[ Page 339 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

J. Kwan: I'm very happy to introduce to the House today four members of my family: my sisters May Kwan and Sandy Kwan, and my two nephews, Dennis Fong and Brian Fong. Dennis, Brian and Sandy are visiting from Calgary. I would ask the House to please join me in giving them an especially warm welcome.

I. Chong: A former resident of Oak Bay-Gordon Head is visiting from Burlington, Ontario, today. Her name is Shirley Bell. She was my grade 11 social studies teacher at Mount Douglas high school, which is located in my riding. Back in those days, I called her Miss Bell. She was the first person who pointed out to me and noticed my political inclinations, and I would just like to say that Miss Bell is a reminder to all of us how teachers do, in fact, inspire us and affect the next generation. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Yesterday I introduced some members of the UBCM executive, and I'm advised that Mayor John Ranta of Cache Creek, Mayor Tom Shields of Osoyoos and Mayor Steve Thorlakson of Fort St. John are also in the gallery this morning. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

The Speaker: That is sufficient, hon. member.

I. Waddell: Yes, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition table the full report in the House. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. That is sufficient. The practice in this chamber is simply to give notice of one's intention to raise a matter. That very brief explanatory notice is sufficient, and that is all that will be allowed, so thank you for the notice.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

I. Waddell: I would like further direction from you, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the tabling of the full report that was referred to in question period and should be tabled in the House.

The Speaker: One can't demand that, but you have made that a public request, and therefore your opposite member may well wish to comply. Point made, I think.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call private members' statements.

Interjections.

G. Plant: I see I have the interest of the members opposite. This is reassuring.

The right to participate meaningfully in our electoral process is one of the most basic democratic values. It finds expression in at least three provisions of the Charter: the right to vote and the fundamental freedoms of speech and association.

The right to vote carries with it the duty to do so responsibly, but a responsible vote is an informed vote, and without the free exchange of ideas and opinions during an election campaign, there is little chance of an informed vote. I say that the restrictions on third-party advertising, contained in sections 236 and 237 of the B.C. Election Act, are an unfair and arbitrary restriction on the exchange of ideas and opinions at the very time when, in our democratic process, we need these the most -- during an election campaign.

To speak in favour of free speech is hardly controversial. Everyone is in favour of free speech, but free speech only ever becomes interesting when we don't like what is being said. These provisions of the Election Act give government the power to silence the voices which it does not want to hear. I share the views expressed by John F. Kennedy in a speech to the national civil liberties conference in 1959, when he said: "I am not so much concerned with the right of everyone to say anything he pleases as I am about our need, as a self-governing people, to hear everything relevant."

I believe that sections 236 and 237 would not withstand a legal challenge under the Charter. On June 5, 1996, while the election campaign was underway in British Columbia, the Alberta Court of Appeal delivered judgment in a case known as Somerville v. Canada. The court in that case unanimously struck down third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act. The court said the provisions in the federal act were arbitrary and unfair. I agree. I am also of the view that the reasoning for this decision applies with equal force to the provisions of the B.C. act. As the court said, the legislation impairs far too severely the right to vote and the freedoms of expression and association.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member, if I might interrupt you for just a moment.

[ Page 340 ]

Members, the practice in private members' statements is indeed to listen. They are, as you know, not essentially partisan comments, and therefore an extra dimension of courtesy normally obtains. I would suggest to both sides of the House that we ought to keep the noise level down so that we can indeed hear the member. Please continue.

[10:15]

G. Plant: As a parent of young children, I'm used to making my voice heard above the din, so it wasn't really a problem.

What the court said in the Somerville case was that the legislation at issue impaired far too severely the right to vote and the freedoms of expression and association to be justified as a reasonable limit on these core democratic rights. I say that that applies with equal force to the provisions of the act in British Columbia.

To argue, as I do, that the right of free speech is fundamental is not to contend that it is absolute. Section 1 of the Charter exists as the legal embodiment of the political principle that in a free and democratic society, competing interests must often be balanced. The competing interest here, which is said to justify the imposition of restrictions on third-party spending, is the contention that government needs to ensure that the electoral playing field is level, that elections are not bought by the rich and that spending limits on political parties are not circumvented by the use of advocacy groups.

Hon. Speaker, I want to say four things about these concerns. First, I have more faith than the authors of this act do in the ability of the voter to decide from among the many voices in a public debate those which deserve her support and those which do not. Second, these concerns have formed the basis of arguments made by government in support of these restrictions in three separate courts. They have been rejected in each case. Third, if the concern is to ensure that the established parties do not spend by the back door, there are easier ways to do that than through the draconian provisions of this legislation. Fourth, the attempt to strike that balance in this case by raising the spending limit, as the B.C. act does, from $1,000 to $5,000 adds insult to injury; $5,000 buys precious little time or space in any medium likely to reach more than a handful of voters in British Columbia.

All those who participate in the electoral process, and in particular those of us who are elected officials, have a duty to enhance public confidence in that process. That confidence is eroded when government enacts laws which say, in effect, that we do not trust the people to make up their own minds with access to all available information. The message which this elections act sends is that government is afraid of informed voters. That is a dangerous message; it is a threat to democracy. In the aftermath of the Somerville decision, I say the time has come for this government to take another look at our own Election Act and to repeal the arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional limits on third-party advertising in the Election Act.

G. Bowbrick: I am, of course, relatively new to this House, but I'm very, very disappointed, because my understanding is that private members' statements are in fact reserved for relatively non-partisan matters. I think what we've just heard from the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is a highly partisan statement questioning government legislation. I suggest, hon. Speaker, that if the hon. member wanted to discuss the principles of free speech in general terms, there would be nothing wrong with that at all.

