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, APRIL 7, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 18
[ Page 13301 ]
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the member for Saanich South, I'd like to introduce 25 students from Craigflower Elementary School, who are here with their teacher Mr. Campbell. Would the House all make them welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Private members' statements.
An Hon. Member: Where is the government today?
Deputy Speaker: I will call upon the....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, members. This is a Friday morning, which usually marks a high degree of civility in this place.
I call upon the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to make the first statement.
Interjection.
PROTECTING MEDICARE
D. Schreck: Before I even begin my presentation on protecting medicare, I'm anticipated by heckling from one of the opposition members from Surrey, saying that this had better not be political.
I would like to set the context of my remarks on preserving medicare. Hon. members should know that on Monday of next week, three days from now, every Health minister in Canada will be meeting at a hotel in the West End to talk about health policy concerns across the country. Hon. Speaker, I truly hope that every one of those provincial Health ministers, whether they be Tory, Liberal or New Democrat, raises, with a unanimous voice, their concern about what is coming out of Ottawa, because we face some very serious threats to preserving medicare.
I have to say that perhaps one of the greatest threats to preserving medicare is our aging population -- aging in the sense that over half the population of British Columbia, over half the population of Canada, never knew a health care system that did not have public health insurance. I would like to appeal to all British Columbians to talk to your grandparents, talk to your parents, talk to people who have immigrated from the United States and find out what access to health care was like before public health insurance. If we do not take action now to preserve medicare, we are going to go back to those days of the early 1960s and 1950s. Those are the kinds of days that are experienced by most people in the United States now.
How close are we to seeing those days? Just last night you could turn on the national news and see Preston Manning speaking in Alberta and calling, essentially, for the destruction of Canadian medicare. The type of system that is being advocated by those wreckers of medicare is a march to the past. It's the kind of system where instead of having the freedom to go to the doctor of your choice and have your bill paid based on the medical judgment of that practitioner, you would have some sort of major deductible. You may pay the first $500 or the first $1,000. Instead, you might pay 20 percent of all costs.
Instead, you may find that you have how much you are limited to spending encoded on a magnetic strip on your CareCard, and once you get beyond that point, you're on your own hook. That recommendation, as absurd as it sounds to you and me, was actually included in a royal commission report called the Rainbow Report, which recommended the future of health care in Alberta. That's the kind of direction Alberta is going in. That's the kind of direction Alberta has been lobbying the federal government on since the inception of the Canada Health Act in 1984. Albertans, first under the Tories and now under the Ralph Klein Tories, want to march us back to the past.
Interjection.
D. Schreck: I hear heckling from those opposition benches, saying that these are scare tactics. It saddens me that any member of the official opposition in this British Columbia parliament would raise their voice in support of Ralph Klein.
This is the non-partisan issue of the salvation of medicare. I would like to quote from one of the longest-serving federal Liberals in this country, whom many of us respect, irrespective of partisan differences. I'd like to lift my hat off to longtime Liberal MP Warren Allmand. We saw just this week what happens to Liberal MPs in our federal Parliament who speak out: three of them were stripped of their committee duties after they represented the fair views of their constituents in a vote recently. Mr. Allmand had the courage to stand up and say: "The federal budget repudiates everything the Liberals promised in the 1983 election campaign."
I debated federal MP Hedy Fry in North Vancouver on precisely the same point. What came to be understood is that the federal budget, which will remove all federal funding for health, education and social services within the next six years and will remove $800 million a year from British Columbia starting just two years from now, repudiates everything that Pearson and Trudeau accomplished in the late sixties -- under pressure from Tommy Douglas and the New Democrats -- by building the best health care system in the world.
With the pressure from the Ralph Kleins and the Preston Mannings of this world, and from the Liberals -- save and except that outstanding speaker Warren Allmand -- medicare is being attacked. I encourage all British Columbians to speak to their parents and grandparents; and speak to immigrants from the United States. Find out the threat of what we will go back to if we do not stop that tide. This House should unanimously give a message to those Health ministers who are meeting in Vancouver on Monday that we've seen enough. We want a strong message sent to Ottawa: preserve and protect medicare.
Deputy Speaker: Responding to the member's statement is the member for Richmond East.
L. Reid: I would like to begin by saying that medicare is an essential part of the Canadian identity. It does not belong to any particular political party; it belongs to the people of this
[ Page 13302 ]
country. Frankly, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will stand up and defend this program. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that medicare will continue to be an essential component of what we understand to be Canadian.
The Canada Health Act, passed by Parliament in 1984, has become the cornerstone of the Canadian health system. It reaffirms the federal government's commitment to a universal, accessible, comprehensive, portable and publicly administered insurance system. That is what we understand the Canada Health Act to stand for, and we stand behind it, as British Columbia Liberals.
Liberals in this country and Liberals in British Columbia are builders. I would submit that none of us in this chamber came to public life to tear something down. That is absolutely not a question. Health services were found by the Hall commission to be some of the finest in the world. We stand behind those kinds of determinations. Certainly when we come back and talk about the health system in Canada and its five driving principles, the principles are there. Each province, I believe, does its best to come to grips with how those principles are administered.
Public administration. We have no issue around seeing the system publicly administered. Comprehensiveness. There are many, many jurisdictions in this country and in North America that have dealt with comprehensiveness. What, indeed, does a core medical service look like? We need to come to grips with that discussion. I'm not submitting that we do more than look at treatment protocols and practice guidelines, because I think the goal of anyone in this chamber is to find the best practice around medicine. I think that's absolutely the goal.
I think we need a strong measurement base in this country, so we are providing only the best practice to Canadian patients and Canadian taxpayers; I believe that fundamentally. I don't believe that every province in this land has done its part in terms of establishing health targets. I know we will continue to advance this issue as Liberals, because you should be able to measure practice -- and that can be no more important than in the delivery of health care and education.
Universality. No one takes issue with that concept. No British Columbia Liberal would ever wish to see anyone turned away from emergency medical care or for care that was medically necessary. No one would ever wish that. We believe that fundamentally.
The fourth principle is portability. Should you have the ability to travel province to province in this land and receive medical care of a consistently high calibre? Emphatically, the answer is yes. There is no discussion around preserving the principles of medical care.
[10:15]
Accessibility. We understand what that word means. We have to ensure that no matter where you live in this province, you have access to a similar level of service. That's absolutely not the case today in this province, and we need to ensure that that is always the goal and the target for us as Liberals, for us as builders and for those of us who are truly committed to defining and refining what we understand about the Canada Health Act, because it is a legitimate piece of legislation. It's 11 years old this year. It is something that will continue to assist us in preserving and enhancing perhaps the finest medical system in the world, and to ensure that quality health care is available to all Canadians.
