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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 23
[ Page 13401 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: I would like to make an introduction on your behalf, Mr. Speaker. We have with us in the House today a group of students from Portland, Oregon -- as you well know, because I understand you had breakfast with the group. These are grade 6 students from Ockley Green Middle School in Oregon, and with their chaperons and teachers, they represent some 71 people -- obviously, a bump on the tourist equation in Victoria. I know you met and had breakfast with the students, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure you also told them: "If you eat properly, you'll all get to be as big as the Speaker." In any event, I hope all my colleagues will join me in making our friends from the United States very welcome.
M. de Jong: I'm pleased to introduce to members of the House today Mr. Sandy Powar, who's in the gallery. He has joined us with his wife, Santosh, and his three children Sanjeet, Harjot and Anndeep. Mr. Powar is the president of my local Liberal riding association and is on the executive of the B.C. Liberal Party. He reminds me also that today is Baisakhi, which I'm told is celebrated throughout India but is more particularly of importance to the Sikhs. It was on this day in 1699 that guru Gobind, the tenth guru, created the Khalsa Panth, or Brotherhood of the Pure. I hope members of the House will join me in making Mr. Powar and his family welcome and in celebrating Baisakhi.
G. Wilson: I know that the member for Nanaimo, when referring to the size of the Speaker, was referring to the size of his heart as well as his stature. I say that in the hopes of getting better question period time.
Having said that, I'm delighted to be able to introduce two longstanding friends of mine, Mr. Cy O'Leary and Ms. Karen Adamson, both of whom hail from the Parksville-Qualicum area, and both of whom attended the Vancouver Island organizational meeting of the Alliance last night. These two members are outstanding contributors to their communities. They were formerly in Pender Harbour and were outstanding contributors there, and they have now contributed to community health council development in the Parksville-Qualicum area. Would the House please make them most welcome.
F. Garden: I have the great pleasure of having someone in the gallery today who has known me for a long time. He's my brother Jim Garden, from our hometown of Arbroath, Scotland. This is his second visit to Canada. He's accompanied by my wife Margaret, so I wish you'd make him welcome this morning.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FORMER CABINET MINISTER
L. Stephens: Today British Columbians learned of further allegations of sexual harassment against the former Minister of Government Services. Unfortunately, the Premier denied all parties concerned the opportunity for an independent investigation when he halted the Kelleher investigation.
To the Minister of Social Services: in light of today's allegations, will the minister herself urge the Premier to reopen the Kelleher investigation or initiate a new investigation to ensure that justice is done for all the parties involved?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is with courage that women come forward under such difficult circumstances. Each and every one of the women who have come forward has also stated that it is their choice alone to pursue the fair avenues to the B.C. Human Rights Council that are available, and it is their decision alone on how to proceed. In the meantime, the Premier took the action that was entirely appropriate and is the Premier's prerogative -- when he loses confidence in a minister, the minister is gone.
The Speaker: The hon. member on a supplemental.
L. Stephens: The Premier and the ministers don't seem to understand what the issue is here. The women involved are now left only with the recourse of the Human Rights Council, which, if it investigates, will make not only their names public but also the details of the allegations. Will the minister today admit that the Premier was wrong to cancel the Kelleher investigation, and will she immediately stand up for the women of this province and not sweep these allegations under the rug?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It was those members of the opposition who, until they actually got the details of the allegations, refused to accept the word of a young woman who came forward and didn't provide the details. It was that opposition that demanded the details -- the public details -- and now that another woman has had the courage to come forward, all of a sudden they are -- perhaps -- convinced of the righteousness of the claims. I find that really disturbing, especially coming from the member for Langley.
The women have available to them.... I don't propose to tell the women what to do. Our government doesn't propose to tell the women what to do. But I will tell you, the Premier of British Columbia kept their confidentiality, kept their rights open and did not reveal publicly and make these women double victims in the process. The Premier did what he was supposed to do, which was to exercise his right to have a cabinet in which he has confidence and to allow the women their due process.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL INFORMATION
M. de Jong: We've learned that for the fourth time in a year private medical records have been released to the public. Last April, private information was released to a sex offender. In August, private medical records washed up on the beaches of Bella Bella. Earlier this month, confidential patient information turned up on the lawn of a Vancouver doctor. Now the medical histories of 1,500 women have been found in an auction file cabinet.
[ Page 13402 ]
To the Minister of Health: when will the government start taking the privacy and confidentiality of British Columbians seriously? When will the Minister of Health take action to protect private patient information?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, just a slight correction of fact for the member -- something he's a little unfamiliar with. We don't know what these records actually contain at this date. The medical staff is investigating to reclaim these records, make sure security on them is preserved and ascertain where they came from. There are more questions than answers at this point, and staff are working to find those answers.
Second, the member is wrong in saying that confidentiality has been breached at this point. Fortunately, the person who found these records was as concerned as I am that these records not be in the public domain. He has not released any of them publicly. We are taking every step we can to reclaim them. Once we find out exactly what they are, then we can ascertain how they got in those hands and find out what additional measures can and should be taken to preserve confidentiality.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental.
M. de Jong: Contrary to what the minister suggests, British Columbians don't expect to go down to the local auction barn to find their medical records, quite frankly. Let's look at the facts. Since the member for Prince George North has become Minister of Health, confidential files have been given to a sex offender and have been left on the beaches, in basements and now filing cabinets all across British Columbia. Does the minister have any explanation at all for this atrocious lack of concern for confidentiality and this legacy of incompetence?
[10:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: This minister and this government have every concern about breaches of confidentiality and are taking all the measures we can to ensure protection of confidentiality.