In any event, I am more than happy to reply to the hon. member's statement. There's a phrase which everybody in this House -- and, I suggest, everybody in this society -- knows, and it is "Money talks," a phrase which people use with a great deal of cynicism. It's a phrase which says that people know intuitively that those with money in our society have a louder voice and more influence than those who don't.

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: I agree; we're talking about free speech here, and we're also talking about something called, I think, equality of speech. Equality is also a fundamental principle in our society. Equality is also something which is covered by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The problem we have in election campaigns is that without limits on third-party spending, we don't have equality of speech. I want to refer to perhaps one of the most prominent examples in recent history in this country, and that is the 1988 federal election, which is sometimes known as the free trade election. This election perhaps represents one of the largest lobbying and public relations campaigns in Canadian history.

There was a third party in that campaign called the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities, which argued quite vociferously in favour of free trade. Beyond just arguing in favour, it promoted that. I hear one of the hon. members opposite applauding that. My point here is not about the merits of free trade; my point is about the merits of third-party spending in election campaigns.

The hon. member used a term in his address about having to protect the speech of those whom we most need to hear. Well, in the 1988 federal election campaign, the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities included the following members. These are the types of members that I assume the hon. member suggests that we have to hear from. Canadian Pacific donated $250,000 to promote free trade. Other corporations that donated huge amounts of money were: Alcan Aluminum, Shell Canada, Noranda, Royal Bank, Imperial Oil, Sun Life, Manufacturers Life, Northern Telecom, IBM Canada. Are these the people we need to hear from most? What about the people who don't have money? What about the people whose voices wouldn't otherwise be heard?

When we're talking about equality, it's important to understand the difference between formal equality and substantive equality or actual equality. Formal equality -- I'm sure I'm about to butcher this -- is an expression I heard in law school. There was an expression relating to homelessness in the nineteenth century that said the richest man and the poorest man both have the right to sleep under a bridge. There's wonderful equality when both of them have that opportunity, but we know that only one of them has to avail himself of that opportunity.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. A few minutes ago, you may recall. . . . I'm sorry, member for New Westminster. If you would take your seat for just a moment, I'll give you a moment to finish.

A few minutes ago, members, I told everybody what the convention governing private members' statement is, and the member I just pointed my pencil at was one of those most vehement in supporting that ruling. I hope he recognizes the irony, then, in my singling him out now. Having said that, members, with as much courtesy as I can muster, I would ask you all to please understand that all members have an opportunity to be heard in this chamber.

[ Page 341 ]

Hon. member for New Westminster, would you care to continue?

G. Bowbrick: The point I was making is that it's not enough to say that everybody should have the freedom -- the equality -- to spend as much money as they like in promoting their voice in an election campaign. That means very little to those who have no money or very limited amounts of money, and that means that there is no actual equality. One of the things that we'll hear as an argument against spending limits is that money can't buy campaigns. I often hear the National Citizens Coalition referring to, for example, the 1993 campaign, where the Conservatives spent $10 million and lost.

I'm sorry that's my time, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is that I believe that during the election campaign the poorest person in our society should have a voice which is roughly equal to that of the wealthiest in our society. That's why it's quite appropriate to have third-party spending limits.

The Speaker: To conclude the private member's statement, I now call upon the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I should say that the primary purpose of my rising on this issue is to bring to the attention of the House the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in the Somerville case, and to commend it to the House for what it says in a thoroughly non-partisan way about the important values of free speech in our society and the extent to which those values are imperiled by, in my view, the Election Act of British Columbia.

The question which is raised by my learned friend opposite is the contention that money talks and that money can have a disproportionate influence on the outcome of elections. That important and legitimate argument has been made in each of the three cases where similar provisions of our act have been challenged in the courts. On each occasion thus far the argument has been conclusively rejected. It is an argument. I freely concede that if at some point in time there is any evidence to support it as anything other than an argument, we should take a good look at it. What the courts have said to date is what the member identifies as an apprehension, and that is not borne out in reality.

The B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability is the oldest member of the B.C. Games family. Other games include the Summer and Winter Games, the B.C. Seniors Games -- which, by the way, are also going to be held in Kamloops this fall -- and the Northern B.C. Winter Games.

Hosting and meeting the needs of athletes with a disability isn't new to Kamloops or to the event planning committee, because in 1993 Kamloops was the first Summer Games to host both athletes with a disability and non-disabled athletes. The mission of the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability is to become the premier multisport event for people with disabilities throughout British Columbia and North America. Their purposes are: to demonstrate the abilities and potential of athletes with a disability, to provide a means of evaluation of existing sports programs available to athletes with a disability, to identify talented athletes with a disability, and to encourage people with a disability to participate in sports and recreational programming.

More than 430 athletes and their assistants were welcomed to Kamloops during these games. I'd like to make mention of the tremendous contribution that is made to these athletic events by the athletes' families and their assistants. The assistants play a major role in supporting the deaf, blind or physically challenged athletes. They are the vehicles through which the athlete is able to perform fully in the event of his or her choice. Their dedication and pride in the athletes they sponsor make them deserving partners in the awards and recognition that carried on throughout the games.

We all understand the commitment that's necessary for athletes to perform in the games setting, but let me describe to this House two of the participants whom I had the opportunity to observe during the games. The first was a blind woman who was competing in lawn bowling. She was able to throw her ball down the full length of the lawn-bowling field through the use of only a small threaded guide wire down the side, as well as by listening to the voice of her coach. She was able to roll that ball down the full length of the field and accurately place her shot into a winning position, and in fact proceeded to go on to win a gold medal.

The second athlete I'd like to describe is a young man with cerebral palsy. He was playing in the boccie event. For him to be able to play in this event, he used sort of a funnel-type guide through which he would drop his ball to place it into the game. He was unable to move any part of his body except for his head; he wore a metal band around his head. He used his eyes, hon. members, to signal to his assistant -- his father -- where he needed to have the funnel moved so he could place the ball. He was able to place his ball within millimetres of the boccina. It was an amazing event to watch. I really congratulate those athletes for the kind of dedication and skill they have brought to those games.

