1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 11
[ Page 13169 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: It's my pleasure to rise on your behalf, Mr. Speaker, and welcome dear friends of yours, Fred and Jackie Jay. I understand they have been close friends of the Speaker for some years and have also laboured mightily in the vineyards to get the Speaker elected over the years. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to members of the Legislature a number of cadets and officers from Royal Roads, joined by Captain Jarrad. Joining them are a number of officers from the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. I have had occasion to meet with these folks and have told them that on Friday the House is always very quiet, sombre and restrained, and I'm sure all members will prove me right. Will all members please give them a warm welcome.
G. Brewin: In the precinct today, though not with us just at this moment, is a group of people from the Inter-Cultural Association, who are newcomers to Canada. They are led by Ms. J. Whittier. Would the House please make them welcome.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Environment, the House Leader today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I was feeling threatened there for a moment. I should advise all members of the House that His Honour will be with us at approximately 10:20, and that will cause us to have the first member's statement. We will then step down and continue our deliberations after that. So at this point I'd like to call members' statements.
THE IMMIGRANT HEAD TAX
U. Dosanjh: I recall that on May 22, 1992, this House passed a unanimous motion to the effect that the federal government, in consultation with the Chinese-Canadian community, ought to redress the wrongs of the Chinese head tax. In May 1993 I again spoke on that issue, and I was supported in that by the members of the Liberal opposition at that time. That part of our history is a saga of shame: 62 years of legislated racism. Added to that are the redress issues concerning the Ukrainian community, the Italian community and other communities.
Some time in December of last year Sheila Finestone, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism, basically denied the request for redress on behalf of the Chinese community. She said: "We wish we could rewrite history; we wish we could relive the past." Those who do not learn from history and are now repeating it would like nothing better than to forget about that history. The $975 tax on immigrants -- the landing tax, as it's called -- is a replica of the head tax of 1885, 110 years after that year. Some among us have attempted to distinguish the two. This is how I see it. The head tax of 1885 was definitely inhuman; it was definitely wrong; it was definitely racist in its application, its consequences and its impacts. The landing tax of 1995 is definitely inhuman; it is definitely wrong; it is definitely racist in its consequences and impacts. These are shades and shadows of 1885 falling on this Liberal government in Ottawa in 1995.
It seems to me that the government in Ottawa wants to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. They are running with the Reform. In fact, they are outrunning the Reform -- out-reforming the Reform Party. They want to say that they are really very justice-loving, compassionate people who welcome refugees and immigrants from all parts of the world, and that definitely is not true.
This $975 head tax is anti-British Columbia, because it interferes with the flow of investment and talent into British Columbia, particularly from the Pacific Rim. This is a policy tailored to meet the needs of eastern Canada and doesn't jibe with the requirements and the aspirations of the people of British Columbia. This head tax is anti-refugee. A refugee running for his or her life doesn't have the time or maybe the resources to pack $975 in his or her pocket before he or she decides, or is forced, to flee the circumstances from which he or she may be fleeing. This particular landing tax is anti-family reunification. It hinders the right of sponsors to reunify with their families, because it imposes excessive financial burdens on prospective sponsors and immigrants. It is a further burden on poor immigrants, who have come here from all over the world over the past hundreds of years and have made this country into the great country that it is. This federal government is now trying to undo the work that immigrants have historically done in Canada in making this country great. This fits in; it's part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of this federal government. It has reduced the number of immigrants coming into the country, contrary to their promises in the red book. It has made immigration into the country more difficult; it has made it more expensive. It has hurt the family reunification process; it obviously has hurt the poorer immigrants.
This federal government, consistent with its anti-immigrant attitude, is privatizing ESL and reducing funding for English as a second language. In particular, the Link program at King Edward campus in Vancouver is threatened and endangered. This is the second year in a row that the federal government is refusing to fund that program. Just recently I read that Canadian human rights offices are being closed in the regions. You're now going to have a 1-800 number to make your complaints directly to Ottawa.
[10:15]
What are their cousins, the provincial Liberals, doing? They opposed the anti-hate amendments to the human rights legislation in 1992. They have not once publicly supported our policy on the extension of language learning -- Chinese, Japanese and Punjabi -- in this province, after its announcement in June of 1994. Now, their candidate in Vancouver-Fraserview supports the landing tax of $975 per immigrant coming into the country. Dr. Gulzar Singh Cheema, the Fraserview candidate, supports that criminal landing tax on the entry of immigrants or refugees into this country. What have we heard from those benches? Nothing.
The Speaker: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired. The member for Vancouver-Langara responds.
V. Anderson: We need rational and concerned discussion on these very critical and important issues. There is no doubt, as I have stood with the member for Vancouver-Kensington on previous occasions and commented about the injustice of the Chinese head tax, that an injustice was perpetrated wrongly and falsely against a particular group of people.
[ Page 13170 ]
I personally have had the opportunity to experience that kind of racist decision-making when my own youngest daughter, who happens to be of Canadian-Japanese origin, was not able to enter the United States with us in normal fashion because of the policy of both Canada and the United States at that particular time. That, fortunately, has been changed since then so that this kind of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic background or country of origin no longer exists within Canada. We have been amiss in not responding and not being willing to apologize to those whom we have so unjustly wronged in past times.
But to take that injustice and call the present circumstances a head tax is to use it in a false and misleading way, because they are entirely different situations. The major difference is that the fee they're talking about, which they're referring to as a head tax, is a fee which everyone except refugees has to pay as they come into the country. It is not discriminatory in the sense that it applies to one racial group coming from one part of the world or one particular country; it applies equally to anyone who comes from anywhere. Every country of the world has poor people; they're not limited to one section of the universe in which we live. It has always been difficult and unfortunate that people who have not had the financial wherewithal to buy train tickets, plane tickets or bus tickets have not been able to travel in the same way that other people travel. That is an injustice that needs to be worked on totally for all people, wherever they may come from, in any country of the world.
To try to make these other decisions into a comparison with the head tax against the Chinese people is simply misleading, dishonest and improper. If they wish to argue that everyone should be subsidized, and not only granted the freedom of no expenses when they come into the country, then if we go beyond the logical argument, everybody who is unable to provide themselves a plane ticket should be given the opportunity to apply and have the plane ticket provided for them. It's a different argument. It's not a racist argument; it's an economic argument. It's an argument of whether, in managing our country, we need to keep a balance in what we do. But the principle is that everyone is treated the same. This is not a question of refugees having been charged extra. They come under a special consideration, as they should, out of desperate circumstances, which must be taken into account.
