together, with perhaps more latitude and with more tasks being assigned to standing committees of this chamber.
Thirdly, in changing our present legislative process, we, as legislators, must be given a freer rein to vote on issues as we see fit. The quality and level of debate in a free-vote situation would be enhanced. For the first time ever in this legislative chamber, we would have the opportunity to create and craft the debate, with the objective view of changing the minds of members opposite and of really showing them what we think and why we think it.
The free vote would do something else: it would restore public confidence. There are differences of opinion within families; a caucus is an extended family. I think that the public understands that if we all think alike, no one is thinking at all. That's what I'm concerned about, and I think that's what mitigates public confidence. On the basis of conscience or on the basis of constituents, I should see diversity on our side of the House and on the government side of the House. It has happened. For example, the hon. Attorney General voted against his caucus in 1973-75, when the
[ Page 4875 ]
NDP was in government. It has happened with other members on very rare occasions. It's altogether too rare because of political partisan discipline and the potential of reprisal -- not to the individual member perhaps but to the constituency the member serves.
I'm not advocating the abandonment of caucus solidarity, and I think party philosophy and principles will always be the glue that binds caucuses together. But I believe sincerely that both public interest and public confidence would be more ably served. I'm calling for legislators to have the freedom to exercise their vote in this House without fear of recrimination. Freer votes are used in other jurisdictions, as you are aware, hon. Speaker, and certainly in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster. In fact, government bills and initiatives have been defeated by government members without the government falling. Sometimes it's the private members' only opportunity to keep the government or the executive branch aware of some of the realities. I think it's a tool -- not the only tool -- that would enhance the delivery of good government to the people.
Fourthly, there must be another reform in our legislative process. There must be the provision for greater public involvement. I believe there must be recall and initiative referenda. These are things that a well-educated and well-informed public wants, and I believe it's our responsibility as legislators to make certain that the opportunity is available.
I want to close by stressing that my comments are intended to be thought-provoking, because it is time that we began to seriously consider rethinking the way in which we as legislators serve the public. My objective in making these remarks is to bring to light the fact that we as legislators must begin to change and to respond to the world around us. The Lieutenant-Governor acknowledged this when he chose not to wear the traditional ceremonial garb while delivering the throne speech.
We, as legislators, must also acknowledge the need for change. It is clear that while legislative practices are based on tradition, if those practices are no longer relevant, then it is our duty to see that they are changed. I urge all members to give serious consideration to my comments so that we can begin to bring forth the necessary changes to the legislative process. Accountability, responsibility and representation are all important changes which I believe will enable us as legislators to better serve the interests of those we represent.
P. Ramsey: Before I address this assembly on what I think are some of the significant initiatives of the throne speech, I can't help but comment on the presentation by the member for Okanagan West. He makes some very good points. I think some of the suggestions for reform of this assembly have already been acted upon, and some will be in the future. But I have to say I was amazed to hear this from a member who represents a party that for 37 of the past 40 years has controlled this chamber and has had every opportunity to introduce precisely those changes.
So far, much of the opposition criticism of the throne speech seems to have focused on the fact that it's general in scope. I must say that amazed me. That's what throne speeches are: they are general statements of policy, principle and direction, and announcements of significant legislation. I believe that this throne speech did that well. Its hallmarks are change and the necessity for it, the challenge that it presents to us as legislators, and the courage our government must show in meeting those challenges.
The opposition seems to understand that, though I understand that some of them had to read it twice to figure it out. But that seems to be the only thing that they've figured out. They haven't yet figured out that the people of this province accept the need for change: change in our economy and change in the health, education and social programs we value so highly. They haven't figured out that the people of this province want a government with the courage to make the necessary changes, difficult though they may be. As a result, much of their criticism seems beside the point.