[10:30]

There were many other athletes with disabilities present during the games. They included the B.C. Deaf Sports Federation, the B.C. Blind Sports and Recreation Association, the Cerebral Palsy Sports Association, the B.C. Disabled Sailing Association and the B.C. Therapeutic Riding Association. There were also 17 athletes from the Kamloops area, which I'm especially proud of. In keeping with the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability goal of becoming a nationally recognized event, there were participants from all across Canada, including Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, and from as far away as California and northwest Washington.

The events that were included during these games included swimming, athletic events such as track and running, boccie -- as I referred to earlier -- cycling, equestrian events, goalball, golf, lawn bowling, sailing and a demonstration of power lifting.

At these games a new world record was set in the long jump by Courtney Knight. This will qualify her for the Paralympics in Atlanta. Another outstanding athlete was Lisa Whitehead of Duncan, who took double gold in the equestrian events. These athletes and 34 others will soon be leaving B.C. to represent our province and Canada in the 1996 Paralympics in Atlanta from August 15 to 25. A full 27 percent of the athletes representing Canada come from British Columbia, and we should all feel proud of that.

[ Page 342 ]

My presentation today would not be complete if I didn't take the opportunity to brag a little bit about Kamloops, the host of this event. Kamloops was the first smaller Canadian city to host the Canada Summer Games, and it provided a vehicle through which we could build and enhance our already strong sports and volunteer network. As a result, in 1994 Kamloops was selected as the site of the first multiregional network centre, as a part of our regional sports delivery program. This helps ensure that there is even better access to sports programs for our regional athletes, as well as for those who are traditionally excluded from sports, such as people with disabilities. Our regional sports delivery program is about supporting provincial sporting programs, and we have a $1 million matching fund program that helps deliver these sports to many communities around the province.

The 1996 Games for Athletes with a Disability has been extremely successful again this year. I commend the organizers, the sponsors and the members of this government for their commitment to community athletic programs.

The Speaker: In response to the statement, I recognize the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: In spite of sitting on opposite sides of the House, I find myself in the happy position of being able to agree with every word the hon. member for Kamloops spoke. The 1996 B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability was a celebration of ability and a wonderful thing to see. I commend the games to all of you, at your first opportunity to attend them.

The member for Kamloops described some of the athletic feats that were demonstrated. I also attended the boccie event and had the honour of presenting medals there. The amazing ability of these people to achieve such competitive levels in the face of the difficulties they've experienced in life is a real credit to the human condition -- certainly to them, applying their personal resources, determination, self-discipline and spirit, to achieve the levels that they do. The games were also a real credit to the tremendous volunteerism of Kamloops, which we've seen time and again, be it the organization of the 1996 Labatt Brier, the 1993 Canada Games, events large and small. Sports are very welcome in Kamloops; people are welcome in Kamloops. The games were a great credit to the community and certainly to the organizers from Kamloops and from elsewhere.

In watching the games and the achievements of these people, it struck me that they set an example for us as members of this Legislative Assembly, as we take the opportunities we've been given and the many resources we've been provided and make the very best of our situation and our opportunities to provide good government, because certainly British Columbia athletes with a disability and British Columbians everywhere deserve no less from us.

T. Stevenson: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

T. Stevenson: Yesterday I introduced Chris Childs. I found out later that, unfortunately, he wasn't in the gallery, but he is this morning. He is the gentleman who was a Liberal in Vancouver-Burrard and in fact he was the treasurer. He crossed the floor, and I found out today that he's taken out an NDP membership, as well. May we make him welcome.

C. McGregor: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson for his positive comments. I'm pleased that we can agree on the value of these games and the benefit they provide to the Kamloops community as well as to communities around the province. I understand the games will proceed to Chilliwack next year, and I'm sure all of us in this House wish them well in their planning for those games. I'd also like to thank the hon. member for bringing up the issue of volunteerism, because I think volunteerism is key to these community events, including the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability.

If the House would indulge me for just a moment, I'd like to read the names of a few of the volunteers who organized the event in Kamloops. This is the host organizing committee: I'd like to particularly thank Helen Kerr, who was the chair of that organizing committee, but also Fred Oakley, who was in charge of accommodation; Shirley Culver, who was in charge of ceremonies; George Fudge, who was the director of sports and city liaison; Bill Layton, who was the treasurer; Bryce Herman, who was in charge of food services; Sharon Frisell and Diane Fraser, who co-chaired the medical services; Ron Morris, who was charged with communications and security; and Robin DeWolf, who was in charge of special events. Particular mention goes to Tod Harding and Scott DeWolf for transportation, because transportation was a major need for many of the disabled athletes who came to Kamloops, and Kim Jensen and Shirley Mellis.

As the hon. member has noted, there were many sponsors in the event as well, including our own school district, who provided many of the facilities and the accommodation for those who came to Kamloops for the games; the Lottery Corporation; the staff of the B.C. Seniors Games Society; and the Kamloops Daily News. Finally, I would like to make special mention of the city of Kamloops, which donated $25,000 in cash and $15,000 in in-kind donations for those games -- that's a lot of the reason why the games were as successful as they were.

So my thanks to the hon. member for his remarks and thanks to this House for listening to my statement about the B.C. Games for Athletes with a Disability.

I share my reflections on this issue as someone who's had some experience as a service provider in our publicly funded health care system. I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to gain my experience in a variety of settings. I've worked in secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals, community clinics, in-patient and out-patient clinics, and in a variety of roles -- as a general duty nurse, a manager, a teacher and a consultant. After caring for the ill, the injured and the dying, I've come to appreciate firsthand how important health care is to our patients, our friends and our families.