I must say, though, that it is interesting to hear the questions from the Liberal opposition. I keep expecting that at some point some member of this Liberal opposition will stand up and ask what this government is doing to ensure that the federal government ensures adequate funding for medicare in this province. I keep waiting for them to stand up and say, as Liberal Health ministers across this country have stood up and said, that the federal government must preserve adequate and predictable funding for medicare. I keep waiting in vain, and I guess the people of this province will wait in vain for this Liberal opposition to defend medicare, as this government will.
POWER SMART BROCHURE
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The government has recently published a glossy brochure, using Norm Grohmann of BCTV Newshour fame to sing the praises of B.C. 21 and Power Smart. Can the minister tell us how much the government paid Norm Grohmann, and whether or not he was aware of the fact that he would also be promoting B.C. 21 along with Power Smart?
Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly be pleased to take that question on notice for the Minister of Employment and Investment, who has responsibility for B.C. Hydro.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The member has a new question, a different question.
J. Weisgerber: A new question for the minister. Mr. Grohmann is quoted in this article as saying that he's forecasting a better B.C. for the twenty-first century. Is the minister aware that Mr. Grohmann is forecasting the demise of the NDP for the twenty-first century? Is it, indeed, for his accuracy in forecasting that the government chose Mr. Grohmann for this brochure?
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly can't be responsible for Mr. Grohmann's misstatements when they are not in the brochure. Right? I think Mr. Grohmann is absolutely correct. I believe the twenty-first century will bring British Columbia a really prosperous future with jobs for all and a good healthy medicare system, as long as we have this government in place. I think his assistance in promoting B.C. 21's Power Smart programs, which are very extensive and very excellent, is applaudable.
FRACTIONAL INTEREST CONVERSION OF RENTAL HOUSING
D. Schreck: My question is for the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act and for consumer protection. We've got a problem on the North Shore....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
D. Schreck: I hear heckling from my right over here. I should remind the members what weekend this is. If they don't behave themselves, the Easter rabbit's going to jump right over their houses.
We have a serious problem on the North Shore, a problem that can be extended throughout the province, with developers reducing....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Hon. members, let's hear the question, please.
D. Schreck: We have a problem with developers reducing the rental housing stock by doing an end run on the protections and the Strata Titles Act for conversions, in particular the marketing of what are called "fractional interests." There is a building in West Vancouver where this happened, there is a building in Delbrook where this happened, and now there's a marketing scheme near Capilano College. The tenants approached their member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who refused to bring up the question here, so I am acting for those tenants. I am asking this minister: how will you protect those tenants against this type of conversion?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 13403 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure all the members in the House are interested in the answer, so I'll wait until the heckling calms down.
I want to congratulate the member for....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Please proceed.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can only assume that people are anxious for the weekend.
I want to emphasize the importance of the question not only for the tenants whose homes are at risk but also for the consumers who are looking to invest in complexes such as these. Last year, in the last session, this Legislature took action and closed four loopholes. We continue to look at opportunities to do the same for these kinds of experiences, and I am in consultation with the Ministry of Finance for the opportunity to close an additional loophole in the Real Estate Act. However, there is protection with the Residential Tenancy Act that will ensure that if a person does not have over 51 percent interest in the complex, they cannot take occupancy. Therefore the tenants are protected and can be assured that this government will stand up for their interests.
AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH CARE IN PRINCE GEORGE
J. Dalton: Perhaps we can get on track and stop these ministerial statements that come across the floor.
Earlier this week the Premier refused to respond to a question about the unfortunate young hockey player from Prince George who had to be shipped to Kelowna for setting his leg and now cannot return home because there's no surgeon available for postoperative care. We have also found out that at least 17 patients have been transferred from Prince George since last July, again because there are no doctors available.
My question is for the Minister of Health. When will this government stop the rhetoric -- and we heard some of it earlier today -- and tell the people of Prince George exactly when they can expect the reinstatement of normal medical services in their community, which I would point out is the minister's own community?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Well, let's try again to acquaint the Liberal opposition with some of the facts as opposed to some of the allegations. Currently at Prince George Regional Hospital there is a shortage of two orthopedic surgeons. They have two on staff; they're recruiting two more. As recently as yesterday, the CEO of the hospital informed me they hope to have a third orthopedic surgeon on staff as of May. This is a temporary situation, and unfortunately it has inconvenienced 16 patients in Prince George out of the thousands who have received service at Prince George Regional Hospital. I urge this member, as I have continued to urge the Liberal opposition, to keep his eye on the doughnut and not the hole. We have an excellent health care system in this province.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What we need to do is make sure that we are preserving medicare, adequately funding it and preventing the invasion of the two-tier medical system that some who are running for that Liberal opposition wish to see introduced.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Dalton: As expected, this minister would respond with his nonsense about medicare. The fact is that the minister's own community has a hospital which is really only a walk-in health clinic. He's admitted it, because he just told us that there is a shortage of doctors in that community.
Again to the minister: when will this government recognize that spending $5 million on advertising for their friends and neighbours is wasteful of the public dollar and does not provide the resources for proper health care in communities such as Prince George?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not sure I actually heard any serious questions in that latest bit of denial of the major issues affecting medicare in this province and in this country. I urge this member to read very carefully the communique of the provincial Health ministers who met in Vancouver from across this country. Regardless of political stripe and regardless of whether they're facing election this year, next year or four years from now, all ministers said that we have a serious problem with the federal government backing out of the partnership on medicare -- the federal Liberal government, which was cutting, slashing and taking a meat axe to medicare. All I hear from these Liberal benches is the Leader of the Opposition saying they should have cut more. They just don't get it. There's a partnership in medicare, and their federal colleagues are breaking it.
The Speaker: Members, the bell terminates question period.
HOME CARE PATIENTS: VICTIMS WITHOUT A VOICE
M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker...
The Speaker: If the member wishes to wait just a moment until members have had an opportunity to leave the chamber....
M. de Jong: ...there is an old and quaint saying that....
The Speaker: Order. Just a moment, hon. member. Order, please.