They criticize the throne speech because it's not the budget speech, or because it doesn't address their pet project, like selling off some Model-T Ford -- that symbol of Canadian heritage -- or paving a particular piece of road. It was wonderful to see that the politics of blacktop are alive and well in the Social Credit Party. As a result, speeches by the opposition have largely been, to use Shakespeare's words, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I want to focus on two areas in this province in which change is inevitable and in which our government is meeting the challenges it faces with courage and determination: the forest industry and our health care system. I want to contrast the actions taken by our government with the lack of action under the previous administration and the seeming lack of policy of either of the opposition parties.
When our government took power 17 months ago, our forest industry was facing record losses. It was at the bottom of the cycle in both lumber and pulp. I promise not to take any credit for the upswing in lumber prices if the opposition promises not to try to blame us for the fact that they were down two years ago. Fifty percent of the province's exports, tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of government revenue, as well as the economic future of over 200 communities, are all tied up in our forest industry.
The forest industry is faced with a variety of problems, most of them huge. They face an uncertain timber supply; they face conflict over land use for forests and other uses; they face increasing concern about their practices in forest management and the threat of an international boycott arising from that; and they've faced international trade disputes.
Some of these problems are not particularly new. Timber supply has been recognized as a problem for the forest industry for at least ten years. Quite frankly, the previous administration did little or nothing, particularly in the last five years. Who needs bad news in an election year? And, quite frankly, reductions in timber supply are often bad news.
I will give them credit for one thing, though; at least they studied the problem. In 1991 the Forest Service completed a study in which Forest Service managers
[ Page 4876 ]
identified the fact that they were having difficulty locating sufficient wood to harvest. They identified that the public perception was that we were overcutting our resource, and they identified that because of repeated delays at the political level, redetermination of quotas and cuts had been delayed again and again. The law said it was supposed to happen every five years; in some cases it hadn't been done in ten. The Forest Resources Commission -- again, an initiative of the previous administration -- made the same point, but nothing was done with the results of these surveys.
Our government has put in place a clear process. In three years, in all 69 timber supply areas and tree farm licences in this province, there will be a new timber supply analysis done and completed; there will be a new annual allowable cut determined. Last session we amended the Forest Act to require in law that that be done repeatedly, every five years.
What we're doing is really simple: given current practices in the forest, how much wood is available? I think that's a pretty basic principle that the forest industry and the government must work on. As I say, the third party at least seemed to recognize there was a problem. I'm not sure that the Liberals even do. For them, perhaps because of the areas that they represent, standing timber seems to mean flowering cherry trees and annual cut means doing something to your hedge or on the lawn. This is a real problem for the forest industry in this province, and it's one which this government is facing with courage.
[12:30]
The second large area that I want to mention is the land use conflict. This is not a new problem. Over the last decade or two, passions have risen higher over what we want to do with our forest land. Last week we saw those passions almost spill over into this very chamber. There are equally high passions on all sides of this issue. If you don't believe that, go and visit the area that I represent or the area that the member for Cariboo North represents.
The record of the Socreds in dealing with this problem has been what I would call symptomatic. They got very good at injunctions against blockades on logging roads. They got very good at trying to haul people into court. And they got very good, when the pressure got too great, at actually creating the occasional park. But quite frankly, they were pathetic at figuring out a long-term plan for how to resolve this. Our government has had the courage to act, to act decisively and in a comprehensive way, to resolve land use disputes. We have made the clear commitment to protect 12 percent of the land base of this province in protected areas. We've made a clear commitment to a new process, the Commission on Resources and Environment, which says that people in those regions of the province have to make the recommendations themselves. We are not all-knowing, all-wise here in government to make those determinations. Those who want to go into those forests for industry and for recreation need to have the power to make those recommendations. Those who live with the results get to have the say.
What do we hear about CORE? Some say we're going too fast; some say it's not going fast enough, that we've got the wrong people or too many or too few at the table. But it must be seen as the process. I call on members opposite to be very cautious when they criticize it or encourage people to go around it and lobby government or the members of this chamber. They do a disservice to resolving the long-term land dispute in this province if they allow people to do that. Encourage them to take their concerns to the CORE table and resolve them there. That is where they must be resolved -- for the sake of the forest industry in this province and for the sake of the ecosystems in which we live.