We, like the members of this House and all the members in Canada, want to welcome them and make it as easy as possible for people to come into our country in a planned and considerate way. I object to the manner in which they take one issue and reflect it on another.
The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kensington concludes.
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I am extremely saddened at the total blindness that exists on the benches of the Liberal opposition. This Liberal opposition said to the federal government that they should have gone further and cut more from the federal transfers. Do they now say that the landing tax should have been $9,750 per immigrant instead of $975? I am really troubled that the opposition does not have the courage to stand for justice and fairness.
As I said before, the previous head tax was definitely inhuman, definitely wrong and definitely racist both in its application and its impact. This landing tax is also definitely inhuman, definitely wrong and definitely racist in its impact, because what the Liberal opposition is rejecting is the talent that comes into this country. They are now saying that being poor is a disqualification for immigration into the country or a disqualification for a sponsor to bring his or her dependents into this country. I think that's a matter of shame. I think the Liberal opposition should hang their heads in shame collectively.
The Speaker: Before proceeding to the next private member's statement, I would remind all hon. members to review from time to time the criteria on which private members' statements are constructed. One of the key points would be that they are not intended to be argumentative. I'm sure we can get along much better if members will just review those criteria.
I believe His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Would members please keep their places.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Clerk of the House:
Supply Act (No. 1), 1995
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Speaker: I call the House back to order. The hon. Government House Leader.
Hon. M. Sihota: Now that we know that the Minister of Finance can safely proceed with the administration of her outstanding budget, I re-call members' statements.
BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
L. Reid: I would ask everyone in this House to imagine:
"...picking up a newspaper one Saturday morning to find a front-page headline screaming: '747 Crashes. All 415 Passengers Killed. Onlookers Shocked and Horrified.'
"...Unrolling your paper over morning coffee some four weeks later, you read another huge headline: 'Second 747 Crashes. No Survivors. Families and Witnesses Stunned.' Now imagine that this same headline appears every month for a whole year. One month it appears twice.
"Of course, the situation would never get to that stage. Before it did, every 747 in the world would be grounded. There would be public inquiries. Those responsible would be called to account, and heads would roll. International aviation would not be the same until the problem was solved.
"This year, 5,400 Canadian women will die of breast cancer -- the same number as would perish in those 13 imaginary plane crashes.
"In 1994, 16,300 Canadian women [received] a diagnosis of breast cancer. In other words, every day this year, 45 women will tell their workmates, friends, families and lovers that they are in a life-and-death struggle with breast cancer. For these women, it will be like stepping onto an airliner knowing that there is a serious mechanical fault. They'll hope and pray that the repairs will hold long enough for them to reach their destination of a full life span."
These words were written by Judith Caldwell, the president of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, B.C. Chapter. I am honoured that she has allowed me to share these words with you this morning.
[ Page 13171 ]
The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation has supported and funded breast cancer research, treatment and education since its inception in 1986. The British Columbia chapter was registered in July 1992, and the board represents B.C.'s medical, business and volunteer communities. We know who these individuals are, and we must now address why the necessity exists for this group to come together.
One in nine Canadian women will experience breast cancer in her lifetime. British Columbia has the highest rate of breast cancer of any province in Canada. Again, 16,300 women in Canada were diagnosed with breast cancer last year, and 5,400 women died of the disease. In B.C. 2,300 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 600 died. Approximately 20,000 British Columbia women are currently living with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer, which is the leading killer of women aged 35 to 54. By the year 2000, 51 percent of Canadian women will be age 35 to 54. Breast cancer accounts for the largest number of person-years of life lost from all cancers -- an average of 23 years. That means that those same 20,000 women who are living with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer and all the women who will die this year of breast cancer are giving away the most precious thing in this life: the years they could be sharing with their families, fulfilling their ambitions and having their dreams.
[10:30]
We have not realized our goals around breast cancer research. It has never been considered a significant priority in this country. It's truly time that we take some energy and commitment to resolving this issue and giving back years of life to women in British Columbia and Canada.
There are a number of things that women suffering from breast cancer can do, but even yearly mammography for those over 40 years of age, self-examination and an annual examination by a physician can only take us so far down that road. We must ensure that there are significant commitments made around researching breast cancer.
I will spend a few moments quoting Dr. Linda Warren, the executive director of the screening mammography program of British Columbia. She consistently presents information supporting screening mammography for those aged 40 to 49. She does that because a survival advantage is predicted for women having regular mammograms before and after the age of 50.
Women screened under the age of 50 had fewer invasive cancers and less lymph node involvement than other age groups. The most significant finding: 15 percent of cancers found through the screening mammography program of British Columbia are in women in the 40-to-49 age group, and nearly 87 percent of those cancers are detected at an early, curable stage. That is the most important message for women in the province when discussions arise regarding the continuation of the screening mammography program. I think British Columbia can be incredibly proud that that program is here, and I trust that it is here to stay.
Dr. Warren states: "There is no authority in the world that would disagree that early detection of breast cancer leads to better outcomes, and since we now know that the survival advantage of early detection is independent of age, we are able to predict benefit for all women aged 40 and over." The sentiment expressed is that you have to find it to be able to treat it, and earlier is better; there's no question of that.
I've had the privilege of meeting a number of women in the last few months who are breast cancer survivors. Breast cancer -- cause unknown, cure uncertain -- fits any objective definition of an epidemic. The puzzling thing is that it is not usually seen that way.
I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that British Columbia has a well-organized, comprehensive cancer service. It is incredibly valuable to British Columbians. The B.C. Cancer Agency needs to maintain its independence and leadership, because we need to measure our successes and, hopefully, commit to researching our options if we are going to win this battle for women in British Columbia.
One of the goals of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is to fund breast cancer research. It is incredibly important to see a funded chair at a major hospital or university in this province whose goal is to work on breast cancer -- and to see all of us commit to that goal.