Before I recognize the hon. member for Matsqui, I would remind all hon. members that the primary purpose for which we have private members' statements is for non-confrontational or non-partisan statements on matters that are of particular interest to members and their constituencies or are of general concern to all members. The spirit of private members' statements is for members to have an opportunity to speak in a non-confrontational and non-partisan way. I hope members will keep that in mind when they make their presentations.
[ Page 13404 ]
I recognize the hon. member for Matsqui for the first statement.
M. de Jong: With those words in mind, I'll try to amend as I go.
There is an old and quaint saying about there being no place like home. I think that is particularly true when we think about health care and more particularly home care for patients who require it. I am happy to have learned this morning that the strike that has affected numerous home-care workers, but more particularly home-care patients, is apparently about to be settled, is on the verge of settlement or has been settled even as we sit here.
My purpose in presenting this topic to my colleagues in this House today, however, was not to speak of the strike or necessarily the issues that took the parties -- the employer and the employees -- apart from one another and caused that labour disruption. My purpose was to speak of the people who are the recipients of the home care and who, in my view, during the course of the past eight months -- and that is how long this labour disruption lasted in some jurisdictions -- have been forgotten voices and forgotten individuals.
It's with that in mind.... I confess that my admonishment to members starts with myself, because the individuals involved -- and I'll talk about this a little later -- are not well equipped to lobby, to cause a fuss or to make their views known. They are by their very nature homebound, shut-ins. They are not able to hold rallies. My sense has been, in my discussions with them over the past several months, that they have felt forgotten. I share responsibility for that in not bringing this issue to the fore to ensure that it receives the attention of government and the attention of the media, which I think it justifiably deserves.
There is certainly a trend toward home care, and it has been driven by a couple of things. It has been driven by consumer demand and, probably most importantly, by an aging population. We have shrinking government resources that are available to meet the needs of that aging population, and the statistics are quite dramatic. This year the segment of our population that is 65 years of age or older represents 12 percent of the total population. By the year 2010, I'm advised, that statistic is likely to rise to 25 percent. Those are dramatic increases and are going to place dramatic pressures on our health care infrastructure.
[10:30]
The home-care alternative represents the potential for very significant savings. I had occasion to review a review of the Ontario home-care program, where they have projected annual savings in the province of as much as $8.87 billion by the year 2021, through reducing the institutionalization of the elderly -- $8.87 billion on an annual basis by that time. Those are significant moneys. But the statistics don't tell the whole story, and I think all hon. members would agree that the rest of the story relates to those individuals who just feel better about being at home, about preserving their dignity and about preserving elements of their independence -- if not all of their independence. Those are the positives, and one only has to attend at the home of such an individual to know how deeply they cherish their independence and dignity in being able to remain in their familiar surroundings in their home until their last days. As I have alluded to earlier, my concern is that as legislators we have let these people down. I say that in a truly non-partisan way because I think it's a guilt, if I can use that word, that we all share.
A strike lasted for eight months. It has come to an end now; that is good. That is what all of us sought, not the least of whom were those employees who were walking the picket line and, presumably, the employers they work for. But the strike has affected thousands upon thousands of people. I presume I am no different than most hon. members who occupy ridings in jurisdictions where this strike was in effect. The calls I got were heartwrenching, to say the least. Mrs. Gough, who contacted me, was 87 years of age, had hip replacement surgery a year and a half ago and was homebound. Her life revolved around an individual coming to her home three or four times a week to assist her with cleaning and personal hygiene. That simple act gave her the dignity and independence she required to go on. There is a litany of Vera Goughs who were denied that very essential service.
In conclusion, my message to hon. members is that during the course of our day-to-day dealings, in our partisan activities in this House and in our ridings and around the province, let us not forget those who are most ill-equipped to call attention to themselves. I think this group of individuals falls into that category. I am very pleased that this labour dispute has been resolved. However, I confess guilt to my colleagues at not having done more to call attention to this matter during the life of the labour dispute.
L. Krog: I must say quite sincerely that I was very touched by the very sincere remarks of the member for Matsqui. I might say in reference to this that in the non-partisan nature of these comments, I am not going to make reference to that old song about silence is golden, given that this is the first time I've heard this issue raised in this House by a member of the opposition.
However, I want to say that in my riding, which has the seventh-highest percentage of seniors and retirees of the 75 ridings in the province, health- and home-care-related issues are extremely important to my constituents. That is why I can say with some pride that since this government took office, in the past three years funding for home-care support has been increased by some 32 percent. Based on projections for the upcoming fiscal year, the hours provided have gone from a little under seven million to well over eight million hours of home-care support.
The member quite rightly and wisely points out that the demographics of our population -- and many of us in this chamber are part of that incredible bulge moving up the scale -- mean that the care of seniors will become an even greater expense for society as a whole, and the ability to keep seniors in their homes, to keep them independent and self-supporting, is a crucial one for government. Again I emphasize that that's why the government has increased the funding for home-care support.
I have met with the board of the home-care support in my own riding of Parksville-Qualicum. Concerns have been raised about the cutbacks to the housekeeping services provided by home-care support. But it is because of this government's commitment to providing personal care for seniors, to ensure that their basic health needs are met, and their personal cleanliness is maintained, that those freezes -- if you will -- have been put in place. It's to ensure that the essential
[ Page 13405 ]
services are there. The case managers providing these clients with services are ensuring that there will not be situations where seniors are actually forced from their homes because of any restraint in housekeeping services. It is this government's commitment to ensure that seniors can remain in their homes as long as possible.
The institutionalization of our seniors population is ultimately the last resort. It represents to some extent the personal failure of the family as it stands in our society, with so many of us so busy and not in a position to care for our seniors personally -- our parents and our grandparents. It also represents, perhaps, our failure to ensure that seniors remain independent. I am proud of this government's commitment to seniors, and I am proud of the settling of the strike that has been ongoing in this province and which has impacted seniors to some extent. At the end of the day, the collective bargaining process worked, and this government has ensured that those providing this very necessary and important care have received the kind of wages that they deserve.