When they talk about the forest industry -- or indeed, in any industry -- the Liberals say that the role of government is to develop a climate for investment and to step back. Nonsense! Of course we want to foster a climate for investment, and stability is the key to investor confidence. When timber supply is reviewed and when firm annual allowable cuts are set, there will be increased stability; when CORE completes its work and resolves land use conflicts, there will be increased stability. When the new forest practices code announced in the throne speech this year is introduced and in place and recognized around the world, there will be increased stability. This government is taking the initiatives to increase the stability of our forest industry.
I want to turn to the question of health care in this province. The previous administration at least had the recognition that there was a problem, and they studied it. The results of that study were clear. Because of federal cutbacks, rising costs and changes in best medical practice, not just in technology but in implementing preventive care and more community care, this most valued program of our citizens was simply not sustainable in its present form. One-third of the provincial budget is devoted to it, and it wasn't going to work forever. Changes were necessary, and courage was going to be needed to make them. The previous government's response was to defer it -- to increase spending, to shovel money at it. In five years they increased the medical budget by 50 percent, but at least they had enough sense to know there was a problem.
The Seaton commission's reaction was clear: there is enough money, but we need to spend smarter. We need to move closer to home; we need to move to community and preventive care. The official opposition doesn't speak against these principles, but every time this government shows the courage and leadership to follow through on some point, what do we hear from them except: "Go slow. Stop. Retreat. Turn around. Please don't do that." Perhaps the attitude towards acute care is most revealing. The Seaton commission clearly said that 25 percent of bed use in our acute care hospitals is unnecessary. Yet what is the reaction to the justifiable closure of that white elephant of hospitals, Shaughnessy? Outrage, loathing, failure to recognize that not only was it necessary but it would bring care closer to the very people who need it in the suburbs of the Vancouver area.
[ Page 4877 ]
This is not an issue for the lower mainland alone. Bringing on these changes is not easy. In my city, Prince George Regional Hospital closed 60 beds last year. I was concerned. I wanted to make sure that health care wasn't compromised. I knew the theory of the royal commission and I accepted its findings, but I wanted to know in practice what was going on. I've spent a lot of time over the last year meeting with members of the administration and board, and with the health care community in Prince George. They had concerns as well. Some of them were addressed; we managed to make some changes in some of them.
The reality is, I believe, that we now have better acute care in Prince George than we had a year ago. Wait-lists for surgery in Prince George have actually gone down. People are getting in and out faster. Day care surgery is becoming more prominent, and the community care that surrounds our acute care hospital is finally getting used as it should be. Was change painful? You bet it was. The member for Prince George-Mount Robson and I faced increasing pressure to stop or slow down. We just said: "Carry on." I urge the members opposite to stop raising anxiety about this. When I hear the member for Prince George-Omineca attack these bed closures, I say that is shortsighted, and he ought not to do that.
Hon. Speaker, in both our economy and our social services, I believe this government is showing the courage to move forward. When the opposition finally sorts out who leads it and decides what policies it espouses, then perhaps they will be able to make some coherent criticism of the agenda brought forward by this government. But I have found their criticism of the throne speech to be sadly lacking.
B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, I'm delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne as the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, the jewel of southeast Vancouver.
I was saddened to hear of the passing of six former members of the Legislature. I know they were all devoted members who made lasting contributions to the politics of this province. I first met Doug Mowat some 20 years ago. The contribution that he made not only to his constituents but to all the disabled in this province is a long-lasting tribute to him. The former Social Credit administration can be proud of having had such a distinguished member in their ranks.
As we were growing up, all of us had heroes. Since I first became interested in political life in my teens, my hero was the late Harold Winch. He inspired countless generations of youth to serve this province. He and his father Ernie, who also sat in this Legislature, served with utmost devotion and compassion. Both Winchs were often referred to as the "compassionate rebels." For over 50 years Harold Winch served this province with distinction. In my late teens I had the opportunity to write a biography of Harold. I spent many hours in the Legislative Assembly and in the Legislative Library, and I interviewed politicians as well.