It troubles me when I hear the federal government misrepresented. The federal government has been clear on their commitment to medicare. Madam Diane Marleau has been clear. All I'm asking for as this debate continues is that there be some truth and honesty. In terms of federal transfer payments, I believe there is no province more capable of being self-sustaining than British Columbia. We have the ability, we have the intellect, and we have the talent. I trust we have the commitment not to stamp our feet and be petulant about a reduction in transfer payments, but to look at where our priorities are. If we always see health care and education as the number one priorities for British Columbia, we will do exceedingly well.
There has to be a plan and a strategy. I want to hear what kind of plan the respondent will come back with to the table. I know, as all of you do, that we have been continually subjected in this chamber to one of two themes: blaming the previous government, the Social Credit Party, or blaming the federal government. We have the talent in this province to do an exceptional job, and under a Liberal government, I know we will.
D. Schreck: I thank the member for Richmond East, the official opposition Health critic, for her remarks. I heard those remarks fall into three categories.
First, I heard her say that the five defining principles of medicare -- comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility and public administration, as guaranteed in the 1984 Canada Health Act -- are in her view being met to the best of their capability by each and every province. On that statement, I may quarrel with what's happening in Alberta, but I would certainly take the compliment she has paid our Health minister and recognize her acknowledgement that British Columbia is honouring and adhering to those standards.
Later in that address, she turned to two other points. She drew into question some of the standards around accessibility, and as anyone who has ever looked at health care can say, I can say that the standards are always goals to be worked toward. There has been, and I regret may always be, a difference in accessibility depending on which part of this province you live and work in. What we have seen is our government committed to improving accessibility and reducing those inequalities.
What really disappoints me about the member's reply is the apologist nature of defending the federal Liberals. I would hope that the provincial Liberal opposition Health critic would stand up and applaud Warren Allmand, the only federal Liberal MP who had the guts to say the truth, which is that the federal Liberals are selling out medicare and destroying it. But what did we hear instead? We heard the provincial Liberal Health critic clearly state exactly what her leader had said: cut deeper, cut more and destroy medicare. That is a partisan difference, and I regret that it is brought up here on a Friday, but it is a difference that everybody in this province must understand.
SAFER COMMUNITIES
J. Dalton: I suspected that the first topic might have warmed us up a bit. Perhaps we can come back to something that's a little more sane and sober, and put aside some of the partisan comments.
Public concern for the safety of our communities is, unfortunately, escalating. Our streets, school yards and even our homes are affected by the increase in criminal activity. It is a sad commentary that in a country such as ours, where we enjoy freedom and pride ourselves in that freedom, it has been compromised by unacceptable violent behaviour. It's
[ Page 13303 ]
easy to identify and comment on the problem; it is much more difficult to produce workable solutions. Efforts to do so abound in this province and in the rest of Canada. Members will be more than familiar with CRY, CAVEAT, MADD, Citizens United for Safety and Justice, and with the initiatives of people such as Steve Carpenter. Members may also, no doubt unfortunately, know friends, neighbours or perhaps even family members who have become victims.
Just this week I had the occasion to meet with the parents, aunt and uncle and a close family friend of a 24-year-old woman who was tragically killed in a drunk-driving accident. Not only was a person taken so unnecessarily and tragically from her family and friends, she was also a heart transplant recipient. Our health system gave her a new life; our unsafe streets took that life. What a tragic irony, and what an unnecessary and preventable event.
Allow me to comment on another community initiative to enhance safety. The Leader of the Official Opposition and I met recently with officials of the B.C. Coalition for Safer Communities. Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of joining coalition members, as well as representatives from other organizations and other countries, in a planning session for a world conference on community safety, to be held in March 1996 in Vancouver. This conference will allow 500 people from many countries to discuss the leading strategies to prevent crime and reduce violence.
Before I comment further on the conference, which will be titled Towards World Change, let me describe the B.C. Coalition for Safer Communities and its mandate. The preamble of the coalition's goals and objectives is an informative overview of what the coalition is designed to accomplish.
"Many of the things that make communities safer from crime lie beyond the jurisdiction of law enforcement, courts, Corrections and provincial or federal governments. Local communities and local governments must play a vital role in reducing crime and fear by their combined actions in such areas as community policing, recreation, social services, race relations, housing, schools and employment."
We should note in the preamble that many things that make communities safer lie beyond the jurisdiction of provincial or federal governments. That does not mean that governments do not play a role. It does mean, however, that effective solutions to finding community safety come in large part from the community itself, with government support where and when needed. Local initiatives such as Block Watch, Business Watch and community policing centres are effective and inexpensive and provide community solutions to community problems.
This world conference, which as I commented will be held next March in Vancouver, will address the background and the social circumstances that allow crime to occur and increase. The conference will provide a forum to exchange and share different experiences from many countries and communities right across our global world. We in British Columbia and Canada have the good fortune to live in safe conditions, particularly in comparison with many other countries, but we can certainly profit from the experience and expertise of others. This conference coming up next year will provide that opportunity. Without question, we owe it to ourselves and to all others to seek to improve our societies, both locally and globally.
At the planning session that I attended recently, I joined ten others in a round-table discussion of what issues and possible solutions should be on the agenda for next March. It was generally agreed around that table that the conference must address economic, health, education, housing, and other social issues, and provide the opportunity to learn from each other about what works and how to apply strategies to prevent crime and reduce violence.
Without question, this world conference will advance the cause of community safety and allow all attendees to expand their horizons in seeking global solutions to a serious global problem.
F. Gingell: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: I wish the House to join me in welcoming two very good friends and constituents, Jack and Kathy Butchart, who are both very active in charitable and community work in Delta.
J. Weisgerber: While we're doing introductions, I've just noticed a good friend from Fort St. John who is in the gallery.
Deputy Speaker: Could I perhaps ask leave of the House first? I assume that would be granted, but....
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: On behalf of myself and the member for Peace River North, I'd like to introduce a good friend from Fort St. John. Mike Kosick is in the stands. Would you please make him welcome.
[10:30]
Deputy Speaker: Responding to the statement is the member for Port Coquitlam.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for his thoughtful comments, because crime is an issue that concerns all of us. It doesn't matter whether one is on this side of the House or on that side. It's an issue to all of us and to our families; it's an issue in our communities and it is, in fact, an issue worldwide. The idea of a conference to try to find global solutions to local problems is one that I believe is worthwhile. But I would like to confine my remarks to what I believe are local issues.
Each of our communities has unique problems. Each of our communities has the potential for unique solutions that could be shared provincewide. This government has been encouraging communities to do just that. We've heard about programs such as Block Watch and Neighbourhood Watch. They've got the support of the province, of the community, of councils and of local police.