I think it is crucial when we talk about this kind of health care, though, to remember that we regard this as part of our health care system and part of our medicare system. This is one of those areas where the rubber really does hit the road. When we talk about cutbacks to health care, it has to impact somewhere, and this is one of those areas where we have to consider, as a government and as legislators and as citizens of British Columbia, what things are a priority for us, what kind of care is necessary for healthy communities.
Justice Seaton and Closer to Home, and the reforms that this government has pursued as a result of the reports of the royal commission, are, I think, going to ensure that home care continues to be a priority. Forty-two million dollars was allocated to the Closer to Home fund this year, and about half of the projects approved involve the expansion of continuing-care services, including home support. An example of that is funding for Surrey to provide the service there as well.
That's a good commitment of health care dollars. It's the kind of commitment this government supports when it talks about preserving and enhancing our medicare system. If we don't do it now, we will pay inevitable high costs later. If we can ensure that our seniors remain in their homes and healthy as long as possible, we will reduce our health care expenditure. Again I emphasize that that's why the government has been trying to ensure that these services are maintained, and that the necessary personal care which makes our communities healthy and keeps our seniors healthy is what is preserved.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I regret to inform you that your time has expired.
The member for Matsqui concludes.
M. de Jong: I am pleased and, quite frankly, not surprised to learn that the hon. member shares the concerns I expressed earlier about the impact this dispute has had on patients -- recipients of home care. I will only say that if there was a withdrawal of services by doctors, there would be an outcry, and it would not last long. When there is a withdrawal of services by those teaching our young people -- our students, our children -- there is a hue and cry, and it will generally not last long. It won't last long, because the people affected there can give voice to their concerns and can bring pressure to bear in a very real and tangible way that we as politicians will respond to. We have no choice, because the pressure is there. In this case, with the benefit of hindsight it is clear to me that the same sense of urgency did not arise, and as a result thousands upon thousands of British Columbians suffered through no fault of their own. Let us be wary -- and I say it with sincerity to all my colleagues, hon. Speaker -- about such a circumstance arising in the future.
HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
G. Brewin: It's a pleasure to rise today on this occasion and talk about healthy communities in all our areas in British Columbia.
Much is being said these days about our national and provincial health care system. There are those who are saying that we are spending too much, that the 10 percent of our GDP we spend on health care is excessive and that we need to rationalize our medicare system. Some are saying that we can empower our citizens by providing less health care and making the sick pay. Some are saying that we can just redefine what medically necessary health services mean and then all will be right with our health care system. What is being said is that we can measure the success of our health care system by how much we spend. What we have not heard is just what will result from this desire to rationalize, to empower and to redefine.
So how we define a healthy community is not simply a matter of budgetary expenditure. It is more often reflected in a level of comfort, a degree of independence, a sense of security and a feeling of confidence that people can enjoy. And, hon. Speaker, this is particularly true in my riding of Victoria-Beacon Hill. My constituency has a very high proportion of seniors: 28 percent of the population is 65 years of age or older. This proportion is very likely to increase in the future, given that almost 60 percent of the current population is older than 35.
The demographic trend shows an ever-increasing number of seniors, and many of those seniors are women. Today 19 percent of the constituency is at least 65 years old and female. Senior women are very likely to have low incomes and to not have the ability to pay for medical services if our health care system becomes two-tiered and based on the user-pay principle.
In addition, 66 percent of the population of my constituency are tenants. It's to these people and to low-income seniors that advocates of a two-tier system of health care will have to answer. Victoria-Beacon Hill has a high number of constituents who live on their own without a large income. They do not necessarily have a home to mortgage in order to pay for health care that does not fall under the definition of catastrophic illness -- whatever the definition of that would be.
[10:45]
I don't believe this desire to limit the coverage of medicare or to redefine appropriate health care will lead to a healthier community, and it will not be the path that my government would like to take and will be taking. Rather than eliminating certain medical services from the health care system, our approach is to move the delivery of health care services closer to home. Our approach is to make the delivery of health care services more accountable to the community.
[ Page 13406 ]
Some advocate the elimination of funding to the non-profit, non-governmental sector and allowing families, churches and charities to pick up the provision of these services and programs. This approach does not support healthy communities at the local level, but rather splits the community into an irregular reliance on individual resources which are unequally distributed among the members of the community. We need to maintain and enhance the role of non-profits and non-governmental health care service providers, and to help them continue a process of community-building as opposed to fostering a process of community fractionalization.
There are many examples of community health care services delivered by non-profit and non-governmental groups in my riding. I'm particularly proud of several of them: the family caregivers network, the hospice association, the association for family-serving agencies, Seniors Serving Seniors, the Fairfield Community Association and the James Bay Health and Community Services project.
I'd like to talk a little about this latter group. The project has been in existence for nearly 20 years and is a fabulous model of community involvement in health care service and delivery. This project offers an impressive and dynamic number of programs, including a health clinic which offers medical and dental services and is staffed by salaried on-site nurses and doctors. It offers home support services. It offers a family and child services agency, a day care and a family centre, as well as information and referral services, a community liaison office and a tenants' association -- to name just a few of the things that they do.
The James Bay project is a prime example of the way to support healthy communities in a cooperative way, to give social and health care issues a single focus and to allow the community to find its own personalized solution to health care and have that solution implemented by members of the community. These programs and activities are instrumental in the way we define what a healthy community is.
But they alone are not enough. Illness is an unfortunate fact of life. Accidents and disease are indiscriminate. They befall young and old, male and female, regardless of race or religion. So I would like to speak for a moment on how we define what core medical services should be, and the dilemma we encounter when we attempt to decide what constitutes a catastrophic illness.