T. Perry: I'm glad to hear something thoughtful coming from the opposition benches. I support what the member for Richmond East said. It's noteworthy that the month of April begins tomorrow, and it is the Canadian Cancer Society's fundraising month. I hope all members and everyone watching us in the audience will consider contributing, in whatever way they can, to the Cancer Society's fundraising drive, which helps to support research.
From the title of the statement, I thought we were going to hear a little bit more about research on cancer, particularly breast cancer, so I've spent some time thinking about it in the last 24 hours. I wanted to point out that effective research for the treatment of cancer is a long-term commitment. The experience of the United States in the war against AIDS and in various wars against heart disease and cancer has taught us that although it is true that very modest amounts of money are committed to research in health compared to research in military endeavours.... A sad fact of life is that worldwide, at least until recently, 80 percent of all scientists and engineers working in research have been working in military, destructive research, and only 20 percent of all scientists in the world have been working on positive, potentially useful research.
That's beginning to change. Yet one can't suddenly turn on the tap and produce results that will benefit women afflicted with breast cancer and their families just by spending money. Research by its very nature is a long-term endeavour. It requires basic science. It requires an understanding of epidemiology; it requires an understanding of human behaviour. These are all lessons that we've learned from the issues over screening mammography and the extent to which they can effectively prevent the death of women from breast cancer.
I'm very pleased that in recent months the government of British Columbia has extended additional resources in this field -- first, in the support of the initiatives of Dr. Ivo Olivotto at the B.C. Cancer Agency, in, I believe, the range of $750,000 to $850,000 over a number of years for enhanced provincewide resources in research coordination. Even earlier than that there was support through the science and technology fund for Dr. Karen Gelmon's group at the B.C. Cancer Agency studying new drugs which may be effective against cancer. And there was support recently, through renewed support in the provincial budget for the B.C. Health Research Foundation.
Something particularly exciting is the recruitment by the Cancer Agency, the University of B.C. and Vancouver Hospital of Dr. Victor Ling, a world-renowned scientist who has studied the mechanism of resistance to anti-cancer drugs by cancer cells, in particular in breast cancer, I believe. He's someone who many people consider a possible future Nobel laureate, and he's just agreed to come to British Columbia, even despite the appeals of the great Premier of Ontario to keep him in Toronto. I'm glad that the resources provided by government to Vancouver Hospital, UBC and the Cancer
[ Page 13172 ]
Agency have allowed them to recruit Dr. Ling. I've been working personally on a small top-up of that to help him get the best possible equipment in that lab.
I think we also ought to be thinking of the other lessons if we are serious about breast cancer. How do we control the rampant epidemic loosed by the tobacco companies, those mass murderers who afflict far more than one jumbo jetliner every month? Worldwide they are deliberately killing millions of people every year. A report in today's newspaper from Ontario reports that they are deliberately adding more nicotine to cigarettes to try to addict, in particular, more young women.
I know that the member for Richmond East has been vigorous and aggressive on this issue. I trust she will continue that. The Minister of Finance has been personally affected by the issue and has been a very dedicated opponent, while she was Minister of Health and continuing as Minister of Finance, to the odious removal of the tobacco tax by the federal Liberal government, something which criminally helped to addict hundreds, if not thousands -- maybe tens of thousands -- of young women and is a shocking perversion of the federal government's commitment to health.
So when we think research, let's also think prevention. Cigarettes also cause breast cancer. They cause virtually every known kind of cancer. They can potentially cause breast cancer in the children, perhaps even the unborn children....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the time has expired.
T. Perry: Let's keep working together on this.
The Speaker: The hon. member concludes.
L. Reid: I will make reference to the New England Journal of Medicine. The article is dated March 24, 1994, and it talks about British Columbia and a population in 1991 of 3.3 million. It talks about a single centralized cancer agency that attempts to develop consensus, circulate provincewide recommendations for the treatment of cancer, and coordinate cancer treatments in the province. Their research suggests that a slight improvement in five-year survival has been noted. Dr. Susan Love, who spoke on breast cancer at the breakfast last year, talked about breast cancer treatment as being barbaric. She said that women are currently slashed, poisoned and burned -- referring to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.
These are terrifying times for women. Judith Caldwell talks about her diagnosis in this way: "After my diagnosis, I had the terrifying feeling that I had no more influence over my destiny than a back-seat driver in a runaway car." I trust that, working together, we can indeed find a cure for this dreadful disease. I would like to close by quoting Rosalind MacPhee, because she wrote these words in her book Picasso's Woman:
"A lot of things have been taken away from me in the past months, but a lot of things have been given back. I had what I wanted. The normal rhythms of the family were restored. And tomorrow would be another day, a new morning. Life was full of endless possibilities, and I was eager to live as fully as I could for the rest of the sweet life that was given to me, because now I was not dying of cancer; I was living with it."
For all of us who know someone who is currently living with breast cancer, I trust that we will be there for them -- because I do share the sentiment that it is an incredibly frightening experience for women, and I think that the people who are currently going through breast cancer treatment are doing some remarkable things by continuing to battle that disease day after day. It's an incredibly lonely situation for many, many women, because I don't think it's well understood.
So if we can continue to work together to find the cure, to do some decent things around research, I would, frankly, be delighted, because I too know someone who is battling breast cancer. I can only wish positive things for her, and I know that she will continue to do some remarkable things in this life. So I will close by dedicating this statement to Kako Gagnon.
FOCUS ON COMMUNITY
V. Anderson: Here in the political climate of the legislative discussion it is often difficult for us to maintain a focus. On the one hand, we must be concerned with the well-being of each and every individual throughout the province; and on the other hand, we must be concerned with the total collective, of all the people of the province as we think of them together. On the one hand, the focus of government as we meet here in the legislative session is to pass legislation which will support each person in their undertaking to develop their lives as they wish and as they choose. On the other hand, the government must stay out of the lives of citizens as much as possible so they have the freedom to make their own choices. Our task, as I see it, is to focus our efforts on behalf of the people by especially taking note of the places where they live and work and play. This is their local community, and we know full well the variety of communities that we have throughout our province, each of them with their own strengths and their own weaknesses.