I firmly believe that this service-driven system of health care. . . . We should never, never lose sight of the fact that the patient comes first when important decisions about change are being made. Funding health and community services is a big challenge when we're faced with contemporary issues such as our aging population, which is quite prevalent in my 

[ Page 343 ]

constituency. We have a better ability to diagnose these days. There are new and expensive technologies out there, and there are higher expectations of health care from consumers who are better informed and more aggressive in demanding greater choice.

The dilemma faced in our province, as in others, is providing an ever-increasing range of services in the face of decreased federal transfer payments. The constraints on funding have led us to attempt to find a balance between effectiveness and comprehensive service delivery. This has forced us to look at ways to reduce costs and to continue to provide services, all the while keeping in mind the principles of the Canada Health Act, which states that health care services in Canada must be portable, comprehensive, universal, accessible and publicly administered.

Three years ago in B.C. we embarked on the road to health care reform. The Seaton report provided a basis of well-received recommendations which stressed the need to streamline decision-making for effective delivery of health care closer to home. Well, we've all heard the buzzwords. The buzzwords of change used in the past few years have been regionalization, New Directions, decentralization, Closer to Home, devolution of authority, and so on. The province was divided into 21 regions, and regional health boards were formed to deliver health services within these regions. The Ministry of Health mandate was to eliminate some 700 existing regional hospital and health facility boards and amalgamate them into various regional health boards and community health councils. The province would then shift governance, I guess, from a position of central control to the regional populations, in order to let them set their own priorities and make choices for health care delivery accordingly.

From the beginning of the New Directions program, there were numerous concerns raised in my riding as well, with respect to planning and direction -- or rather, the lack of it. In fact, the program was referred to by many as "no directions." But despite these calls for reassessment, for pilot projects, for more well-thought-out planning, and despite the concerns that closures and downsizing of facilities and services were occurring with no substantial or coordinated plan, and no real efforts to move these services to the community, we forged ahead with health care reforms. After three years, countless community volunteer hours and millions of dollars spent on this experiment, we've ended up with what I believe many feared and predicted: another made-in-B.C. bureaucracy, instead of streamlining the system for greater efficiency.

The implications of this imposed new structure has led, in my community anyway, to a negative effect of pitting communities against health care boards and putting them in conflict with each other over jurisdiction and rights. It's a sad statement for health care in my community.

Regionalization was implemented with a lot of political enthusiasm. I think we all thought we were going down the right track. I must say it did indeed create a great deal of change, but I don't think it necessarily reflects progress. In three years we're left with questions like: what are the real limits of authority of regional health boards within the guidelines imposed by the Health ministry? How will the members of the regional health boards be held accountable by the communities they serve? Who will they be accountable to? How will the ministry monitor its provincial health goals and program delivery in the decentralized system? Are the costs really lower? Have we really made the system more efficient?

Many people, patients and service providers have expressed the fear that regionalization may be used as a way to cut programs and therefore cut costs. We are seeing cuts in our community; we are closing 20 beds at our hospital. Many others fear that communities will be used to deflect attention from unpopular actions by politicians to a board of locally appointed politicians.

This is a critical time for health care. Dollars are precious and few and need to be well spent. We now have a window of opportunity to examine these questions and hopefully set a new course. I commend the Minister of Health for her courage to change, to take a pause and to evaluate the situation that has been created over the past few years. This is an opportunity for us to exercise discretion, to take a deep breath, to take a good look at the health reorganization model, to establish a provincial strategic plan that is sensitive to local input.

The Seaton report consisted of values and recommendations for better health care delivery. It was necessary then and it is still necessary now for a provincial strategic plan to be put in place to help us get there. This plan must include flexibility, ongoing assessment, implementation, planning, evaluation. We need more than a pause. We have the vision, but we need the plan for the future of our health care delivery system. To do anything less at this point would be contributing to the gutting of this very, very significant social program.

[10:45]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Member opposite, thank you very much for those words of wisdom. I appreciate them, and I'm not going to disagree with one of them. I also look forward to having the member's direct input in the assessment process.

I know that in my inaugural speech I talked about the new backgrounds that all of us in this chamber are bringing to this Legislature. Clearly, the member opposite brings a background that I don't think has been represented in the chamber. I could be wrong. Actually, I am wrong -- the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture has a similar background. But it is impressive, and I look forward to making maximum use of that -- without any increase in pay. I appreciate it.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

The questions the hon. member raises are legitimate questions. There are questions that need to be answered, and I have to take the heat, as minister responsible, for why those questions weren't answered earlier. I do take that heat; I stand here and I will take that heat.

I, in a former life, participated in the Seaton commission by making a submission. I remember very clearly the questions that were being asked at the Seaton commission. Those questions continue to be very important ones; they are the key questions that need to be answered. Many of them have been answered. Our system has changed -- we're putting more services into the community -- but we have a long road to travel.

I do believe that assessment is necessary, because we, as a new government. . . . The previous government really didn't contemplate the length of time it would take to change the system in the major way that is absolutely necessary. I hope the task of moving forward and bringing about regionalization in a way that makes sense and delivers on the Seaton commission report will be made easier because we haven't made cuts to the system.

[ Page 344 ]

I am concerned about reports from various regions where there are perceived cuts, and I will look into those. Of course, the health care budget has been increased substantially in this province. I believe that the money is there, and if the money is not being used in a way that actually delivers services to patients and people in British Columbia, then I will look into that. I thank the member for that advice on what's happening in her own community.

We spend $6.7 billion on health care. We have a wealth of talent in this province, a wealth of experience, and we have a wonderful report from the Seaton commission sitting before us. We also have a huge contribution from the volunteer boards that the hon. member mentioned -- both the community health councils and the regional health boards. We need to move on. I absolutely agree that we don't just rest with the recommendations but that we move forward on a strong implementation program to get it done, and get it done right. I thank the member for the input.