What may not be catastrophic to a forty-year-old or a twenty-five-year-old, such as a sprained ankle, may indeed be catastrophic to a senior. Illnesses and injuries that are commonplace to younger people can be very worrisome and even debilitating to seniors. For instance, a fall that resulted in bruises and scrapes for someone who is 40 can necessitate hip replacement surgery for a senior. Colds can turn into pneumonia for those who are older. There is no doubt that a viral infection or a broken bone can be debilitating for a seventy-year-old. But is the relative financial security of one group reason to stigmatize the other group?
What of any number of other illnesses that predominantly affect seniors? Are we simply to warehouse those with Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or arthritis because it is cost-effective, because to date we cannot cure these ailments? Is the facial disfigurement of Bell's palsy to be regarded as catastrophic, even though it is not a life-threatening condition? Is that to be the measure of a healthy community? Is a healthy community one where emotional well-being, self-esteem and dignity are sacrificed in order to reach some predetermined bottom line on a balance sheet? I think not.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Matsqui responds.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: It's the first time I have stood up and heard anyone on the benches say "thin," but I thank the hon. member implicitly.
I was appreciative of the hon. member's words, and in particular I heard her say that in her view the measurement of success in the delivery of health care in a health care system does not lie in the amount of dollars spent -- the bottom-line figure. I confess to absolute agreement with that. It's not the amount that is spent but the priorities that are set and where those dollars are spent.
Part and parcel of that is imposing upon our health care delivery system a scheme of measurement, of rationalization, that allows us to say as a society, as a government, that this program we have introduced and set this objective for is working or not working. So when the member says we need to measure the success, I agree, but I think we have to be more aggressive insofar as that measurement or rationalization process is concerned.
The member says: "I don't believe in a redefinition." Perhaps she has a different concept of that term than I do. I submit to her that the debate we are engaging in now, both at the provincial level and in tandem with the federal government.... That redefinition will take place and the comments that she herself has made represent a form of redefinition -- a recognition of the ability to deliver broader and different services in the home.
She has mentioned several groups that do wonderful work in terms of delivering health care to the elderly outside of institutions. Those are groups that didn't exist, by and large, and that certainly weren't active to the extent that they are today. But that is a redefinition, and her support -- and, I take it, her willingness to see those groups and their activities expand -- represents a form of redefinition of our health care delivery system. That is worthy of support from all quarters.
We in this place tend to become preoccupied, particularly around the delivery of a budget, with questions relating to debt. But debt, after all, is only a means to an end -- or a means to not an end. All of us in this place seek to put the resources we collect from the people of British Columbia to work for those people in health care, for health care for the elderly and for education services. Our ability to do that is constrained when the debt grows beyond a certain level and when the growing percentage of our governmental revenues are devoted to debt servicing. Those very worthy objectives are subordinated to a less worthy objective of servicing the debt.
The member has mentioned some very worthwhile organizations within her riding. My own healthy community -- the Minister of Health is present as well, and I'll take advantage of the moment -- will be healthier if the government will ultimately deliver on a promise to begin construction of the hospital. It is a question of priority, but it is a
[ Page 13407 ]
moment that I could not pass up. It is a priority decision that this government will have to make. Our ability to meet the legitimate health care needs of people in all our communities is dependent upon having a plan, being able to measure the success of that plan and spending the limited resources we have as government -- as a state apparatus -- most effectively. Although our approaches to that may differ significantly -- less significantly, I think, than members of the government benches or even the hon. member who spoke might suggest -- I think that, ultimately, our objectives are the same.
G. Brewin: I am most intrigued by the response from the hon. member for Matsqui and delighted to hear his interest in and support for the Healthy Communities concepts and for keeping these issues in a good perspective. I worry just a little about words like "we have to be more aggressive." I worry a little about discussion of the debt and keeping it in line, plus needing a new hospital. But those are the things that I know over the next little while we will come to rationalize, no doubt, in our further discussions around this topic, and we all look forward to those moments.
I'd like to talk a bit more about seniors and their interest in medicare. Seniors remember what it was like before medicare was in place. They know what it was like, and they were around to encourage the introduction of our current public health care system. For many, the five pillars of the national system -- I'll remind you: universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration -- are a legacy of their sacrifice and hard work to build this country and a community for themselves and their children.
Those who place primary importance on cutting taxes don't seem to be worried about the effects of those cuts on social services. They seem to be behind the movement to fundamentally alter our health care system. It's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that those who are driving the movement toward reduction of services may be the ones who get to define the core services, and that this definition will include the services they use and may not include the ones that seniors use.
We must consider all this as we define and understand what medicare is and what it means to us. Just as peace is not simply the absence of war, good health is not simply the absence of illness. It is related to quality of life, and if quality of life matters to our definition of health, then we must consider the needs of seniors when we define what is a necessary service. To maintain the quality of seniors' lives, we must consider issues such as loneliness, the ability to get out and keep mobile and the maintaining of contact with neighbours and friends. We have to decide whether we consider these things necessary, and whether they are relevant to good health. I would certainly argue that they are, and that we need to recognize their importance by supporting the things like home support, community health services and seniors' programming.
The Speaker: The member wishes to continue?
G. Brewin: I have an introduction I'd like to make, and I ask leave to do so.
Leave granted.
G. Brewin: I would like to make an introduction to a group from St. Margaret's School, on behalf of the hon. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. A group of 18 students from grade 5 is here with their leader, Ms. Ewart, and I would ask the assembly to make them welcome.
SUSTAINING PARTNERSHIPS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
The Speaker: The third statement of the morning. The hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.
J. Beattie: I'd like to speak in broad terms today about sustaining the partnerships that are necessary for infrastructure investments in the province.