They work, but I believe they have to be expanded. I believe that the idea for the nineties is the issue of community policing and getting police back into the community. We have to encourage the increased use of bike patrols, for example, which have already been demonstrated in cities such as Vancouver and Seattle. It's been extremely effective, not just in terms of addressing crime and catching crooks, but in that it's also extremely cost-effective, which is something that we're all cognizant of these days. I believe they can be extremely invaluable in small communities such as Port Coquitlam, because more and more, crime is being seen as not just a problem of the big cities, but also, unfortunately, of smaller suburban communities. Witness in my own area a number of disturbing events in the past year that have awakened people to the realities of increasing growth and societal problems that perhaps 20 years ago were not considered a problem.
[ Page 13304 ]
I think that one of the important things that needs to be addressed is the cause of crime, because as much as we'd like to be tough on the sentencing and punishment -- and that's as it should be -- we also need to be tough on the causes. As we all know, behaviour is implanted and decided on very early on. We can deal with the 17-, 18- or 19-year-old, and we could punish them. But it would be so much better if somehow something had been there right at the beginning and if we had been able to identify antisocial behaviour at the age of three or four, when help is at its best, when the opportunity to make changes is at its greatest and the individual doesn't suffer 17 years later -- and society does not pay the costs 17 years later, and 15 or 20 years later when the individual may be incarcerated. The solutions to that lie in the schools; they lie in the family; and they lie with governments in making sure that those services are provided.
As I have stated in my own constituency, we also need to address the issue of sentencing. We need to send out messages, because people at 17 do know the difference between right and wrong. They do need to know that violent behaviour will not be tolerated and that there are severe penalties.
Many in my community have pushed for changes to the Young Offenders Act, changes which I have supported. But the important thing that we have to do in creating safer communities is to get the message out that government by itself cannot solve the problem and that it takes a joint effort by family, police and government to ensure that everybody is doing their part. If the hon. member and we all take that message, and this conference that he mentioned understands this, and people understand this, then we can achieve a lot more. All of us want to work for safer communities, and I think all of us support the efforts of those who do.
J. Dalton: I certainly do thank the member for his comments, because they clearly reinforce the remarks that I have made, and more importantly, they reinforce the objective of this conference that will be coming up next year. As both of us have commented, local solutions to the problem of community safety are the most effective, and I don't think there's any argument about that. Unfortunately, over the years top-down provincial or federal solutions have too often proven not to be effective and they are often irrelevant. In fact, at the planning session that I attended recently for this conference, the participants -- people from this province, of course, from the rest of Canada, from the United States and from England and Kenya, to mention other countries -- told me that, unfortunately, they were suspicious of higher levels of government because of the tendency to impose and not participate in the process. I was commended for my attendance, and I agreed with these people that their stated suspicion of government was certainly valid and that of course it must change.
These people who gave up a weekend -- and many of them travelled literally thousands of miles to attend this planning session, along with many others with a true sense of community -- are the ones with a realistic view of workable solutions to community problems. As I said earlier, government must be involved, but only after it has properly consulted with and listened to the communities that will be affected. This world conference next March will advance the cause of community safety. I hope that all members will be willing and will wish to participate, and I can assure all members that you will be more than welcome to do so. The conference will be an excellent opportunity to not only share ideas and experiences, but to also break down the regrettable barriers between communities and government -- government that should serve and provide solutions, but that too often has failed to do so. Everyone agrees that our streets must be made safer. True community and collective effort, such as that offered by the world conference, will work to that end.
TAXING GUN OWNERS
J. Weisgerber: I rise today to voice my opposition to the federal Liberals' attack on responsible gun owners in our province and across the country. As members of this House no doubt know, a federal bill proposing the universal registration of firearms is currently being debated in the House of Commons. I have two main concerns with the Liberal gun control legislation. First, a national gun registry will do absolutely nothing to erase violent crime in our society. Second, maintaining such a massive and complex registry will be costly to legitimate gun owners and indeed all taxpayers, and will actually redirect valuable law enforcement resources away from crime prevention and into maintaining a registration bureaucracy.
Those of us who legally purchase sporting rifles or collect guns as a hobby use firearms in a responsible manner. Most legitimate gun owners are raised in a culture of responsible gun use for game hunting and sport shooting. Legal gun owners should not be the target. Instead, government should take aim at criminals who commit violent crimes. Statistics show that fewer than 5 percent of violent crimes in Canada involve firearms, and the majority of gun-related crimes, including 96 percent of all homicides, are committed with illegally obtained guns.
Under no circumstances do any of us want to see the proliferation of handguns in our communities, U.S. style. But under current law, handguns are already required to be registered in this country and have been since 1934. To purchase a handgun in Canada a person must by law attend a 16-hour instruction course on gun handling, successfully complete a federally approved written and practical examination, complete a four-page application for a firearms acquisition certificate, provide two references, be photographed, submit a background and criminal check, pay a $50 fee and wait a minimum of 28 days and possibly as many as three months for the firearms acquisition certificate to be processed.
Let's be clear. The federal Liberals are not talking about registering handguns. That's already been done in this country for more than 50 years. They are turning their attention now to responsible recreational users: those who already use long guns in a responsible manner. Moreover, it's ludicrous to think that registering sporting rifles will reduce the number of suicides. Even Alan Rock hasn't attempted to make that argument.
Let me for a moment talk about the problems associated with maintaining a gun registry. Studies in other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom have confirmed that universal firearms registration diverts police resources away from more important duties. In fact, both countries found that firearms registration is useless in solving crimes and is not cost-effective. In 1986 New Zealand abandoned firearms registration after requests from the police force, who found that the information was generally inaccurate, error-ridden, and could not help the police in solving crimes. Yet the federal Liberals are pandering to urban voters' worst fears of crime by attacking gun owners without doing anything to attack increasing crime.
I'm a firm advocate of tougher law-and-order measures in this province. We need stricter law enforcement and tougher sentencing of people who commit violent crimes. We
[ Page 13305 ]
do not need tougher gun control legislation. It's ironic that gun owners are faced with tougher registration while convicted sex offenders and murderers are not even required to be placed on a national registry after release from prison. Reform B.C. is committed to going after the real criminals by making policing and law enforcement a priority in this province. We have no time for anyone who commits a crime using a weapon of any type. In fact, we've called for a 15-year mandatory jail sentence for anyone using a firearm to commit a crime.
The provincial NDP, supported by the Liberals, scoffed at Reform's proposals for tougher law enforcement and refused to do anything to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, our Attorney General is the only justice minister west of Ontario, including the NDP government in Saskatchewan, who has failed to oppose Alan Rock's gun legislation.
The provincial government should be fighting these proposals tooth and nail, if for nothing else but the added burden of costs and manpower that the registration process will place on provincial authorities and on the police. The cost of registering all firearms is going to add a massive bureaucracy to both levels of government at a time when we are looking for ways to cut bureaucracy and eliminate excessive government regulation from our lives. The annual cost to gun owners has been estimated to be as high as $700 million. If we add costs such as public communications, personnel training and software development, the final bill for Canadian taxpayers will likely be more than $1 billion a year. Surely this money has far better uses than increasing the bureaucracy in Ottawa and Victoria.