S. Hawkins: I appreciate the comments made by the minister, and I do look forward to having dialogue with you and moving forward on care for the health of our patients in British Columbia.

My concern is for our patients, our families and our friends. The concept of empowering communities is a good one. Moving services closer to home is a concept right now; it really has not moved into the implementation phase. What we need, I can't stress enough, is a provincially managed regionalization plan. We don't have that. Even with the three years' work that has been done, there are no clear expectations. The objectives must be defined; we need evaluation criteria.

I strongly suggest, as I know my colleagues have in the past, a pilot project. Perhaps a couple of regions should be considered as pilot projects. We could use them as models, and then we could build on their successes.

In addition to involving community members on regional boards, I strongly believe that we should consider maximizing, not deliberately minimizing or excluding, the participation and input of health care providers, not only at the board level but on committees and working groups that advise the board. There appears to have been a perception in the past that health care providers would promote their own interests and oppose any fundamental changes that would threaten those interests. I feel that health care providers have been unjustly accused of not being able to see the big picture. I believe it's very important to involve them, because they have traditionally played a role of advocacy for the provision of quality care for their patients, and they're also the single biggest human resource component of the health care system. As we all know, when implementing change, the best way to effect constructive change is to have the people who will be involved in implementing that change buy into the change process.

Again, it comes down to good planning and working together, and I sincerely believe that it's an achievable concept only if the foundation is laid down right. I look forward to working with the minister on that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise as House Leader to say that a member is AWOL. If we could just take a pause that has nothing to do with the regionalization of health care, and find out where the hon. member for Port Coquitlam is. . . .

Deputy Speaker: We will take a few moments, then, until we gather the troops -- a few minutes' recess.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, but I don't see the House Leader from across the floor. I don't want to limit the opposition, so if they have gleaned what the hon. member for Port Coquitlam would say, we have no hesitation in allowing the opposition to speak their minds. But if that's not the case, I certainly would propose that we move forward to another order of the day.

M. de Jong: I don't know if word has got to the member if he's on the phone. Why don't we give him a couple of minutes, and then we'll just move on.

Deputy Speaker: We'll do that: pause for two or three minutes. I suggest we stay in the chamber, and if the member doesn't reappear, we'll perhaps move on to the next order of business.

The House recessed from 10:50 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the hon. member for Port Coquitlam. Welcome!

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I can imagine; my ears were burning.

I rise today to speak on an issue that is of great importance to me and to my constituents and one of the reasons why I got into politics locally and then provincially. In my Speech from the Throne response, I talked about the importance of urban salmon streams. It is an issue of critical importance.

The name Port Coquitlam. . . . The Coquitlam River means the river of small, red fish. It was, at one time, one of the largest sockeye-producing rivers in the province, and it was typical of many streams and rivers that occur in this province. It produced a huge natural abundance of fish, which initially sustained an aboriginal population and then later went on to sustain a growing population of settlers from other parts of this country and around the world as an important source of food and then as an important source of jobs and economic development in the province. In fact, this province has been built on the resources of forests, the land and minerals, and the resources in our water are fish.

Today that resource is threatened on a number of fronts. It's threatened by overfishing by the Alaskans. We have seen what has happened on the east coast, and we are facing a similar situation here on the west coast. It's threatened because of pollution and because of land development. In the lower mainland especially, we have lost over the last 100 years a considerable number of our salmon-bearing streams. Many people think initially of the rivers, and they look to the Fraser, but they don't realize that it's not just the Fraser -- it's the tributaries of the Fraser and the tributaries of those tributaries.

It's the Coquitlam I want to address today. The Coquitlam initially was a salmon river that produced sockeye, chinook, chum and coho. The construction of the dam, which 

[ Page 345 ]

provides drinking water for much of the lower mainland and is the largest reservoir of the three reservoirs on the north shore of the Fraser River, eliminated -- extirpated -- that sockeye run. There is now a remnant population that exists behind the dam and spawns in the tributaries and headwaters of the Coquitlam, but for all intents and purposes, there has not been a sockeye salmon below the dam since it was constructed in 1914.

The run of pink salmon was eliminated in the early sixties when their spawning beds were strip-mined for gravel, the siltation which occurred made it unfit for their habitat, and they too died out of the river. The chinook were affected by the dam but they hung on a little longer than the sockeye, and they disappeared about the late 1940s -- in fact, it was about 1948. Today, only two species of salmon survive in the Coquitlam, the coho and the chum. The coho spawn just below the dam, and the chum spawn in the midsection of the river. In fact, the river through the downtown area of Port Coquitlam is one of their main spawning beds.

Into the Coquitlam flow a number of streams which are of incredible importance: Hoy Creek, Maple Creek and Scott Creek. Each one of these streams has its own run of salmon. Each one by itself is insignificant, but together they make up a substantial part of the Coquitlam River run. This is a situation that you find throughout the lower mainland, whether it's in Burnaby or in Surrey or in Vancouver. Those little streams are left to hold the last really wild populations of salmon. They are the home of the genetic diversity of the salmon species we have on the coast, because hatcheries on the Fraser and some of the major tributaries provide genetic uniformity. The wild stocks, which are so important, are all genetically different. They are unique to that particular stream, and they have evolved over tens of thousands of years. One of the most critical things we need to do is to ensure that genetic diversity remains.

Salmon protection is going to take place on two levels: on a provincial and federal level, where we deal with fishing disputes with the Alaskans and where we deal with quotas and the fishing industry in an overall sense, but also on a local level through stream habitat protection, through salmon enhancement programs and by putting in place policies that will ensure that we protect the small streams and small to mid-size river systems such as the Coquitlam and its tributaries -- Hoy Creek, Scott Creek and Maple Creek.

Our government has made a number of initiatives to address that. We have put in place an urban streams habitat program, which is encouraging community groups to apply for funds from the province to be used to identify what the problem areas are, and then how we can address them.