I think we all agree that infrastructure construction in capital projects is essential and indeed inevitable. This inevitability leads us to consider the best way we can use this effective tool for delivering a government's policy, as well as delivering the wishes, needs and ambitions of the people of our province. We all agree -- at least, on this side of the House -- that this government has made a genuine attempt to coordinate public capital projects to see what the highest returns can be for the people of British Columbia.
When we talk about the programs and initiatives that can be coordinated to capitalize on capital projects, we can think about meeting the diverse needs of our communities around the province. We can think of providing short-term, mid-term and long-term jobs throughout the province, both direct and indirect, and those other jobs created by the expenditure of the wages that have been generated through those jobs.
Finally, among these capital projects, we can focus on a program of training our citizens for the future. We can have apprenticeship programs. We can have educational programs from our public schools and our colleges, which can benefit from the activities in their community.
[11:00]
We have been discussing the relative merits of infrastructure in this House over the last number of weeks, and there are many differing points of view. On the "do build" side, the negative aspect of the cost is brought up, and on the positive side are some of the points I've already recognized and referred to you. We can build a base for delivering programs. We can support our local economy, attract business through a healthy infrastructure and create jobs.
On the "don't build" side, one of the positives of not building is that we save money. The negative of that, however, is that we fall behind other countries in the world that have a strong infrastructure and are working hard to keep business interested in their communities and their citizens. Investors will therefore look away from our province. At the end of the day, I believe a negative is that our citizens....
[Interruption.]
The Speaker: You can continue now, hon. member.
J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, as I become more efficient in my speaking style, I find that I engender more of a response, but this is one that comes completely unexpectedly to me.
Hon. members, I was just reflecting on the dos and don'ts of building infrastructure in our province. As I think back to my childhood.... Indeed, some of the more elderly members
[ Page 13408 ]
of this House may remember that wonderful old blues song, "My Mama Done Told Me." That's a song about some advice that a parent is giving to a young person. In my case, when I think of that song I reflect on all the advice that my mother gave me, and some of that was that more hands make light work. Indeed, if we work together, we can build a better world. That's a fundamental platform, I think, that we stand on: we work together as a social democratic party to build a province. I'm sure the members opposite believe that when communities work together, they can go a long way.
As mayor of Vancouver, the Premier of the province was a strong advocate of the federal government becoming intimately involved in building infrastructure in this province. The B.C.-federal infrastructure program, which has generated $585 million worth of projects in this province in just the last number of years, is an indication of how we can do great jobs when three levels of government get together -- like, for example, building a $27 million sewer project in the community of Summerland in my constituency. And I know that throughout the province there have been these types of initiatives.
When people work together, they can do many things. Community grants are a good indication of that: non-profit societies getting together with their municipal governments and with federal and provincial support to build very worthwhile projects, and businesses working together -- the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association, for example, putting their dollars forward with the province to do advertising programs and to promote the Okanagan, and agriculture and tourism in that region. That's a very important partnership which must be sustained.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Sustaining relationships are very important, but I want to say it's very important that the federal government, as the senior level of government in this country, take a very active part. Of late I've been very disturbed to see the federal government moving away in terms of distributing the country's wealth because of their concern about the debt, but am more disturbed about their revolutionizing how programs are funded. Without the support of the federal government, hon. Speaker, it's impossible for us to create the jobs that we need in this country and in this province -- as a result of having a large source of our funding drawn away from us.
Now, some people say -- and I believe it's true -- that there is only one tax dollar. But, hon. members, we must recognize that there are also various initiatives and the impetus that will bring new creativity from every level of government when there's a job to be done. Communities can raise those dollars, not through the tax dollar but through other funding initiatives. In many areas they've been able to bring forward the dollars that are necessary. We have to recognize that different jurisdictions have different areas of taxation. When we talk about the one tax dollar, we are indeed talking about one pocket. But we are talking about a historical distribution of the tax load, and that must be utilized to the full benefit of building infrastructure.
L. Fox: I am pleased to respond to the statement on sustaining partnership for infrastructure investment. I have lived in northern British Columbia virtually all my life, and I know the importance of infrastructure and what role it plays in job creation and development, and what role it plays in terms of exploration of natural resources and tourism. However, one thing we really have to grasp in the Legislature and in government is that the development of infrastructure should be done in a well-organized and well-planned way. It should also be done in the form of an investment based on what kind of return would help you set priorities for your expenditure.
The other issue that should be addressed is maintaining the existing infrastructure and a realistic allotment of dollars going into the maintaining program. What I see happening in my riding is that we're losing the investment we have made in the past because we're not putting in sufficient dollars to maintain it.
A case in point is Highway 27, which goes from Vanderhoof to Fort St. James. More than 300 loaded trucks a day haul logs from Vanderhoof to Fort St. James. The revenue to the province from that road is phenomenal, yet it hasn't had a nickel spent on it for ten years. We really need to spend dollars on that road to protect the investment we made in it 15 or 16 years ago. In my view, that should be a priority.
As well, when we're looking at building schools, we should look at need first and leave politics until last. If we did that, we wouldn't have the serious problem that we have in Richmond, where there are 23,000 students, more than 5,500 of which are in portables. In fact, there is a real need. This government has announced the Garry school three times, yet that school district is being told that because of the process, it may not make this year's budget. One has to wonder what role politics plays in that decision because the criteria, in terms of demand, is certainly there -- and the need is certainly there.
In my limited time I want to talk a little about the member's comment that we have to have the federal government's cooperation in the building of infrastructure in British Columbia. I agree with the principle of that, but we are all going to have to realize that yesterday the federal government had its bond rating decreased because of its debt load. They're going to have to be responsible and meet the challenge. In doing that, they are obviously also going to have to look at things like federal transfer payments to provinces. I think the issue that we want to be dealing with in this is not so much how much we get, but whether or not we're being treated fairly with other provinces and whether or not we're getting our fair share of a smaller pie that is going to be shared with British Columbia.