I believe a major focus, then, of government needs to be a focus on the local communities where we each live with our families. The focus of government cannot be primarily upon what happens in the Legislature in Victoria, although this must be a concern of ours, of course. Our major focus in all of the legislation that we undertake, in all of the activities in which we are involved, must be on the social development of the communities throughout British Columbia. Our focus, I suggest, should be to support each and all of the local communities as the people in those communities wish to develop their particular lifestyles, recognizing that each community has a different lifestyle and they cannot all be considered equally in the same way.
As a Legislative Assembly, we need to be responsive to their varieties and their particularities. Therefore I suggest that our focus needs to be on the local government of B.C. communities, and that we take a lead, in cooperation with them, so that we are responsive to what is happening and the way it is happening differently in each of the communities of which our citizens are a part. Our programs can be undertaken in response to these local developments, because it's in the local community that the real programs of government are tested, tried out and found to be successful or wanting, and from which experience effective change can be recommended and followed through.
[10:45]
For the provincial government or the Legislature to try to be all things to all people is a misunderstanding, I believe, of our role. Our role is to be the servants of the people. Our role is to serve the people as they choose to live together in the style which is appropriate for them in their communities. After all, communities are where families find their meaning, develop their lives and live out their hopes and dreams.
Our province, hon. Speaker, is only as strong and as healthy as our local communities. Yet in our day-to-day activities here in the Legislature, little attention has been focused on those same communities. Throughout British Columbia there is a growing concern for the future of communities, for the well-being of communities, for the economic
[ Page 13173 ]
viability of communities and for the freedom of communities to be able to make decisions for themselves. We are fortunate because the pioneers of British Columbia have developed some very strong and vital communities over the years, and it is our privilege and trust to build upon their activities.
The Healthy Communities project initiated by the United Nations was one promising focus to evaluate where we are and where we may be going. It is too bad that this project has been sidetracked by the New Directions health progam. It is time that we returned to this program once again in a major way. Let us return to support this self-initiating, self-directed and self-managed process for the communities of British Columbia, which is reflected in the Healthy Communities project. Their recent report highlights that these programs are continuing on their own to develop and to strengthen many local communities in spite of the lack of consistent support on a provincial basis.
All the 75 members of the Legislature must be reminded that our lives are being spent in local communities, where the focus is our family, our workplace and our social interactions. How easy it is to lose this local focus in the political byplay of legislative discussion. We allow this to happen at our peril.
Communities are where we are born, live and die, and they must continue to be our focus of concern. Here we are dependent on each other. Here our individual well-being is directly impacted by the wholeness of the communities -- their work life, their recreational life, their social interactions and their neighbourhood support of one another. The building up and the supporting of these communities must be a major focus in all of our activities.
A. Hagen: I certainly know that the member opposite has his roots in community and volunteer work, and I respect that very strongly. Like him, I am rooted in the community, and both my social conscience and my political actions come out of that community perspective. But I'd take a little different viewpoint from the member in the comments I might make today. Focus on community, yes. But I see that as a focus that occurs in very strong partnership with government. Like all partnerships, those relationships need to be defined and respectful. They need to be dynamic and flexible, and certainly they need to be community-based.
I hear a certain grieving about some of the imperfections of the focus and the partnership on community. I prefer to celebrate our successes and to build on those successes; to strive to do better. I believe that is how we as a government see our work in this Legislature and in communities. In the few minutes available to me today I would like to celebrate some of those successes and look at the ways in which the focus on community is, in fact, giving expression to Healthy Communities' goals, and if I have time in my comments I would like to review those.
First of all, I want to take a few moments to look at some of the successes and some of the building blocks that are focused on community that do, very locally and at the same time broadly, give us examples of how we can work together. I am going to use my own community of New Westminster, because if we focus on community we should focus on our community as an example.
Let me talk first of all about the Justice Institute, which will open soon. It's not a new institution, but in its new home there will be a physical presence and new opportunities for it to serve community in ways community needs. For instance, it provides training for people in mediation, provides victim assistance and works with socially disadvantaged people. It responds to people all over the province, and moves out from its locus in New Westminster to provide programs all over the province. It's there because we believe in the program and have supported it, as a government and through this Legislature.
The member talks about New Directions as something at odds with Healthy Communities. I believe it is the manifestation of the Healthy Communities concept, because it looks at local communities being responsible for health care in the broadest sense -- in the sense that the United Nations speaks of it: total health. It's not just about hospitals, it's about supporting seniors to live independently in their homes. It's about helping people with chronic mental illness to live in their communities. It's about well babies. It's about supporting the health of children. As we look at New Directions and Closer to Home, I look at the programs that have been funded in my community coming out of community needs. Those programs are focused on isolated elders, support for elders with chronic alcohol abuse, well babies and the chronically mentally ill. These are needs in my community. In partnership with the community, we are responding to those needs.
Every community is concerned about its youth. In my community there is a youth forum that is focusing on some of those needs. There are programs which we help fund, in partnership with community, like the Lower Mainland Purpose Society that provides programs for youth at risk and street youth, counselling for those youth and their families, and training. There is the adult learning and skills centre, which is working with women and young people in training and education. Again, these are programs that have been defined and determined by the community. These are just a few of the partnerships that exist with a focus on the needs of every community in the province. My colleagues from Shuswap and Nelson-Creston could give a list of those same programs.
Let's look at the issue of Healthy Communities. It happens that this report of Healthy Communities came across my desk this morning.
The Speaker: Hon. member, regrettably, your time has elapsed.
A. Hagen: May I just refer, hon. Speaker, to the Healthy Communities Yearbook for 1993-94 and hope that the member might refer to some of those goals which we are achieving in partnership.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments from the member for New Westminster. I know she is very active in her community and in many of the ventures she has just spoken about. I had the opportunity just recently to read a newsletter she has put out from her constituency office, in which she essentially talked about many of those same programs. So I know that her awareness has been there and that she's been a part of that -- as have been most if not all of the people in this Legislature. I'm sure all the people in this Legislature have come from community involvement. That's why they have been led to become involved in this broader process. But we get caught up in the broader process. It's important that periodically we think about how this broader process serves the local community.
The volunteer program of the local community is fundamental, because nearly every vital program that has continued over the years and helped our community to come into being has been undertaken, supported and continued by volunteers within the community.