There is no doubt that Alan Rock's gun bill is way off the mark. It serves to punish legitimate firearms owners through a massive tax grab. British Columbians would like to see a government that is serious about stamping out violent crime, not stamping on the rights of responsible, law-abiding citizens.
Deputy Speaker: In response to the member's statement, I recognize the member for Shuswap.
S. O'Neill: It's with pleasure today that I stand to respond to the member for Peace River South. The challenge of developing gun control legislation is perhaps one of the most difficult and complex problems facing legislators today. There are no simple solutions, for we must find a balance between individual rights and the right to live in a society free from the threat of violence.
As many previous speakers here this morning have pointed out, our society is becoming increasingly more violent. We live in a society where our heroes are Rambo and Dirty Harry. By the time a child reaches the age of 18, he or she will have witnessed 200,000 acts of violence and 25,000 murders via TV and films. Every day our children are subjected to scenes of violence. For their sake I want to see strict and tough gun control laws that take guns out of the hands of criminals. But I also want to ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of children. We've seen too many accidents when children have access to guns. Recently a five-year-old was found at kindergarten with a loaded handgun. I want my five-year-old grandsons to go to kindergarten with safety.
A good friend of mine is attending university in Madison, Wisconsin, and Madison isn't exactly the crime capital of North America. In fact, it's very much like Victoria -- a pleasant city, a state capital and a university town. But she doesn't feel safe. Isn't it ironic in a country where almost every other person carries a gun for protection that no one feels safe? I don't want this to happen to Canada. I don't want my grandchildren going to schools where they're frisked at the door.
[10:45]
But, as I said, nothing is simple about this issue. As a grandmother, I'm concerned about the safety of my grandchildren. As a gun owner who grew up in a family where hunting was a way of life, I'm sensitive to the concerns of gun owners. Guns have been a way of life for British Columbians for generations, and to take them away would be akin to ending a way of life. Recognizing the complexity of this issue, this government has taken a very clear stand on gun control. First, any new gun control legislation must assist the police and ensure the safety of our citizens. That is paramount. Chiefs of police across the country agree that an efficient nationwide registration system is necessary. Any new gun control law and registration scheme must also not be overly costly or bureaucratic for the thousands of law-abiding hunters, sport shooters and people who use guns for sustenance or as part of their jobs.
We are hoping that the federal government will commit to public hearings as part of the legislative process, and we urge anyone concerned about this issue to make their voice heard in Ottawa. Ottawa is responsible for this issue, and it must be responsive to public opinion. I can assure the hon. member opposite and all British Columbians that this government will continue to tell Ottawa that the system must not be overly intrusive or costly for law-abiding gun owners. It must respect my needs as a grandmother concerned about the kind of society my grandchildren will grow up in, and be fair and equitable to me as a gun owner.
Before I conclude today, I must point out that even the best gun control law won't go to the heart of the problems facing our society. If we are to stop the scourge of violence and the toll that it's taking in our communities, we must begin in our homes, our places of worship and our schools. We must lead by example, teaching our children the value of respect for others and showing them that there are better ways to solve problems than through violence.
J. Weisgerber: We agree that violence is the problem; what we disagree on is the way we should attack the problem. I don't believe and I cannot see any evidence to suggest to me that further registration of sporting guns is going to solve the problem of violence in our communities and our society.
The member raises the point of a child showing up at school with a loaded handgun. First, handguns are already registered. Second, there is legislation in place that regulates the safe use and storage of handguns; they are required to be kept in a locked cabinet. Registration is not going to solve those problems. Public education might, and a broader enforcement of existing laws may deal with those problems.
The member said that police chiefs support gun registration. That's reported to be true, but when a poll was taken of police officers in Saskatoon, more than 90 percent of those officers were opposed to federal gun legislation. Working in the streets, they knew that registration of rifles and shotguns was not going to solve their problem, because it was not going to deal with the problem of violence in their city and in society.
Ottawa is indeed responsible, but the Liberals there haven't even had the courage to allow their members to speak out on this issue. We understand that the three Liberal MPs who had the courage to speak up on behalf of their constituents were removed today from all committee activities. They were immediately disciplined for having the temerity to speak
[ Page 13306 ]
up for their constituents and for their community members' beliefs. If there was a free vote in the Legislature in Ottawa, we would find out just how Canadians felt on this issue, particularly if the MPs there had the courage to speak up for their constituents and for the beliefs of the members in their communities.
We need to look at the issue of crime control. What we're doing with this bill to register firearms is diverting attention, energy and resources away from the core problem and establishing instead this massive registration bureaucracy, which has proven to be unworkable in other jurisdictions similar to ours.
I call again on the Attorney General, on behalf of British Columbians, to join with the Attorneys General from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in voicing their opposition to this misguided attempt to deflect attention away from the real problem -- that is, violence rather than gun registration.
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE: A NEW TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
S. Hammell: I ask the members of this House to join with me in congratulating the government for investing in skills and jobs for our young people by establishing a new technical university in Surrey. It may be difficult for some hon. members to recall a time when the University of Victoria was just a small college, or when Mount Burnaby was a wild walk in the woods and Erickson's Greek temple just a drawing. It may be difficult for some hon. members to acknowledge that the communities south of the Fraser, like Surrey, have absorbed a good portion of the spectacular growth that this province has experienced in the past two decades, and that the expansion of those communities has created the need for post-secondary facilities, just as it did in previous decades in Victoria and the suburbs north of the Fraser.
This government has taken a somewhat different path in making this decision to build a university in Cloverdale. The first difference is the scale of public consultation that took place. Four successive studies were done over many years, and all of them recommended that a university be built south of the Fraser. A grass-roots organization, the Fraser Valley University Society, lobbied long and hard on behalf of our valley communities to impress on the government the need for a full-fledged university to serve the population south of the Fraser. So the decision to build this university came from the ground up and from a clearly demonstrated need. Surrey alone has a population of 280,000 people, more than greater Victoria. Our post-secondary participation rate is the lowest in the province, at 21.7 seats per thousand, compared to the provincial average of 36.
Nobody questions the need to provide more post-secondary spaces in this province for our growing population. Every year post-secondary education has a capital budget for new spaces, and every year that capital budget is allocated across the province. The only question is: where do you build with that capital money? How do you get the biggest bang for your buck?
This House should congratulate the government for finding a rational answer to this question on behalf of the people of the province. They are putting the money where the people are. That's the principle this government is applying in its decision to build a university in Cloverdale. The government recognizes that it's only fair to redirect capital funds to the south Fraser region, to redress the longstanding lack of facilities and to provide for the future of thousands of young people who will study, find jobs and raise their families in Surrey, Delta, Langley and up the valley.