With those few remarks, I thank the member for his statement and look forward to his response.
J. Beattie: The hon. member makes mention of the bond rating of the federal government, and that is a problem for them. I would think that the federal government should take a good look at this province's budget and how we've introduced a debt management plan which, again, has allowed the bond agencies in the world to look at this province with a great deal of exuberance.
When the federal government cuts program funding to the provincial governments -- and I'm very glad to hear the hon. member speak about equity and the sharing of federal resources -- we must make up that money somewhere. If we have to make up program dollars, then we have less money to spend on those schools in Richmond. So it's incumbent upon
[ Page 13409 ]
the opposition to recognize that the transfer payments from the federal government for programs must be maintained, because that's where a dollar equals a dollar. A lost dollar on programs means those dollars must come from our budget, and we can't do it for infrastructure.
The question of how we make our decisions is very important. I was sort of disturbed to hear the hon. member from the Reform Party bring in politics about how decisions are made. We have a reputation. If you look at the community grants program, we have been fair beyond fair. This government has that reputation -- freedom of information, openness, consultation. We'll continue in that vein. Hon. member, when it comes to making those decisions, you must work with your constituents to make sure that government understands what the priorities are. If it's a road, get that funding. We know you can do it.
In my area, we had an arena that was falling apart and needed a couple million dollars. We worked to make sure that that investment from the early fifties was maintained through a $1.8 million infrastructure grant. Hon. members on the opposite side, I believe you can do the same. I think we can work together. Bring your friends to the table. Together we can create a better B.C. through sustaining partnerships for infrastructure.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
D. Mitchell: The subject matter of my statement this morning is conflict of interest. Early in the life of this parliament, the government brought in amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. In the words of the NDP, this made it "the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in North America." Our independent conflict-of-interest commissioner, Mr. Ted Hughes, is an officer of this assembly. He's also a man of great integrity. Initially, the government had hoped he would only be as busy as the proverbial Maytag repairman. To the government's surprise -- and perhaps naivety; I'm not sure -- the Maytag repairman has been very busy of late. In fact, the appliances in the NDP cabinet have been in a state of increasing disrepair. It's getting harder and harder to find spare parts. No one seems to be able to find the warranty on this faulty product.
There's nothing wrong with having tough conflict-of-interest legislation. When the government brought in changes to the act, however, we had a good, thorough debate in this House. While I supported the bill in principle, I also expressed the fear that the broad definition of conflict of interest, combined with the wide discretion provided to the commissioner, could make political eunuchs out of the members of any government. Today I fear we are dangerously close to this, and unfortunately, many people, including some members of this House, seem to be confused about what in fact constitutes a conflict of interest.
[11:15]
The current investigation by the commissioner into allegations made against the Premier, related to his government's relationship with NOW Communications, is a good case in point. I believe this is properly a matter of politics -- capital-P politics. I believe the government should be criticized severely for this blatant example -- one of far too many -- of political patronage. The government should be especially condemned for it, because it promised to rid the province of patronage in the last election campaign. That's why I think this is a matter of politics. But is it a matter that should be referred to an independent commissioner? I think the government deserves to be criticized and deserves to be tarred and feathered and hung in the high court of public opinion -- but not necessarily referred to a commissioner of conflict of interest. There has to be an appreciation in the public's mind as to what represents politics and what represents a genuine conflict of interest.
We must ask, for instance, in the current investigation into the allegations that have been made against the Premier: is that a conflict of interest? Should the commissioner have felt obliged to investigate this specific allegation against the Premier? Has the Premier personally gained from the awarding of contracts to NOW Communications? I don't believe anyone has made that specific charge. Is there a reasonable perception that he furthered his private interest? I ask these questions because these are the tests under the act.
The commissioner, who is a servant of this House, has the awesome responsibility to use his discretion to decide on these matters. I believe he needs some help, some assistance and perhaps some specific guidelines from members of this House, lest he get carried away with a good idea that perhaps threatens to run amok. I'll offer one example of what I mean by this: the leader of the Liberal opposition has suggested, even demanded, that the Premier should step aside because he is under investigation by the commissioner. I think the lack of prudence or wisdom of such a ludicrous demand can be proven by imagining for a moment if the Liberal leader -- heaven forbid! -- should ever be given an opportunity to lead a government in our province, because while I certainly don't wish such a fate on our fellow British Columbians, I can only say that under the current law the Liberal leader, given his background and connections, would probably be required to step aside every 15 or 20 minutes. That's how bad it would be, and that's how ludicrous it would become if we followed the guidelines seemingly offered by the leader of the Liberal opposition.
I don't think the intention of our conflict-of-interest legislation is to cripple a democratically elected government. It should not be. But unless more specific guidelines are developed, possibly by means of further amendments to the act, I think it has disastrous potential. It's fine to say that we have the toughest conflict-of-interest legislation in North America -- perhaps in the world; who knows? -- but there's nothing wrong with making it better, and there is room for improvement.
I have a few suggestions in that regard. First of all, I believe the commissioner requires specific guidelines for the kinds of allegations that he feels or should feel obliged to investigate. I think we also need to provide direction to the commissioner on who should have access to the proceedings of his investigations: the news media, the general public and members of this House. In addition, the act should offer clear instructions on whether or not a member -- in particular, a cabinet minister who is under investigation -- should be required to step aside while he or she is under investigation, because there seems to have been some different standards on that issue to date. We need some clarification.