We need to put in place more land use controls to ensure that municipalities recognize the importance of urban salmon streams, because over the coming four or five years I believe we are only going to have one opportunity to get it right. If we don't make decisions over the next few years, it's going to be too late.

After I listen to the hon. member who will be responding, I will talk a little further.

[11:00]

C. Clark: I suspect that the hon. member for Port Coquitlam wasn't really late; he was just leaving a little extra time in case the member for Vancouver-Burrard wanted to introduce his friend a third time.

I take the hon. member's comments well, and I think it's very important that we bring these matters up in this House. Streams and keeping our streams in a state that they can continue to support the marine habitat is critical to our economic future, and as I've said before, to maintaining the social fabric and sense of community in this province. We need to remember that these marine resources are part of our history. They are part of what makes British Columbia what it is today, and it would be a terrible thing if we were to let that slip away for future generations. Urban streams have been listed as second on the Outdoor Recreation Council's list of endangered waterways in British Columbia -- second only to the mighty Fraser River. They listed foreshore development, habitat loss, pollution and culverting as the major threats facing the river.

I'd like to outline some of the proposals we've put forward on this side of the House -- which I am hoping will be recognized and accepted by the government -- to try and deal with some of these problems. We have suggested that we need workable rivers legislation in British Columbia. We have suggested that we need minimum guidelines and standards for each of our rivers. We need groundwater legislation, which is desperately overdue. We need legislation that will keep urban streams open without culverts, which I think is something that the hon. member would certainly agree with. We think that we should undertake a review of all the dams in British Columbia and see which ones we could perhaps decommission, with the recognition that that has a tremendous impact on the ability of fish to spawn in our rivers. We should recognize, though, that the provincial government has made some steps in protecting our urban streams. There have been beginning steps, but we have a lot further to go, and on this side of the House we'll continue to push the government to go a lot further.

One of the things we need to keep in mind is that the jurisdiction for improving marine habitat isn't just with one level of government; it's with three levels of government, it's with the community, it's with first nations. That's going to require a great deal more cooperation than perhaps we have seen in the past between governments, and it's going to require that all of us in politics in Canada and all of us in our communities put politics aside, with the understanding that protecting our rivers and streams is much more important than our short-term political futures. That should be our number one priority when we are talking about the environment. So I'd welcome some of the steps that the province has made with regard to that.

I'd welcome indications that the federal government is considering adding to money available for stream restoration and protection in British Columbia. I welcome many of the moves that have been made at the municipal level -- some of them recently, some of them as far back as the 1970s in Burnaby when Doreen Lawson was a leader in this regard; and people like Murray Coell, who, as the mayor of Saanich, undertook to work with the province to protect rivers in British Columbia.

We have a beginning, but we have a lot further to go. I'd remind the government that we need to continue to work together. I'll remind all members of the House that Rivers Day is going to be on September 29, and part of our responsibility is to inform members of the public and ensure that they understand how important the environment is and how important their local communities are in maintaining our marine habitat, improving the salmon runs that are out there and rebuilding some of the economic strength that we had in 

[ Page 346 ]

British Columbia. That's one of the roles that we as representatives of the public can play on Rivers Day, because as members of the Legislature, each of us has a voice and access to the public. I would hope that every member of the House will make use of that, and the time running up to it, to try to fulfil that part of our responsibilities as members.

Deputy Speaker: In rebuttal, the hon. member for Port Coquitlam.

M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for her remarks, and I agree with many of them. I think one of the important things I touched on, which I'd like to briefly expand on, is that we have to put in place practical solutions to deal with the issues of each stream, because many of them are unique. Some require steady stream flow, some require controls around land use development and some require looking at what the hon. member mentioned: culverts. When you think about it, a lot of these solutions are really just common sense, and they don't require a great deal of money. I think that's going to be one of the keys. I know that on the Coquitlam, as I've mentioned before, a couple of the streams require steady water flows. That's what I want to see us do.

The hon. member said that three levels of government are involved, and with the Coquitlam that's true, because the watershed falls under the jurisdiction of the greater Vancouver water district.

I would really like to see us get a fish ladder in place on the Coquitlam, up to the dam -- it's a goal of mine -- so that the population of sockeye that's currently behind there will once again have a route down to the Fraser, and we will once again get a run of sockeye salmon up the Coquitlam. I don't see a problem with that at the provincial level. I'm quite sure, having spoken to people in the DFO -- Fisheries -- that they would love to see something like that. Initial reaction from the water district is: "Don't even mention this; that's water for drinking, not for fish." Well, the fact is that fish are swimming around there right now, and I haven't seen them affecting the quality of drinking water.

I don't really see a problem in allowing them to swim back and forth between the dam and the river, but that's indicative of the problem: everybody's got their turf and is jealously guarding it. We have to bring them together and say: "Look, each one of us has the ability to solve the problem. Sure, we all have our own mandates, but we have to expand them a bit and look at what we can do to protect one of the biggest resources in this province that contributes a great deal economically and socially, and to avoid what has happened on the east coast."

So there are a number of projects I'm looking forward to working on, and I'm looking for support from the members of the opposition. After listening to the comments, I feel that we'll find that. There are a lot of creative things we can do if we all work together. I look forward to the challenge over the next few years.

Deputy Speaker: That concludes private members' statements for today.

Government House Leader.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you, hon. Speaker. As I walked home last night under the stars, I had this vision that I would be elevated to an exalted position today. As a result, I call the Address in Reply to the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

During the course of the campaign, my Liberal opponent projected that I would only earn the Chinese votes in this riding. However, the election results show I won nearly every poll in my riding with the highest margin of victory. This verifies my understanding of the riding, and the fact is that the people of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant are progressive, diverse and yet united in a vision for our future. I'm very proud to be one of two Chinese Canadian women ever elected to the B.C. Legislature.