There is more. I congratulate this government on their decision to build a technical institution. Let me quote from a column in the Surrey Leader by Frank Bucholtz. He says:
"The provincial government made the right decision to proceed with building a technical university in Cloverdale.... Surrey needs a new post-secondary institution desperately."
He then continues to praise the government, saying:
"A technical university which concentrates on preparing students directly for careers is the right type of facility for this area. The shortage of academic opportunities is less acute than the shortage of technical opportunities, and changes in the global economy demand a better-prepared workforce."
The headline over Frank's column reads: "There's No Faulting Cloverdale U Plan." Nevertheless, my hon. friend from Richmond East has been scratching around trying to find some reason to give this university a failing grade. At first, she claimed there couldn't possibly be any money for post-secondary education in Surrey; after all, the money has always gone to Vancouver, Burnaby and Victoria. "A satellite will do for Surrey," she said. "Kwantlen's degrees are good enough, and anyway, there isn't any money for operating." When nobody bought these lines, the hon. member turned to fellow Liberals in Ottawa for help, saying that the feds were going to off-load the cost of post-secondary, so we wouldn't be able to afford this university after all.
I want to quote the member opposite, because it's impossible to paraphrase her line of reasoning. She says: "No one with common sense would announce a new university one month before a federal budget." Victoria isn't Ottawa, and the New Democrats here are not the federal Liberals of the east. We are not going to cheat our young people out of their future. We are not going to ask our next generation to pay for the sins of our past. This is British Columbia, and we choose and decide on our priorities, not the federal Liberals. Educating our children is right on the top of our priorities.
Since the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour announced the new technical university in Cloverdale, I've had letters and calls from my constituents praising the government for its long-term thinking, for its fairmindedness and for the sheer rationality of this decision. It makes sense to go forward with a new kind of post-secondary institution that will train people in marketable skills, future skills and skills that are linked to the emerging technologies that will be the source of wealth in the years to come.
I'm asking the House to join with me again in congratulating the government on this visionary decision.
Deputy Speaker: In response, I recognize the member for Richmond East.
L. Reid: I am pleased to enter into debate this morning and to discuss the topic of this private member's statement, which is for the future. When we talk about jobs for the future, it is about kindergarten through career. Frankly, it is not about the majority of British Columbians or the majority of Canadians going to work for anybody else; it is about them creating their own livelihoods. That is the research, and that, I think, will be our future. We will have more and more people demonstrating some kind of self-reliance, flexibility and, frankly, integrity about giving something back to the system. I honestly think that that is where we need to get our thinking, in terms of what we want post-secondary opportunities to look like in the coming years.
Certainly anything you read that talks about prospective jobs talks about the majority of folks looking for employment with some regard to the health industry. We talk about telecommunications. We talk about a very exciting endeavour in British Columbia in terms of the film industry. We talk about
[ Page 13307 ]
new animation studios and about new opportunities for people to come together and learn technical skills around the film industry. That will position British Columbia very, very well in the coming years.
We talk about creating a secondary manufacturing base for British Columbia. We need to address that, as legitimate legislators and legitimate thinkers, around a plan B, around strategic thinking. Certainly the discussions we've had in the past around bricks and mortar do not address future demands; they don't address future thinking.
[11:00]
We will also come to grips, I believe, with some new thinking around applications for the resource industries in this province. I recently had to opportunity to attend the University of British Columbia and look at their new programs in wood technology. That is a very fine opportunity for British Columbians to export their expertise, their thoughts and their programs to new markets in all parts of the world. That is incredibly important.
If we can look at a seamless system that talks about self-reliance and initiative, and about whether or not people are flexible and responsive, as Liberals in this province we will indeed have done something incredibly fine.
This is a broader discussion than the hon. member would have us believe.... This is a long-term plan for the province. This is to know, in terms of where we'll be five, ten, 15 years from now, whether or not we are competitive on the world stage. I'm not convinced that the plans or the vision is in place today. I would welcome thoughtful comment on this topic, because I truly believe we have some wonderful opportunities in this province and we can build something incredibly fine. Again, I would suggest that strategic thinking and the challenge and the opportunity are before us. As Liberals, we need to come together and decide how best to proceed. Frankly, I would suggest that the majority of British Columbians are liberal -- they are small-l, moderate in their outlook -- and I think that that will allow us to create a very fine response to post-secondary opportunities and to jobs in the future -- which, I understand, was the topic of today's presentation.
S. Hammell: In providing closure to this topic, I'd like to quote a few lines from a letter written by the small-l liberal Leader of the Opposition regarding the new university south of the Fraser. He says: "Many British Columbians are very concerned about this announcement." Let me repeat: many British Columbians are very concerned about this announcement -- not delighted, not happy, but concerned. And who are those British Columbians -- the boys on Howe Street; those dwelling in the cliffs of West Vancouver? Certainly not the people of Surrey, Langley, Delta and up the valley. They know the need in their communities, and they were delighted with the announcement.
Let me continue. I quote from a letter of the leader of the Liberal opposition again, and I assume this is a small-l liberal: "We do have concerns about announcements that are not based on sound judgment." The obvious conclusion from this quote is that the valley doesn't deserve a university, that the notion is unsound, that the four studies of the community were unsound, and that the chronic lack of access suffered as a result of growth isn't real. Maybe the Liberals think students in the valley are less capable than those in the rest of British Columbia; after all, it's clear he isn't listening to the people of the community. Maybe the Liberals think that 21 seats per thousand, compared to 36 throughout the province, is adequate or fair. Well, I don't, and neither does this government.
Again, I would like to congratulate the government for investing in skills and jobs for our young people by establishing a new technical university south of the Fraser.
Hon. J. Cashore: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting in the gallery are two constituents from Coquitlam: Lori Shields Macala and Ed Macala. I'm very pleased to welcome them here today and would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara.
V. Anderson: I think the Speaker has suggested to us a number of times that private members' statements should be non-political. It seems to be difficult for the members of this House to understand that. Could you please clarify it for us?
Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his point. As I listened to the last statement, he may have noticed that I was consulting the rules and practices of this assembly. The practice is for non-intervention from the Chair, but we are cautioned to be guided by the principle that this is not a forum for partisan political debate. I think the member's point is well taken, and we all ought to be guided by it. We know the difficulty, of course, in drawing that particular line. I see the Leader of the Third Party smiling as I say that, because I'm sure he recognizes how very close to the realm of partisan political debate he was in what he was saying -- albeit apparently in another arena. All I can say to members is that the practice is to simply use moderation in our language, in what we say. Clearly, it is impossible to be entirely non-partisan, but this should not become a forum for partisan political debate. The member's point is well taken, and I thank him for it.
The Government House Leader.