[ Page 13174 ]
The volunteer community is being threatened by many processes at this time. The volunteer community is threatened because those who have to go out to work -- two or three members of the family -- no longer have the same kind of volunteer time that was available to them. They're being threatened by the economic pressure which is upon them, so no longer do they necessarily have the same resources to volunteer in financial or other ways in the community projects. Another threat that can come upon our volunteer community if we're not careful is that the regulation of governmental programs can usurp and make local community efforts difficult, with the kind of red tape or other difficulties that come in their way.
I want to stress that when we talk about local communities and what they are able to accomplish, we must also talk about the place of volunteers within those communities. The communities that I am aware of, right across this country and this province, have been made strong because of the volunteers who have contributed their lives and their work.
The current philosophy, which often seems to be the philosophy of government, is to usurp the decision-making of local citizens by increasing legislation and regulation. If this is the case, this is contrary to the focus on which we should be engaged. The task of government is to represent citizens, to support them in their decision-making, to understand their volunteer efforts and to give them help so they may develop their own unique ways of neighbour supporting neighbour.
The Speaker: For the final statement this morning, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston.
C. Evans: I would like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Evans: I want to introduce, in the gallery today, my friends Ann Fraser from Victoria and Barbara Barrett from Parksville. I asked leave so you wouldn't take from my precious seven minutes to do it.
DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS: INVESTING IN JOBS
A couple of years ago on a Friday, I think, I stood here to describe the first Columbia River symposium and to discuss with members for the first time the concept of an entitlement to the region which had grown from that symposium. The spokesperson for the opposition rose afterwards to say he agreed with me, and I felt like there was going to be unanimity here. It was the spokesperson from the Social Credit Party who stood up later and said he did not. My purpose in standing here today is to bring forward the various objections I've heard and what we are attempting to put forward for the Kootenay region, to see if we can't get unanimity here around these issues.
Last fall, on September 8, 1994, the Premier announced the entitlement to the region of approximately a third of the downstream benefits. The first words I heard from the opposition party were that the regions should get all of the downstream benefits. The third party leader was quick off the mark to say: "No, not one cent to the region, because it sets a dangerous precedent."
Last week the Premier announced the Columbia River accord in this House. The Liberal leader said it was a bad deal. He said the power from the Kootenays would cost 7 cents a kilowatt-hour, and that was too much money. He said the accord was shoved down people's throats and should have been made in the Kootenays. He said it would be proven to be a bad deal over the next few weeks. I hope we can deal with each of these issues, straighten them out and all get on the same side from here on in.
[11:00]
Let's start with the third party's assertion that the accord is a precedent. Let's me say that I agree; I quite agree. In future I think every single region that is despoiled to serve the advantage of another country should get an entitlement from that other country to try and make up for the devastation it experienced.
But what is the downstream benefit? There are all kinds of people talking here; I don't think we have actually explained what they might mean. It means this: what is the benefit to another nation -- say, the United States -- of British Columbia agreeing to flood the Kootenays to the tune of 15 million acre-feet when it's not to produce one kilowatt-hour for British Columbians? It's not to make you warmer, hon. member, and it's not to make money for your town, but it's to make money in another country. The downstream benefits were agreed to be half of the increased power produced in another nation or its dollar equivalent for destroying land, homes and peoples' lives in this country.
I would submit that there isn't another region in British Columbia -- perhaps in this great nation -- where the people have decided to commit that region to devastation in order to serve another nation's interests. If the Leader of the Third Party thinks this is a precedent, let it be. If we ever do such a thing again, let's have an entitlement for that region, too, or use it to make sure we never do it again.
Now let's deal with this question. The Leader of the Opposition is saying that the power from the Keenleyside Dam is too expensive. Keenleyside Dam is just a word here; it's just a block of concrete. I wonder if hon. members know that it's a dam that produces no electricity. It's a drone dam, hon. member -- a dam created to create a reservoir to serve the interests of another country. We want, because we're Canadians, to empower the dam.
The cost of the electricity is claimed by the hon. member to be 7 cents a kilowatt-hour; B.C. Hydro says it will be 5 1/2 cents -- I don't know where he got 7 cents. Richardson Greenshields audited Hydro, and they said it would be 3.9 cents. Blended with the other dams that we are going to empower in the accord, it will cost 3.9 cents. I wonder if the hon. member thinks this power is too expensive. What is he saying? Is he saying that we want the cheapest power possible to heat Vancouver, no matter what the land cost, the people cost or the wildlife cost? Is he saying: "Let's build Site C if that's the cheapest"? Or does he understand that cost is more than money?
Let's consider the assertion that the accord is the government's agenda and that making jobs is just the government's idea of a good thing. Before I ever stood here, I went to a couple of dozen community meetings and two major symposia. Over 300 people attended. People from my political party, the Socred Party, the third party, independent people and people from the opposition party -- we all got together. Nobody cared what party you were from; we cared where you lived; we cared what you cared about. It didn't matter what your nationality was. When we started out, it was four regional districts, and then somebody figured out: what about Valemount? Valemount paid in the deal, so that regional district was brought in. Then somebody thought it was a pretty arrogant idea for a bunch of white folks to have this discussion, and the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket people were brought in. The tribal council met with the regional districts.
[ Page 13175 ]
So now we have -- it's not the government's agenda -- hundreds of people of every nationality from every community wherever the river goes. We worked this out together, and the Premier brought it to all the parties so we can agree on it together. I hope I've managed to straighten out some misunderstandings, and I hope the hon. member will be able to stand up and say: "By gosh, now we understand, we agree. Let's get on with it. Let's do the Columbia Basin accord."
W. Hurd: I appreciate the member's comments, because I know that the member for Nelson-Creston and, of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the member for Rossland-Trail, and others in the Kootenays have worked hard over the last four years to ensure that the benefits from the Columbia River Treaty were returned to the people of the Kootenays, which I think everyone recognizes -- at least on this side of the House -- as a rightful ownership of that resource for the damage that has occurred to that region of the province. We know that economic opportunities have been reduced and that storage dams have created ecological wastelands in the lakes because there is an inability to sustain the fishery resource. So all those on this side of the House recognize the importance of returning benefits to the region. The question is whether the choice of vehicles by the government to return this investment to the people of the Kootenays is the most appropriate vehicle.