The politician outside the CCF-NDP family who impressed me the most, when describing Harold Winch, was the late W.A.C. Bennett, a man who also gave tirelessly of himself to this province and was a true pioneer, as was stated in the concluding paragraph of the throne speech. W.A.C. Bennett had the courage to effect meaningful change in our province. He is an example that the present generation of Socreds would do well to emulate. During my many hours with W.A.C.Bennett, he described Harold Winch as one of the greatest parliamentarians this province had ever had. That statement was true some 32 years ago, and I believe it is still true today. A saying that Harold taught me was: in politics, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. I am sure hon. members would agree with that statement.
Incidentally, when I was interviewing W.A.C. Bennett some 32 years ago, I also had the opportunity to ask him about another newly elected member of the Legislature, the member from Dewdney. I asked W.A.C. Bennett what he thought of that member. I distinctly remember how he turned bright red and slammed his fist down on the desk and said: "That young man has no right to be in the Legislature. He is not going to go anywhere." That hon. member was none other than Dave Barrett, the Premier of this province from 1972-75. Interestingly enough, as the years went on, W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett became very good friends. Those were the days when politicians, regardless of their ideology, had the courage to effect change and accept the challenges that this great province presented to them. I believe that those of us sitting in this House also have the courage to pick up the challenge to effect meaningful change as we enter the twenty-first century.
I want to briefly touch upon the highlights of the throne speech. One of the most significant promises we made when we were elected was to have a more open and honest government. The new Freedom of Information Act ensures that the government and all other public bodies will be more accountable to British Columbians. If there was a message the electorate made loud and clear, it was that they wanted to be part of the process of government. This act helps accomplish that objective. It puts B.C. on the leading edge of information rights, and it is considered by experts on this subject to be the most open legislation in Canada. This legislation is a tribute to the member for Burnaby North, who worked tirelessly while in opposition to have such an act proclaimed, and to the Attorney General, who has distinguished this House with his presence for the last 20 years.
After extensive consultation the hon. member for Burnaby North, who chairs the cabinet-caucus committee on information and privacy, recommended that the bill be expanded to include municipalities, police boards, hospitals, schools and colleges, and self-governing professional bodies. I concur with the hon. member for Burnaby North when he stated that it is vital to expand the act in order to modernize our democracy. When they are introduced in the House later this spring, I urge all members to support these important amendments.
[12:45]
The extensive activity of the legislative committees is another example of our government fulfilling its
[ Page 4878 ]
promise of making government more accessible to the public. The amount of activity of the legislative committees is unparalleled in British Columbia's history.
The Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the member, but unless otherwise decided by the House, I would have to interrupt the member at this time to take the vote.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, hon. members have been so inspired by the words of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview that I would like to seek leave of the House to allow the member to continue and conclude his speech. I would appreciate the indulgence of the members. I believe that House Leaders have agreed to allow that to occur.
Leave granted.
B. Simpson: I'll try to be as quick as possible.
The extensive activity of the legislative committees is another example of our government fulfilling its promise of making government more accessible to the public. There are 13 select standing committees -- considerably more than in the previous administration -- five of which have been extremely active. The active standing committees include Aboriginal Affairs, Economic Development, Health and Social Services, Forests, and Parliamentary Reform. These committees have had over 140 meetings to date. By way of comparison, the total number of meetings during the five years under the Vander Zalm administration was just 239. To date, there have been close to 1,300 oral and written submissions, which is equivalent to the total amount received during the Vander Zalm administration between '87 and '91.
The Health and Social Services Committee is chaired by one of Canada's most distinguished health economists, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Those on the committee had a lifesaving task, and that was to recommend legislation aimed at stopping cigarette sales to our youth. This morning the hon. member filed his committee's historic report. This committee had the courage to respond to the challenge set forth in the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, recommending necessary legislation that will save an estimated 30,000 of our youth from the ravages of cancer and other, related debilitating diseases.