Hon. P. Priddy: I call the throne speech debate. By leave, for the purposes of any amendment on the order paper on the throne speech debate, Monday will be treated as day 4 of the debate.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. I now recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who adjourned the debate.
(continued)
On the main motion.
T. Perry: As all members know, I'm never partisan, and I intend to be as reflective today as I was when I adjourned the debate some ten days ago.
At adjournment of this debate, I was speaking about the importance of preserving a universal medicare and health care system. There is much more that I would like to say about that, but having only ten minutes left, I'm going to switch topics.
What pleased me about the throne speech was its emphasis on major themes of government action. It's been a trying week here in Victoria; our attention has been focused inward on events around the Legislature. But the world does go on. In Berlin, there's a major world conference on climate change, and developing countries are asking why they should
[ Page 13308 ]
be exposed to severe environmental sanctions when rich developed countries are not. I heard a delegate from India on the radio last night asking why the average inhabitant of India, who consumes only about one forty-fifth as much energy as a North American, should be penalized and prevented from contributing to global warming when we North Americans are squandering energy so abusively. Those are really important issues for the long-term future of the world. Listening to the reports of that global climate conference on "As It Happens" reminded me of what's really important, not only in the throne speech but in government's action in the last three and a half years. I echo the theme, but I won't dwell on it.
The member for Surrey-Green Timbers has just spoken about the importance the government has allocated to both public school education and post-secondary education and training -- job training as well as education for its own sake -- but I want to talk today primarily about environmental conservation. Most of us, in a non-partisan moment, would recognize that the Premier and the government have accomplished something which has eluded British Columbians since European contact -- in fact, conquest. For up to 10,000 years native peoples lived in harmony with the environment. Not everything about their societies was admirable, of course, but one thing that was admirable was their ability to live in balance with the environment on a sustainable basis, not only unto the seventh generation but unto hundreds of generations.
That was shared by aboriginal peoples all over the world, but it is not a characteristic of European civilization. What's characteristic of European civilization is its unsustainability: the fact that it devastated the ancient lands of the Mediterranean, that it denuded the hills and the forests of Palestine, and where there used to be the cedars of Lebanon, it left only desert. It did the same to the islands and mountains of Greece and to the British Isles.
Finally, after more than 100 years of following that tradition, we in this province have stopped to think and to realize that if we wish to have a high standard of living in the future, we must sustain our resources. We have listened to the Brundtland commission. We've enacted in this Legislature a tough Forest Practices Code. We've passed -- albeit with the opposition of the Liberal Party -- a Forest Renewal BC Act which established a revolving fund currently estimated at $400 million per year in which increased stumpage, closer to the true value of the trees to the people of B.C., is now channelled not into government revenues, civil service salaries or MLA pensions but directly back into maintaining the forest industry base of B.C. -- not only into replanting, reclaiming damaged hillsides and streams, and restoring fish populations but also into training, such as the new training institute in wood product design announced at the University of B.C. recently, or the chair in wood product design at the Kootenay School of the Arts in Nelson which the member for Nelson-Creston has fought so courageously, inventively and persistently to achieve.
Not only do we have a new Forest Practices Code, a policy based on sustained yield for the first time in B.C. history and an aggressive Forests minister who is maintaining the integrity of the industry at the same time as he preserves its sustainability and environmental conservation goals, but we are also pursuing the commitment to the 12 percent protected-areas strategy first advocated by the Brundtland commission. We are the only jurisdiction in the world, perhaps, that has done that so aggressively.
Just in the last year we have seen the establishment, not the creation.... The creation occurred, depending on one's lights, in other hands. But we have finally chosen to preserve and protect, in collaboration with the aboriginal people who have lived in those valleys, the Kitlope Valley, the Tatshenshini River Valley -- now a United Nations heritage site -- the Ts'yl-os area around Chilko Lake, the Khutzeymateen, which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had so much passionate involvement in as did Wayne McCrory of the Valhalla Wilderness Society and the local Indian nations of several different nations: the Tsimshian, the Git'tsiis, and other aboriginal nations.
We've seen smaller parks throughout the province. We've seen a Vancouver Island land use plan implemented and implementable. We look forward with bated breath and great excitement in the lower mainland to the protection of areas in Boundary Bay, for which the members for Burnaby North and Delta North have long fought hard -- and many other people, of course, many conservationists. We look forward to conservation in the Sechelt Peninsula, an area that had been almost completely denuded of trees, and perhaps in areas such as the Tetrahedron Range and the Caren Range, which is thought to have the oldest trees in the country and is the home of the marbled murrelet. We look forward, I hope, in this session to the permanent protection finally as a provincial park of the Skagit Valley, something I've fought for since 1969. It's a very exciting time. Perhaps we'll see the Stein protected this year.
Members from all sides of the House were privileged on Tuesday night to hear a wonderful presentation and see a beautiful video slide presentation on the southern Chilcotin mountains, the Spruce Lake area, orchestrated by Terry Jacks and with the participation of the great artists Robert and Birgit Bateman, the photographers Pat and Rosemarie Keough and their children. To be reminded of why it's so important to preserve these areas, because we want not only our children but our grandchildren and their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren to be able to enjoy what we've taken for granted....
[11:15]
One final thought before my time expires. We are still trying to bring justice finally to the aboriginal people. It's a difficult struggle. It takes political courage. The Premier has distinguished himself as the first minister in Canada ever to display that level of political courage. The aboriginal nations, so many of them with diverse and conflicting interests often, are trying, and some of them have been trying for hundreds of years now -- like the Nisga'a. I think that if we persist and if we have tolerance and understanding and a focus on the need to achieve that justice in a way that is fair to everybody, not only to the first nations people but to those of us who have come more recently to this province, I think we will get there. I trust that other members of the assembly will look with a historical, nonpartisan perspective on the need for us to resolve those issues.
It's a great day outside, it's a very exciting time, and some wonderful things are happening. It's time to end the gloom and doom that infests this chamber, be happy and grateful, take seriously the prayers that we hear each day at the opening, and celebrate how lucky we are to be in this province.
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston, I would like to make a brief clarification. At the commencement of this debate the Minister of Women's Equality asked leave of the House that Monday be treated as the fourth day for the purposes of the amendment only -- the amendment on the order paper only. I heard no objection at the time, but I want to make it clear that we did indeed agree. So I will now ask if leave be granted that that should happen.
[ Page 13309 ]
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: I suppose it is generally traditional or customary to begin with the throne speech and then proceed to some of the other speeches -- the budget speech and so on. In recent years it has been a habit of this House that we start with the budget speech -- in the case of some members, anyway -- and then proceed to the throne speech. The purpose of a throne speech is to establish the direction, discuss and debate the direction we are headed in the future, and comment on that. I suppose that the budget speech is more focused on the economic direction of the government and the policies it is taking and so on, although sometimes I must admit that I have trouble distinguishing between some of the content of the throne and budget speeches.