I had the good fortune to attend one of the symposiums, to which the member refers, in Cranbrook last year. I participated with a group of people who demonstrated a tremendous amount of commitment to their region and a tremendous understanding of what could be done with these benefits to revitalize the economy and to introduce new opportunities in value-added manufacturing. They had some wonderful ideas for diversifying the economy and allowing the Columbia River Development Commission to invest those benefits directly in the region with a community focus.
After engaging in this round-table discussion all day, into the gathering flew the Minister of Employment and Investment. As I recall, he had a better idea for the benefits in the Kootenays. His idea was three dams -- the renovation of the Waneta and Brilliant dams, formerly owned by Cominco. Let's get one thing straight: we're not talking about the actual dams here; we're talking about the expansion rights for power production and also about the renovation of the Keenleyside Dam. My impression at the meeting was that the individuals participating had heard nothing about this proposal -- many people I talked to were unaware of it.
Let's talk about the economics of those three dams. We learned recently that the Bonneville Power Corporation intends to deactivate dams in the Columbia River, which is going to further reduce the flows to the Keenleyside Dam. We're advised that as a result of sediment from the Celgar pulp mill, there is an environmental concern about contaminated soils at the base of that dam. I'm glad that the Minister of Environment is here. I would urge him to make notes about that.
The official opposition has carefully examined the economics of this project, particularly the Keenleyside, and we cannot get an economic justification out of the power generation. I close my remarks, as I see my time is spent. Obviously we favour the return of benefits to the region, but we feel strongly that this is not the vehicle to do it.
C. Evans: I am really glad to see that after 30 years, we've at least got to the place where we can agree that the nature and idea of an entitlement has the consent of both sides of the House. I'm sorry that we can't agree upon how that entitlement ought to take place.
I want to address this question of how the region came up with the idea of taking control of hydroelectric facilities. Every single year for 30 years there's been a table. I don't know what town it's in. As a matter of fact, I don't even know what country it's in. B.C. Hydro sits down at that table. Bonneville is there, West Kootenay is there and maybe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is there. I don't know who all the players are. All I know is that we don't know where it is because we've never been invited. Around that table, they debate lake levels. They say they'll set the lake or reservoir this height this summer and that height this fall, and we don't take part in that conversation. We're not invited to the room.
Lake level is a matter of money. The only way you'll ever get into that room is with the currency you need to hold in your hand as you walk through the door, and that currency -- that password -- is power. Until the people control some electrical power, they're not invited to be at the discussion about how the lake levels will be established.
When we talked and talked month after month, we came to understand that the commodity we were negotiating for wasn't money. It was access; it was dialogue. It was stabilization of an ecosystem, and the only way we could get through the door was if we took over that chunk of concrete that the people in this room imposed on that land to make some people happy in another country. Then we made it do something real. We made it make electricity so we could get to the table. It was a stroke of brilliance, and it didn't come from here. It came from a building in the Kootenays full of people of different colours from different towns who were struggling to figure out how to empower themselves. Now that I've explained the last part, maybe the opposition will come on board and celebrate what we've done.
U. Dosanjh: I ask for leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
U. Dosanjh: In the precincts are students from the bridge program at Tupper Secondary School in the care of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Dolsen. Would the House please make them welcome.
The Speaker: Before proceeding to the next order of business, I would like to remind members of the limitations placed upon us under our standing orders for private members' statements. I realize that this is our first opportunity this session for private members' statements, and members may have forgotten that this period is not intended as a forum for partisan political debate. Remarks reflecting negatively on individual members, groups of members and the House are not regarded as falling within the spirit or intent of standing order 25A. I ask members to review that for the future.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure we'll all reflect on that.
It's my pleasure now to call budget debate.
(continued)
V. Anderson: As I speak to the budget that has been recently presented to this Legislature and to British Columbia, I am amazed and angered by the presentation at this particular time.
In all truth, I was expecting something quite different, particularly from this government which has prided itself --
[ Page 13176 ]
and often with justification -- on being the voice of the people in need. I am shocked that this budget and the throne speech totally changed the focus of the "No Debt Party." I use that terminology because it used to be the aim of the NDP that no person in British Columbia or wherever the NDP was in power should have to live in poverty or debt. Yet not only are we continuing to discover that the total debt of the province is increasing but the debt and the poverty of individuals across this province are increasing also, both in the depth of that debt and the number of people who are finding themselves engulfed in that process. Apparently the aim has completely vanished, and I must ask this government why.
Indeed, as one looks at this budget, one quote particularly stands out -- the quote referred to many times throughout the budget that this government is speaking to and presenting this budget for the ordinary Canadian. The ordinary Canadian, as defined within the budget, in the illustrations given in its backup material as well and in some of the presentations of members of the government, apparently means an individual who is earning around $25,000 -- I take that figure from their own material -- or a family that earns $30,000 to $40,000 a year. That's their definition of an ordinary Canadian. Apparently, a person on minimum wage who earns slightly over $13,000 gross is not an ordinary Canadian any longer in the eyes of this government, and the 20 percent plus of those persons in the province who are way below that particular figure no longer seem to be part of the NDP budget and planning process. I'm saddened because of that.
[11:15]
I don't want to say that they've been completely ignored, for there are passing references to those who are involved with income assistance programs. The first of these is under the heading of "New Initiatives to Cut Wasteful Spending": "During the last year we also implemented a number of initiatives to reduce the costs of welfare to ensure that benefits are paid to those truly in need." The first reference to those on income assistance is in relationship to wasteful spending, to fraud and to a very minor part of those who are part of that system. Perhaps there's some justification for overcoming the fraud, but there is absolutely no mention of what improvements are being planned for those "truly in need," whose conditions have continued to deteriorate each year of this government's mandate. Their own figures demonstrate this particular sad reality.
Members of the government have said, when I raised this concern before, that we're only asking for more money to be spent, and they ridicule us for that. Let me stress that it's not money which is the major concern here; it's not more money that's needed. What is needed is a priority of getting the money that we already have to the people who are in real need, in a manner that is able to meet their needs realistically. It is a matter of priority so that the money available is not gobbled up by the system or put into projects which make good headlines but do not put food on the table or provide decent housing for the people of our community.