Another extremely busy committee has been the Economic Development Committee, chaired by the distinguished member for Port Coquitlam. I'm particularly pleased to see that since the election of President Clinton, saner minds are prevailing and NAFTA is getting a serious second look. The primary purpose of that committee at this point is to review the NAFTA.
One thing that has been abundantly clear in these hearings is that there is the potential for a terribly adverse effect on our relationship with our Asian trading partners. Annually, we sell in excess of $7 billion worth of goods and services in that region compared to only $30 million to Mexico. I've had extensive discussions with leaders of the Asian community and with the Asian countries and business leaders. They are expressing serious doubts about NAFTA and are concerned about the effect it's going to have on their region. If they become more inward and develop their own trading bloc, this will have terrible consequences for British Columbia. It will affect British Columbia more than any other province in the country.
Our distinguished Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- who, prior to being elected, was a distinguished law professor in the area of constitutional and human rights -- has worked tirelessly to help resolve the conflict with our aboriginal peoples. Hon. Speaker, 1993 is the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. Our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will formally recognize the year by introducing the Treaty Commission Act, which will enable the negotiation of modern treaties with aboriginal people. Our government has formally recognized self-government, has recognized aboriginal title, accepted a process for land claims negotiation, and just the other day concluded a memorandum of understanding with the municipalities.
Our government has accepted the challenge and is showing the courage to resolve the terrible oppression of our indigenous people. Surveys show that the majority of Canadians are in favour of settling land claims and other outstanding issues. Their leaders -- George Watts from Port Alberni, Joe Mathias from the Capilano Indian reserve in North Vancouver, and Wendy Grant from the Musqueam band in South Vancouver, which is close to my riding in Vancouver-Fraserview -- have demanded an end to the oppression and emancipation of their people. This government has not only listened, but acted.
Wendy Grant is an example of aboriginal leaders who lead the fight for aboriginal people to regain their rightful place in Canadian society. I met Wendy's father, Chief Willard Sparrow, some 25 years ago. When he talked about his aspirations for his ten children and his people, he talked about what it was like to raise children in a home with no electricity or running water on the Musqueam reserve -- 400 acres of land in South Vancouver. Wendy Grant has come a long way from those days when she went to Point Grey Secondary School and the rich white kids made sure that the Indians used the back entrance.
This government recognizes that our ability to fund services is diminishing. This government has the courage to make tough decisions which will rein in expenditures. The released Korbin commission interim report makes 11 recommendations for controlling costs in hospitals, colleges, Crown corporations and other organizations in the public sector.
Vancouver-Fraserview has benefitd from the policies of this government. I cite some examples: replacement of the Finnish-Canadian intermediate care facility for $6 million; $300,000 to allow the school district to plan a new school for Moberly Elementary School; a grant of $112,000 for Carleton Elementary School as part of the $11 million meal program; $27,000 for Champlain Heights Community Association to help develop the Everett Crowley Park; and government assistance to get West Coast Plywood operational again. The jobs of 250 workers who have been laid off are at stake. With regard to West Coast Plywood, I appeal to the Minister
[ Page 4879 ]
of Forests to quickly solve the chronic problem of not having enough fibre to ensure the viability of the plywood industry.
There's still much more to be done for this magnificent riding. I will continue my efforts to fund one of the most important recreational facilities in East Vancouver, the Killarney Community Centre, which is desperately in need of extensive improvements.
Last night I attended the Holy Family Hospital fundraising campaign launch for the Easy Street project, which is designed to rehabilitate people who have strokes. They will also seek funding, and I will be giving them my full support, as I'm sure the Ministry of Health will be.
With regard to the Ministry of Health, the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs urged a shift towards illness prevention and community-based delivery. The key feature is shifting care services away from hospitals. The change in direction presents one of the greatest challenges to government. At stake here is the very existence of medicare. The question is: do we have the courage to follow through with the challenge presented to us by the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs? The answer is an unequivocal yes. However, change means disrupting the status quo, which often is painful.