The fundamental right to participate in our democratic system -- that is, the right to vote -- was not afforded to women until 1917. Likewise, this right was not afforded to members of the Chinese community until 1947. This march forward in our history is an important one, because it reaffirms our belief that we all have a legitimate role to play in our democratic society. It reinforces our fundamental belief in equality and justice.

Hon. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to all British Columbians who contributed to this step forward in our history. In particular, I want to pay tribute to my CCF-NDP brothers and sisters who fought for the rights of women and ethnic minority communities when it was not popular to do so. I also want to take this moment to personally thank my campaign team for their hard work and dedication. The work of this team includes the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant executive led by president Tiny Himes. Entrenched as part of the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant NDP history is Thelma Pankiw. She has nurtured the development of the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant NDP with much hard work, wisdom and patience. She is indeed the mother of the Vancouver-Mount Pleasant NDP.

Integral to the election planning process is the nomination committee chaired by Jim O'Dea, the election planning committee chaired firstly by Stephen Leary and then by Fred Wilson, and finally, the campaign itself led by Gia Lim, my campaign manager. Without their belief, their conviction, their support and their encouragement I would not be here today.

I'd also like to highlight the importance of the work of the ethnic community. It is because of their day-to-day work that immigrants, especially those with language barriers, also have the opportunity to fully participate in our society. In my riding within the Chinese community, for example, we have many community leaders who have helped immigrants and newcomers engage in a variety of ways in our society: Jonathan Lau of Strathcona; Doug Soo of Britannia; King Wong, the unofficial mayor of Chinatown; Mason Loh of SUCCESS; Bill Yee of the Chinese Benevolent Association; and Derick Cheng of the Chinese Cultural Centre, to just name a few.

[ Page 347 ]

Adding to the work of this collective is the outreach work of my campaign team. It warms my heart to know, because my campaign was effective in reaching out to the diverse range of members in our community, that some of our seniors who have lived in B.C. for over 40 years voted for the first time in this election.

Equally important to the campaign was the work of the media. I would like to especially acknowledge the ethnic media for their extensive coverage during the course of the campaign. The work of the media cannot be undermined in a democratic society. I believe it is the responsibility of the media to report accurately and without bias in order to disseminate information to the public at large.

Then there is my predecessor, Mike Harcourt. As the former MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and former Premier of the province, Mike Harcourt has left a mark in the history of B.C. with his vision. It is a legacy that we can build on.

Finally there is my family. As an immigrant family, my mom and dad, Wing Kwan and Po Kwan, raised six children on minimum wages. Our family has experienced living in poverty. We have lived in substandard housing. We have faced many challenges and struggles that face my constituents today. These life experiences, along with the teachings of my parents, laid the foundation of who I am today. During the course of the campaign, my family worked tirelessly on my campaign not just because they support and believe in me but because they support and believe in the philosophies of the NDP.

I was particularly excited when my 15-year-old niece, Caroline Lee, expressed an interest in politics. Indeed, my campaign involved many young people from all walks of life, many of whom worked for the first time in a political campaign. For some, they also exercised the democratic right to vote for the first time. To our young people, I thank you for your participation and interest. You do have a legitimate role to play in shaping the future of our province.

As I became involved in community work, I found one could develop a sense of family outside of biological means. I have been so fortunate to experience a united sense of family among my colleagues in COPE and among the grassroots community. COPE, the Coalition of Progressive Electors, the municipal party through which I was elected as a councillor in the city of Vancouver, is an integral part of my personal and political development.

[11:15]

As well, I've had the good fortune to meet and work with many community leaders, people like Libby Davies, Bruce Ericksen, Pat Wilson, Polly Weinstein, Roberta McCann and Jim Green. They are the essence of conviction, compassion and humanity. Against all odds, against enormous challenges, they soldier on for the better of the community. Their investment in and nurturance of me is an example of their dedication to people and the community. It is because of the collective work of this great team that I have the opportunity to stand before you today to make my first speech.

I entered politics because I believe politics is about choices. It is about getting our priorities right and about demonstrating that government can be and is a positive force in people's lives. It's about ensuring that choices and opportunities are afforded to all people, no matter who we are or where we come from. It is about ensuring that we have the opportunity to maximize our potential. Simply put, it is about equality and justice.

The riding which I have the privilege to represent is the essence of equality and justice. Residents of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant live in downtown British Columbia. It is rich in its diversity. We have the largest number of low-income residents of any riding in British Columbia. The majority of our residents are tenants. We're home to tens of thousands of new Canadians.

My life experiences are reflective of the residents in this riding. Indeed, my roots are in this community. It is in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant where I began my career. It is in this riding where I honed my philosophy and beliefs. It is in this neighbourhood where I learned and practised community activism. It is in this community where I found my voice. In short, it is home to my heart and my soul.

The foundation of this riding rests on the strength of its people and their fundamental belief in equality and in economic and social justice. Mount Pleasant is a model community of diversity and community-based activism. Its physical structure is comprised of five unique, distinct neighbourhoods: Chinatown, Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands, Mount Pleasant and the downtown east side.

Residents of Mount Pleasant need a government that supports their priorities. There is ample proof of how this government has made good on its commitment to people in this riding. Community projects like Four Corners Community Savings, the PRIDE Centre, SOLE and United We Can, the aboriginal friendship centre, the Native Education and Research Centre, the Woodward's Building, the Jim Green Residence, the safe house for aboriginal youth, the Portland Hotel, the Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House, the Chinatown and native storefronts and community crime prevention offices, the Chinatown parkade, the SUCCESS multilevel seniors' care home, the Chinese Cultural Centre museum and library complex, the Chinese Benevolent Association housing project and many more projects are initiated by the grassroots community and receive support from this government.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Premier and the NDP have been clear in their vision to build on the strength and successes of the Mount Pleasant community. Whether the issue is health care, education or social programs, we need a government that cares and respects our priorities. On the opening of the first session of the thirty-sixth parliament of B.C., the Lieutenant-Governor delivered a throne speech that addressed many of the priorities of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant.