I refer again to the Federated Anti-Poverty Joke Book which, of course, is no joke. The low-income people of the province, who are struggling to deal with the system that is supposed to be helping them, have indicated incident after incident of stupidity, carelessness and incompetence in a system that degrades persons and fails again and again to use the funds wisely. The utter waste and misuse of dollars in providing services to people in need is beyond belief. The indignities and suffering caused to persons of all ages is horrific. I'm sure every member of this Legislature has heard these complaints daily in their constituency offices; I am sure my office is not unique in having heard these comments again and again.
Children are undernourished and without basic social necessities. Living accommodations are totally inadequate, and care programs are merry-go-round processes. Oh, I grant that these dire straits are not the conditions of all children, all families or all seniors, but they are the conditions of far too many. It is a collective disgrace for all of us. It is a further disgrace that neither the throne speech nor the budget addressed these conditions. They made no provision in reality for the epidemic of poverty that is prevalent among us.
The budget talks glowingly of preserving health care and of supporting education, but nowhere is there a focus on the unhealthy and the uneducated among those who do not have the wherewithal to use either the health system or the care system that is available to the majority of the population. The concern for the ordinary Canadian means that we pass these people by on the other side.
What has happened to this government? Three years ago the needs of the oppressed, the neglected, the overlooked and the challenged were front and centre in this government's mandate. Today there is hardly a mention. Is the government deaf or blind or what? What has frightened them? Have they set aside their original principles, so broadly proclaimed, because they are concerned with their survival instinct at the present moment? It seems that they are riding their chargers for health and education -- or so they say. But where is the charger for social services, which formerly was their leading concern? For years they have been known as the party that stood up for the oppressed, but no longer. Now they call themselves the party of the ordinary Canadian. Well, I don't want to be classified as an ordinary Canadian. I want, as I believe all other Canadians and British Columbians do, to be classified as an extraordinary Canadian, who is as special as any other Canadian -- each precious in their own unique way.
The budget is a watered-down version of the vision that once sparked this party's ancient ancestors. It is astounding how old and outdated a party can become in just 50 years. Let me respond to the government speakers of this past week, who would strive to call Liberals "leftover Socreds." How can they be so unknowing? Let me give a personal example here. I grew up in the CCF movement of Saskatchewan in the forties and fifties. In that movement, I knew what it was to care for people, to respect each and every one -- no matter what their position in life -- and to ridicule no one because of one's own point of view or stupidity. It was a movement in those days that respected not the money in your pocket or your bank account but your desire to help your fellow human being, whether dirt farmer, doctor, banker, nurse, barber -- as my father was -- housewife or aboriginal chief. One thing brought people together: a desire to build a community for all. It was not an organized union movement; it was a cooperative movement wherein each one trusted and depended on the other. It was a community living, working, playing and celebrating together.
The New Democratic Party not only didn't continue the name, but didn't continue the essence of its heritage. So others like myself and many others came to where we could find a new home. Some people say we came from the Left to find a welcoming and appropriate home within the Liberals, who believe in an economic, environmental balance with a strong social balance and conscience. Some who believed in this kind of balance did, for a time, park their votes with the Socreds, and others parked their votes with the NDP. Now, however, these folks are coming home from all directions to create an economic balance in a social, caring, renewed liberalism. Of course the fringe will continue to be NDP or Reform.
I refer again to an action to cut wasteful spending. For those who would like to look for it, it's on page 16 in the
[ Page 13177 ]
budget statement. "Measures include recovering income assistance payments made while recipients are waiting for unemployment insurance payments, for a savings of $20 million...." How stupid this statement is! The government doesn't seem to know the reality of the circumstances they are describing to save $20 million.
Let me explain. I'm sure all the members here have heard these exact comments in their constituency offices over the last number of months. We have had desperate phone calls from people saying that this process has been mismanaged and that they and their families are personally suffering. It is causing untold anguish and hurt for individuals and families already in dire circumstances.
As most of us know, if one has to go on unemployment insurance there is a waiting period. If you have no money and have a family to feed, that's a critical problem. It was arranged, and properly so, that one is able to borrow funds from the Social Services system to tide one over, having signed an agreement to repay when the unemployment cheque arrives -- a system very acceptable and aboveboard. However, because of this signed agreement, the unemployment cheque is now in effect being garnisheed by the welfare service. When it comes, it is taken all at once so that there is nothing left to live on and they are worse off than they were before.
How much simpler and fairer it would have been to deduct a portion each month, as was the original commitment. However, this is not the way this government budgets -- not only its resources, but others as well.
An Hon. Member: That's a federal system.
V. Anderson: Somebody tells me that's a federal system. No sir, it's the local welfare office which is taking those moneys and not allowing it to go back to the people who have need of it. And then they say it's money borrowed out and money coming back in, and they say they've just saved $20 million, when all it was was an in-and-out process. They didn't save a cent in the process; it just caused havoc among the people.
However, there is one possible glimmer of hope for one selected group within the province. I quote again:
"During the coming year we will take steps to move young people off welfare and into jobs and jobs training. This budget transfers $40 million in income assistance for students to the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, and this assistance will be focused on achieving economic independence for young people."
And again, along a similar line: "...helping those on income assistance to acquire the skills needed to get back into the workforce."
But what do these promises mean? We do not know. We presume this includes the economically challenged, the physically and mentally challenged, the ethnically challenged and the occupationally challenged. But surprisingly, neither the throne speech nor the budget says anything about the pressing needs of these particular persons within our society.
Five years ago I could not imagine an NDP speech of any kind which did not refer specifically to each and every one of these groups, yet in both of these very significant speeches presenting the nature of their promises to the province, they are all totally ignored.
[11:30]
It is a surprise. Because of this, it is difficult to understand where they are going in the future. And why are we concerned? Let me share with you some of the issues that have happened in this province during the mandate of this government. These are actual situations and actual reportings that come to us through the generosity of the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C., which speaks on behalf of those who have had to deal with the services in this province. It reports:
"A single parent wanted to see her worker. While her young daughter explored the plastic playhouse in the reception area, several people came in and were instructed by the receptionist 'to sit down over there and wait until we're ready for you.' After seeing her worker, the single parent said to her daughter: 'Come on now, time to go home.' 'Not now,' came a voice from inside the playhouse, 'I'm playing.' 'Come on,' repeated the mother, 'we have to go home.' The child peeked out from the playhouse and retorted: 'No, I'm playing welfare. Sit down and wait there until I'm ready for you.' "
One of the main concerns that the people of this community have is for respect in service, and respect, of course, goes two ways: it's respect for the worker as well as for the client.