The Shaughnessy spinal cord unit has an outstanding team of devoted hospital workers and medical staff; and I, like all the members in this House, are concerned about their future. Throughout the years I have had considerable contact with this important unit, and can vouch for the recognition that the staff has gained throughout the world. Every effort must be made to keep this staff intact -- including the medical team -- when this unit is moved to Vancouver General Hospital. I've been assured by our government that the new unit will rank among the best in North America. Such a commitment must be reassuring to all who are involved in the unit and to the patients whose lives have been traumatized by spinal cord injuries.
Last month I was at the German-Canadian care home in Vancouver-Fraserview, where the Minister of Health announced that long term care projects around British Columbia will receive $80 million in funding to increase the provincial supply of multicare beds. The cost of expanding and developing the German-Canadian care home in Vancouver-Fraserview will be $10 million, funded by the provincial government.
Hon. Speaker, I would be remiss to conclude my speech without expressing my dismay regarding the comments by the leader of the third party in his response to the throne speech. Many of us have gained a respect for the leader of the third party. His comments have been thoughtful, well-researched, and more often than not he has taken the high road during debate.
Interjection.
B. Simpson: Wait, hon. member -- the best is yet to come. What we have witnessed with the leader of the third party during the last few days is a different approach that I fear does not bode well for this coming session of the Legislature. Perhaps the hon. member was playing to the gallery or to the TV cameras; or more likely, he had in mind the delegates at the forthcoming Socred leadership convention. He lashed out at hon. members who he knew were not in this House to defend themselves. He cast aspersions on the Minister of Finance, the Labour minister and the Minister of Advanced Education. He was forced to withdraw those aspersions cast on the Hon. Minister of Finance. He quoted a statement attributed to the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada, but conveniently omitted the association's economic outlook, which stated that B.C.'s growth will be the best in Canada. The Investment Dealers' Association of Canada projected that our growth rate in British Columbia would be 3 percent, compared to the rest of Canada at 2.45 percent. He omitted that, hon. Speaker. And if being reprimanded by the Deputy Speaker was not enough for the leader of the third party during his response to the throne speech, he started up again the next day, and again he was forced to withdraw his remarks as unparliamentary.
The leader of the third party talks about the dreaded Socred phoenix rising once again. How quickly he forgets. I see that on April 15 he will be speaking to the Vancouver Board of Trade on the subject of the cost of acquiescence. When I first saw this notice, I thought he was going to talk on the price that he and his fellow Socred MLAs had to pay for acquiescing and being part of a government that was the most politically corrupt government in this province. No, we are not worried about the Socred phoenix rising again. The people of B.C. will not forget the legacy of corruption and debt left behind by the disgraced former Premier and his colleagues in cabinet, which included the leader of the third party.
The Speaker: Order! I know the hon. member will recognize that moderation in language is always the characteristic of parliamentary debate, and I would ask that member to please be cautious in his comments.
B. Simpson: Excuse me, hon. Speaker. It's just being a newly elected member of the Legislature.
Let me conclude here. The leader of the third party tried this past week to turn back the clock and bring this Legislative Assembly to a level that can only be described as gutter politics. Our government is following a steady course of meeting the challenges that face us as we enter the twenty-first century. We have the courage to look forward, not backward, and to make the necessary changes. We will not be diverted by the tactics of this disgraced party that was thrown out of office by the electorate. Regardless of how many coats of paint the leader of the third party puts on his party, it is rotten to the core.
Hon. Speaker and hon. members, I'd like to thank you for your attentiveness.
The Speaker: For the information of members, I will read the motion that is now before you: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious
[ Page 4880 ]
speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."
[1:00]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 30 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Jackson |
Pement |
Beattie |
|
Schreck |
Lortie |
Hammell |
|
Miller |
Hagen |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
Zirnhelt |
Blencoe |
|
Barnes |
MacPhail |
Copping |
|
Lovick |
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
|
Farnworth |
O'Neill |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Simpson |
Janssen |
|
NAYS -- 11 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Dalton |
|
Stephens |
Serwa |
K. Jones |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Hurd |
|
Tanner |
Symons | |
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 o'clock on Tuesday.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]