On Tuesday I did respond to the budget speech, and having said enough about the economy and the economic direction that this government is taking, I'll try to focus primarily on the direction of where we're going in this province, responding to some of the themes introduced by the Lieutenant-Governor. The themes worth focusing on in particular are the three themes expressed in the throne speech: the investment in natural resources, infrastructure and people. It is that kind of context that pretty well summarizes some of the challenges, concerns and issues we are facing in the future. As well, there was the reference to where we're going with our economy in an international context -- in a global context -- and that, too, I want to focus on today.
In doing so I am unabashed, in terms of approaching this entire subject from a Liberal perspective; the reason being that I am proud of the Liberal perspective. Liberalism has a very rich heritage. It has a very rich heritage in this country of Canada, in which successive Liberal governments have been elected at the federal and provincial levels, including this province, where the Liberal government formed most of the governments in the first half of this century.
The term "liberal" comes from liberalis, a Latin term which accents freedom; not only freedom but a determination against the authoritarianism that sometimes robs us of our freedom and liberties. It believes in enhancing the political liberty of the individual. I recognize that that has been abused from time to time; some people believe that freedom means you can do any darned thing in a society. Of course, we see in some societies, and it would be fair to say that perhaps the United States is an example of where individualism has been taken to its extreme. It's not political liberty of the individual anymore. It's not just simply that, although we can commend the American liberal tradition for it. But some people abuse that. We've seen too much of that abuse in the United States and elsewhere, and we see it a bit in this country, too. It is extremely important to come to the view that when we talk about individualism -- and I am a strong proponent of individualism, and on many occasions I've expressed it in this House -- it's in a context of accentuating political liberty of the individual.
Time and time again over the last few centuries, Liberals have expressed the rights of individuals, the rights of people. This is where terms like "civil liberties" comes from, or "natural rights" or "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It is in that context that I am proud to represent the very rich heritage not only of this country but of the entire western world and democracy throughout the world. The Liberal heritage includes Abelard, Erasmus, Descartes, Milton -- whose Areopagitica affirmed intellectual freedom, which is something very central to my being -- Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Goethe, Lessing, Kant, Vico, Beccaria, Jefferson and Franklin, as well as those in our own country. Scott and Forsey come to mind as the kind of individuals who have contributed so much to this heritage. I would like us to remind ourselves continually what this heritage means, how it's been expressed in institutions and how it has been expressed in democracy in Canada.
That's the reason we in Canada can be proud of the many different successive governments at the federal and provincial levels. It means, too, that Liberals are not those who are romantics of the idyllic past. We're not necessarily utopians of some sort of perfect society of the future, but we do recognize that it is extremely important to be constantly vigilant in pursuit of the good and the good society.
Those are some of my remarks at the outset. It has been said in the United Nations, and it's been expressed many times in this House, that Canada is the best country in the world to live in. If that's so, surely we in British Columbia are most blessed. That does not mean we can stand pat, however. It does mean we have a blessed base from which to move forward into the future. I therefore don't think it is enough that we merely accept the existence of our natural resources and then let life flow on from there.
While the natural resources are there, and while British Columbia is very rich in natural resources, the best resource is in the minds and hearts of our people. We therefore envisage a society, and I'd like to give some sort of view of the future. I suppose it would be easy just to go on like I have at other times, lambasting and criticizing the government, but that is not my purpose. What I really want to do today is to provide some sort of vision as to where British Columbia society is headed in the twenty-first century.
We believe in and envisage a society that promotes peace in the world. How does British Columbia contribute to that? We believe in prosperity and in the pursuit of success for the next new generation -- but not only for today's generation and the next one. We want to build a foundation. We want to have a sense of direction that contributes to prosperity and peace and success for successive generations in the twenty-first century. A lot of that means, as well, that we should envisage a society that is based on goodwill. So much in the past we have concentrated on liberte, egalite, fraternite without really taking fraternity into context. Fraternity is more than just a feeling of brotherhood; fraternity is a feeling of goodwill. This goodwill is not just something of high-level value that we pursue. It's something that must be a part of our society if we are to exist and persist into the future. So we do have on this side of the House, I believe, a view of society and what it encompasses.
I was a little disturbed to hear the keynote speaker over the past weekend at the New Democratic convention. That keynote speaker said there are two views of the world: those who believe in society and those who reject or are antagonistic to society. I was most disappointed to hear that that speaker implied -- well, not only implied, was pretty well explicit -- that somehow if you are a New Democrat you believe in society, and if you are anything else you are antagonistic towards society. On the contrary, I look back to the very rich heritage of liberalism, and I see in liberalism that element of fraternity -- goodwill. I see in that the whole notion of building up a society and a whole premise that the individual just doesn't come into the world void of society and that the social environment is critically important in the development of a civil society. Indeed, how do we learn, how do we educate and how do we acquire knowledge unless we are a part of society?
Liberals also believe in the idea of progress. We believe in progress, we are the advocates of reform. I believe some
[ Page 13310 ]
members of this side of the House have said how passionate they are about reform -- not in a big-R context -- and change. We welcome change, but it's got to be sensible and knowledgable. All of this provides the basis of generating a future good society.
Interjection.
[11:30]
A. Warnke: See, I'm so exuberant. I just toned everything down this morning, hon. Speaker, and I thought everyone would be quiet. Look at what my modest few words generate.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Well, if we all went to sleep, at least we wouldn't have water flowing around the ledge here.
Canada is the best country in the world, as I suggested, and surely British Columbia has an important part to play in that -- not only an important part, but as we move into the twenty-first century, it has a critical, important role in the development of that society.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: Actually, I agree. A darned good federal government provides the basis upon which we develop that new society and new vision which we can provide in the twenty-first century. It provides the basis upon which we can contribute to peace, prosperity and the pursuit of the good in the modern world. We do it in many ways, and British Columbia has an extremely important part to play in that because we are part of the Pacific. As we move into the twenty-first century, there is great anticipation that the twenty-first century will become the Pacific century. If it becomes the "Pacific century," then British Columbia has an extremely important role and part to play in that. What kind of role can we play? Well, we can be a critical proponent of democratic institutions. We can be a critical proponent of enhancing liberty, of enhancing equal rights before the law, of enhancing the due process of law, of enhancing the concept of the consent of the governed and of enhancing the protection of individual and minority rights.
We do this because we believe that the foundation of where we're going in the new, twenty-first century is based on knowledge and on enhancing intellectual freedom. It is a tragedy, but it's also a reality that in many parts of the world intellectual freedom does not exist. Somehow we have to convince people throughout the world that true intellectual freedom provides knowledge, and through knowledge you gain rationalism that is the basis and the foundation of a great new society, and I think we can do that.