I know the government is sensitive about this issue. Some members of cabinet believe it might be politically unwise to open up the question, and see it as a can of worms. I say that it
[ Page 13410 ]
is crucial that we review this matter during this current session. Once the current investigation into the allegations made against the Premier are completed -- and I understand that will be very soon -- I would recommend that an all-party committee of this House be struck to review these and other issues of concern about how the act is working or not working. Such a committee should be empowered to hear directly from Mr. Hughes, the commissioner, as well as other interested parties on this subject. The committee should report back to this House as soon as possible on any potential changes which may be required to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. We should maintain the goal of having the highest possible standards right here in British Columbia, but we should also aspire to the goal of clearly defining our terms of reference so that partisan politics don't cloud those standards.
This is an important task. It will require some delicacy. I urge the government to move forward with this kind of a review, which is both timely and required. And I caution the government, for if any government chooses to live by unclear standards of conflict of interest, it will almost certainly die by them as well.
D. Schreck: I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is extremely well-intentioned when he brings up the matter of conflict of interest in particular cases that are before the commissioner for discussion today, but I have to say that I fear he maybe putting the cart somewhat before the horse. We have had relatively few cases which we could interpret as case law actually coming down from the commissioner. I would feel much more comfortable with this discussion were it next week or the week after, when we have the benefit of the commissioner's decision on the current matters that are before him. To discuss those matters while the commissioner is deliberating comes, in my opinion, very close to violating the sub judice rule within this chamber. I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, having formerly been a Clerk in the House of Saskatchewan, is as familiar with the rules of this place as any in this chamber, and would certainly not, for partisan purposes, think of violating that sub judice rule that we are coming so close to.
Let me talk in a broader sense about the concept of conflict and how it gets thrown around so loosely. I went on Mountain FM Radio, the radio station that broadcasts to a great deal of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi's riding, in order to defend that member against a scurrilous charge of conflict of interest. The member's Liberal opponent, the wannabe mayor from Whistler, went on radio and other forms of media and charged the hon. member with conflict of interest because the member was doing a hotline radio show. Members throughout this chamber do local radio shows, and, if asked to do an honorary host position, would think nothing of it. But for nothing but purely partisan purposes, that Liberal wannabe publicly took shots at the hon. member, charging that hon. member with conflict of interest. I was very pleased to come forward and say: "Stuff and nonsense."
We have a similar case before us now in today's Vancouver Sun, where it's reported that the Liberal campaign manager for the Abbotsford by-election used his office as a government employee to run part of that campaign, and was disciplined and suspended for it. Once again, I think that shows overexuberence, to say the least, from the Liberal wannabes, but it is by no means something that could be characterized as a conflict of interest.
I think the difficulty we have is that, in the partisan thrust of this chamber and the broader partisan thrust of politics in this province, there is a tendency to throw out that conflict-of-interest charge all too readily. In doing so, we debase the currency. It must cause enormous confusion in the public's mind to the point that the public eventually says: "That's those politicians playing their silly games again." Minds shut down, and no attention is paid to any of us. If we are truly going to make -- whatever our partisan position is -- an honourable profession and raise the level of debate of public policy throughout this province, we must not debase the currency. I ask us not to debase the currency with respect to the sub judice rule in the matters currently before the conflict-of-interest commissioner. And I ask all of us not to debase the currency by carelessly throwing around charges, when what we really mean is that we disagree with you and we urge people not to vote for you. That's what it really comes down to. At the end of the day, we are all judged in one court, and that is the court of public opinion.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
D. Mitchell: I thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for his response to my statement. I'm in agreement with virtually everything he said in response to this. He might be interested to know that. There's a question as to whether or not we should even be discussing the matter currently being investigated. That proves my point. I think the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale helps me to prove my point.
We need to clarify what the procedure is when the current commissioner is investigating a member for an allegation of conflict of interest. Who has access to the proceedings of the investigation? Is the commissioner constituted as a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal or not? Would a sub judice rule even apply to that commissioner? All of these issues are unclear, and that is one of the reasons that I believe this whole matter needs to be reviewed. I think an all-party committee is necessary, and I think we should open up that all-party committee process or review to the public. The news media should all have access to this process. We should make recommendations during this session. There's no need for delay, in my opinion.
In Ontario recently, an act was passed by the Legislature called the Members' Integrity Act. That act has never been proclaimed yet. One of the reasons it hasn't been proclaimed is that they've looked at the British Columbia experience with our Members' Conflict of Interest Act and they've raised concerns about the definition of apparent conflict, or what are reasonable grounds for conflict of interest. They are learning from our mistakes. We have an opportunity to learn, perhaps from our mistakes or our first run at this, by improving the legislation, making it more specific and defining our terms more specifically.
I mentioned earlier that the leader of the Liberal opposition made what I thought was an unwise call for the Premier to step aside during the current investigation he is going through. The reason I mention that is that we aren't clear on the terms of whether or not a member who is under investigation needs to step aside while he or she is being investigated. That's another one of the issues that needs to be dealt with. The reason I mention this is that even within the assembly, members are not in agreement on this; even within the Liberal caucus, members are not in agreement on this.
[ Page 13411 ]
I would refer hon. members to today's issue of Monday Magazine, a Victoria publication, which quotes one of the members of the Liberal caucus, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who says: "I would say my personal opinion is that you really gotta stretch to get there." He's referring to the question of whether or not the Premier needs to step aside because he's being investigated, and he's disagreeing with his leader on this one. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove goes on to say: "If we get too far along, then I think we start to lose credibility and are seen to be ridiculous." I've got news for that member; through taking different positions than his leader and taking different standards in the House and outside the House, he is seen to be ridiculous -- especially when he disagrees so publicly with his leader, who has demanded that the Premier step aside on this issue. I agree with the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. We need to define this much more clearly, we need some consistency and we need an all-party committee -- now -- to investigate this matter.
The Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes private members' statements for the morning.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's the beginning of a long weekend, in which time every member of the House.... It's been quite an eventful week for many of us, and we have time now to reflect on both the holiday and the events that faced us in contemplation of that holiday, but also our own personal contemplation. I wish everybody a safe, healthy and relaxing weekend.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:28 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]