A woman came in to see her worker to fill out an application for handicapped benefits. She was told that no appointment was possible for three months. That kind of situation occurs again and again. A man's cheque was withheld pending his producing a receipt. The trouble was that he couldn't get the receipt until he paid the bill, and he couldn't pay the bill until he got his cheque. Catch-22, again and again. A worker suggested to a single parent who asked for a crisis grant to buy a crib for her baby that she ask her 12-year-old son to buy the baby's crib with the money he had earned delivering flyers from the local store. "It's not his baby," protested the woman. "It's mine."
A single parent was refused a crisis grant for food on the grounds that her 14-year-old daughter earned money by babysitting. "Don't you think," asked the mother, "that she's a little young to have to support a family?"
A father made regular child support payments of $100 a month, which the mother was allowed to keep; then he died. Following his death, the orphan's benefits of $100 a month were totally deducted from the mother's welfare cheque. There doesn't seem to be any logic in how people have to follow regulations that don't meet the circumstances of life.
A father never made his child support payments, and was thousands of dollars in arrears at the time of his death. Then, for the first time, the mother received support payments in the form of the orphan's allowance. The payments were, of course, totally deducted from her welfare cheque.
A welfare recipient needed assistance to provide for her handicapped eight-year-old. "She's not handicapped," said the worker. "She is handicapped," protested the parent. "She has cerebral palsy." "She's not handicapped," insisted the worker -- "not until she's 18." By the definition in the regulations, a "handicapped" person means an individual 18 years of age or older; if you're under 18, handicaps are not recognized.
A single parent was informed by her worker that her Down's syndrome son could not receive handicap benefits until he reached the age of 19.
These are the conditions that the budget needs to be dealing with for the people of this province.
An unemployable woman who had no money, no income, no place to live and nothing to eat was refused welfare because she was waiting for an insurance settlement for the automobile accident which had disabled her. She was not offered hardship assistance or advised of her right to appeal. As she was tearfully leaving the office, the receptionist called out cheerfully: "Have a Merry Christmas."
A family with an oil-heated home was informed by the worker that she would only approve half a tank of oil, despite
[ Page 13178 ]
the fact that the oil company's policy was to deliver a full tank or nothing; so the family got nothing. They weathered the cold snap with electric heaters and their electric stove, but as a result their hydro bill was astronomical. And when they could not pay it, Hydro threatened to cut off the electricity. The ministry paid the hydro bill, which cost as much as a full tank of oil would have cost in the first place.
A woman who fled after her husband threatened her and her children with a gun was sent by the ministry to another community, while it stored her belongings in her hometown; the ministry then refused to ship her belongings to her new accommodation. On the advice of an advocate, the woman requested a crisis grant to replace only her most basic needs. When she pointed out that the request was higher than the cost of shipping what was stored, the ministry hastily changed its mind.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Yes, they do change their minds, but only after people have gone through untold suffering and hardship.
After moving, a single parent dutifully reported her new address but did not receive her cheque. She went to her new welfare office, where she was told that her file had not yet been transferred and that she would have to go to her old office to get her cheque. She then went to the old office, where she was told that her file had been transferred and that she would have to go to the new office to get her cheque. She then went back to the new office, where she was again told that her file had not arrived and that no cheque could be issued until it did. "For God's sake," she exploded, "the offices are only five miles apart! If they sent it by turtle, it should have been here by now."
A man and his wife and two children were forced onto welfare when the man's unemployment insurance ran out. He looked hard for a job but found none. His children desperately needed to see a dentist, but his worker informed him that as the family was classified as employable it was not eligible for anything but emergency medical and dental benefits. The father therefore left the family, knowing that as a single parent the mother would have no difficulty obtaining health benefits for the children, and she didn't. Time and time again, that's exactly what's happening. Families are splitting up in order that the children can get the care that, because of their job situation, families unfortunately are not able to provide themselves.
The six-year-old daughter of a welfare recipient desperately needed new glasses. When the mother took the prescription to the worker, she was told that children are allowed new glasses only once a year. The woman returned to the eye specialist and told him what the worker said. The doctor promptly marched over to the welfare office and told the worker that he had spent many years learning his profession and that only when she also had her medical certificate could she make such a decision and that, unless the prescription was authorized on the spot, he would contact the local media. Of course, the prescription was authorized.
Finally, an unemployable woman suffering from a serious back problem was undergoing physiotherapy treatments which did not seem to be effective. Her doctor therefore recommended that she exercise in the local community swimming pool four nights a week, and he wrote a letter to that effect. The cost was $14 a week. The ministry refused to pay the swimming pool cost but offered to continue her twice-weekly physiotherapy sessions at a cost of $50 a week. "Physiotherapy is covered by Medical Services," an advocate explained, "and the other isn't." So the government will pay for something expensive because its rules won't let it do something cheaper, even if cheaper is better. What else is new?
The budget does not deal with the circumstances of people in crucial need. It's only talking about "ordinary Canadians," not real Canadians. I'm saddened by this neglect in this budget and this throne speech.
At this time, I move that we adjourn debate.
Motion approved.
M. de Jong: I seek leave to introduce a private member's bill.
Leave granted.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT
M. de Jong presented a bill intituled Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society Public Inquiry Act.
M. de Jong: All British Columbians were shocked and disappointed to learn of the convictions for fraudulent activities that were registered against the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in the summer of 1994. Since that time British Columbians have asked for a full public inquiry to determine the extent, if any, to which illegally obtained funds may have flowed between the NCHS and the NDP. This bill will provide for a full public inquiry into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and all of its affiliates, as well as examine its links to the New Democratic Party. The purpose of the public inquiry is to determine, in a public forum, the full extent of the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society.
Bill M207 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.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would have thought the hon. member got enough headlines this week, but at this late hour he's trying to get another one. I guess you never quit.
I'd like to wish all members a good and restful weekend. We'll be back at it with great spirit, I'm sure, on Monday. The House will be reconvening on Monday at 2 o'clock.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]