In our rich heritage, which Liberals propone, reason can fight authoritarianism. It often faces the force of authoritarianism, but it has also been consistently successful in combatting the force of authoritarianism. So we provide, I think, the potential to enhance democratic institutions, to enhance liberty and freedom, to enhance egalitarianism and to enhance fraternalism in a new century.
I think we can turn to a third thing here about putting people first. I realize the term "putting people first" comes from....
An Hon. Member: The New Democratic Party.
A. Warnke: Certainly not the New Democratic Party -- certainly not them.
Obviously the little phrase "putting people first" comes from, I believe, President Clinton, but there's a bit of truth to that phrase. It doesn't mean to say that you radically alter institutions or that you transform them in such a way that you subject people to some sort of new authoritarianism. But change and reform do serve people. They provide an opportunity into the future by allowing people more responsibility, because they want more responsibility and they're going to take more responsibility. And people want to be rewarded for their work. People want to be part of a whole new rebuilding of our economy. People want to be a part of cities that they can be proud of and of communities that they are safe and secure in. People want to be part of a whole new set of international trade ties. People want to see tax fairness. People want to see a transformation of the welfare system from what it is now and what it has been in the past to something new in the future that actually puts people first.
People want to reshape their institutions, but not to some sort of new authoritarianism. And if I have this pedestal for the time being, I suppose this is a warning to shoot out to every government and every political party throughout this continent: people want to reshape their institutions of government and of education, but not in a context that enhances authoritarianism. People want to reshape their institutions in education in a way that brings parents, children and teachers together to improve our schools. People want their sons and daughters to become qualified, trained high school graduates, prepared for a brand-new world in which, as we keep reminding ourselves over and over again, we become competitive.
An Hon. Member: A brave new world.
A. Warnke: I said brand, not brave.
The brand-new world of the twenty-first century.... Yes, people will be facing more competitiveness. Competitiveness is one thing, but it's extremely important to try to convey to successive generations that there is a great future for them and that there is the prospect of prosperity and success for them, not the opposite.
It's extremely important, therefore, that we develop a new economic strategy that really works and that puts people first, in which the objectives mean that people pursue a career. I guess I've always had trouble with the word "job." Sometimes job means something you do to earn a few bucks. But if by jobs we really mean the pursuit of something worthwhile in our work life, that we pursue careers and that we really want to contribute to our economy and our society, then that is an objective that also puts people first.
We want a first-class, world-class education system, from elementary to secondary and to post-secondary.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: An hon. member says that we do. Well, hon. member, I talked about this once before. It's not necessarily to be critical of the government; I really didn't want to do that today. But to just sit on our laurels and say, "We'll just accept the premise that we have a world-class education system," means that there is something wrong. A good government looks toward the future and anticipates what kinds of problems are going to develop in the future, and a good government tries to do something about them.
I won't belabour the point, but when I take a look in my own backyard, things are not perfect. When at least a quarter of the student population and nearly half the high school
[ Page 13311 ]
population actually operate from portable classrooms, there's still something quite wrong. It's not just the fact that they're portables. If you were to actually visit portables, do you know what you would see, hon. Speaker? What you would see is that there are insufficient communication links; principals cannot adequately get in touch with their students and teachers. There are problems of safety, and one could go on and on. So just to sit back and assume that we are living in a very affluent province and that we have a first-class, world-class education is not good enough.
Some people have described it as being Third World; it isn't. Anyone who has visited Third World countries knows darned well that it isn't. But that does not mean that we accept the current state of our education institutions. It's not only in Richmond. I could go to Surrey; I could go to Nanaimo; I could go to other places throughout our province and point out where we have some very serious problems in education.
The last thing I want to do is get kicked out this morning. I tested the Speaker's patience once too often this week, and that was enough. But I also want to focus on the safety and security of our communities. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to become a rabid -- what? -- Cracker or something. But it certainly means that you have to recognize that something is changing in our communities. Changes in our communities are going to occur anyway, but there's a way to respond to them. There's a way to recognize what's happening to our communities and to deal with that. So whenever we get into issues of crime....
I believe that in certain areas of our society there is increased crime. A statistical argument could be put forward that there is no increase, but the people.... This again comes back to the philosophy of what the people think. The people will tell you otherwise. The people are saying that our communities are not as safe as they used to be. We do not feel secure in our communities the way we used to. Maybe it's a false impression, but the people feel it. Certain cases that come to our wide, public attention from time to time -- the horrible violence that's inflicted on our children and our youth -- are sufficient that we must take notice.
When the people are saying something is wrong with the system, it is entirely appropriate for us to respond as hard and fast as we can. Indeed, I'm pleased to see my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano, who has taken such an active role on justice issues. He is pursuing just that and is to be commended for that. Something has to be done to enhance the safety and security of our communities.
As well, when we put people first and think of what people do think, people want tax fairness. It has to be in a context in which tax fairness doesn't necessarily mean that you give some breaks to the very wealthy, the savers and the investors of our economy. It doesn't necessarily mean that at all. It does mean that we should focus on giving tax fairness to the middle class -- that larger portion of society -- because I guarantee you, the investors can take care of themselves. But it doesn't mean to say that we necessarily penalize everyone. We must focus once again from the people's perspective.
When we talk about transforming the welfare system, it doesn't mean to say we just slash and burn across the board. I've heard that rhetoric a lot, and it's incorrect. We're talking about altering and changing a system where we get people from welfare to work. It doesn't mean to say that this is some sort of handing out spades or shovels or whatever it was that one member around here expressed -- years ago, fortunately. But it does mean that people want the dignity of work. They want to be a part of society and of the economy. That enhances their individual self-worth; that's what it means. That's what we've got to look towards.
Unconnected with that, my good colleague from Vancouver-Langara time and again has pointed out how child support, but more than just child support -- focusing in on children first and on our families -- can actually contribute to the enhancement of our society and our economy.
I'm pleased to follow some of my colleagues who have responded to the throne speech. They've made some terrific contributions. Accordingly, just to reinforce the point.... I've been coached on this, and unfortunately I'm not sure about this, but I'll seek it anyway and then ask for the Speaker's clarification. I would like to seek leave for moving the amendment that stands in the name of the member for Chilliwack.
[11:45]
Deputy Speaker: I think the member's request is perfectly clear. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I gather that perhaps the member for Chilliwack will also make comments next day. Therefore, as the amendment is put forward, I would like to say that I feel very proud to be part of a very rich Liberal heritage and of a party that has the heritage and the foundation to take us into the twenty-first century -- a century that I believe is loaded with opportunities that will enhance the peace, the prosperity and the pursuit of the good for successive generations in that society.
M. Farnworth: I had a number of remarks to make today, but unfortunately time does not permit me. Given the lateness of the hour, I would reserve my place in the debate and encourage members, particularly those in the opposition, to avail themselves on Monday afternoon of the opportunity to hear what I have to say. With that, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:47 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]