On the issue of employment and training opportunities, our government is committed to investing in creating and protecting jobs. Our government will continue to take historic steps to preserve, protect and enhance our environment. On the issue of universal health care and education, this fundamental Canadian value will continue to be enshrined in British Columbian's way of life. On the issue of housing, I believe housing is a priority in honing in on our potential.

On the issue of economic development, our government has committed itself to fostering the economic well-being of our small business community by instituting a two-year income tax holiday for eligible new businesses and by reducing the small business income tax. The small business community is the economic engine of our province and a significant factor in the health of our neighbourhoods. In Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Chinatown, Gastown, Japantown 

[ Page 348 ]

and the corridors of Commercial Drive, Main Street, Broadway, Cambie and Hastings exemplify the diversity of the small business community.

On the issue of safety and security, we all want to live in communities with people who are motivated each day by hope, not fear. Women and children must feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. To fight crime, to help build a better community and to work on the root causes of crime and other related issues is primary to the initiative.

Unemployment, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness, fear, despair, prostitution, drug- and alcohol-related issues, mental illnesses, discrimination, and physical, sexual and mental abuse are all problems faced by residents of my riding. For the neighbourhood of Vancouver-Mount Pleasant these challenges are longstanding, and the time has come to explore different approaches to resolving some of them.

The Vancouver action project, which championed the fight against child prostitution, the commissioning of the Cain report regarding the issue of drugs, the commissioning of the Oppal report on policing, support for a hate-crime unit to deal with discrimination -- thanks to our Attorney General -- and the Portland Hotel project, which was developed based on an unprecedented interministerial approach involving five different ministries, are a few innovative steps that were initiated by the NDP government in its previous term.

I'm committed to working to further explore preventive strategies and innovations based on various models in order to build safer and stronger communities. I have faith that the strength of the people in this community, coupled with a government that cares and understands our priorities and needs, will allow us to come up with effective, innovative resolutions to deal with these difficult challenges.

On the issue of aboriginal land claims, Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, home to the principle of equality and justice, wants to see historic wrongs redressed. No one outside the aboriginal community could ever understand the pain and suffering that was inflicted on them. I'm ashamed to read in our history books that the aboriginal community did not have the right to vote until 1949. We as a community have the obligation to right a historic wrong. I'm so proud that our government has the courage to engage in a very difficult challenge and take the first step toward B.C.'s first modern-day aboriginal treaty, and that is the conclusion of an agreement-in-principle with the Nisga'a people.

I believe that all people want what is fundamental to the core of our being: that is the preservation of our ancestry -- our language, culture and heritage -- a future of opportunity for our young, to have legitimacy and respect within our society, to be self-sufficient and to be treated with honour and dignity. When I hear members opposite say the phrase "one law for all," I believe it is their attempt to disallow the fulfilment of the historical and cultural destiny of the aboriginal people. I ask all members of the House to learn from the past and join with this government -- our government -- to begin the healing process by righting this historical wrong.

I believe British Columbia is and can continue to be the caring capital of Canada. Mount Pleasant can be the model community for British Columbia. The future is bright for this great province of ours.

I challenge all members of the House to set aside partisan politics in the coming months and years and work for the reason we all ran for public office, and that is to work for the community and with the community. By working together with one heart, I know, together, we can make a difference.

Now, hon. Speaker, if you would indulge me a few more moments, I would like to say a few words in Cantonese. I'm very happy to be making part of my first speech in Cantonese, my first language. This is a historic moment. I know that previously other members have also made parts of their speeches in different languages, and I too would like to make this mark in the history of British Columbia, if you would indulge me.

[Cantonese spoken.] Hon. Speaker, I am most honoured to make this inaugural speech in the House today as the newly elected MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, and also as an immigrant woman of Chinese descent, and to say a few words in my first language, Cantonese dialect -- for the first time in the B.C. Legislature. I am very proud to be one of the first two Chinese Canadian women ever elected to the B.C. Legislature. The fact that we were elected clearly demonstrates that we all have a role to play in our democratic society.

I want to thank and pay tribute to the following people for making my campaign possible and a success: all British Columbians; NDP pioneers who have been fighting against discrimination; my campaign team; community groups and their leaders who work to help newcomers to fully participate in our society -- for example, within the Chinese community in my riding are Jonathan Lau of Strathcona, Doug Soo of Britannia, King Wong of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association, Mason Loh of SUCCESS, Bill Yee of the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver and Derick Cheng of the Chinese Cultural Centre, to just name a few -- the media, and the Chinese media in particular, for their extensive coverage of the campaign; the former MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Mike Harcourt; my parents and family; all of those who exercised their democratic right to vote for the first time; and COPE, an integral part of my political development.

I entered politics because I hope that the government cares for and understands the needs and feelings of the common people, that the government can be and is a force for positive change in people's lives, and that there is equality, justice, safety and security in our society.

The NDP government has made good on its commitments to the people of my riding by initiating and supporting several community projects. This clearly demonstrates that by working together with one heart, the government and the community can work to make a difference in our lives.

I have great faith that with this spirit, and by setting aside partisan politics, the future is bright for the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: I just want all members of the House to rest assured that the member's final comments were entirely in order. [Laughter.]

V. Anderson: I presume you'll vouch for exactly what she said, as well.

I would like to offer my best wishes and congratulations to the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, who has served our city as a city councillor very well and with a great deal of efficiency and effectiveness. I am personally delighted that she is here to represent the citizens of Vancouver in this House.

[ Page 349 ]

I also, in passing, want to welcome a fellow United Church minister who joined us on the other side of the House. I was able to thank him for most of his speech the other day, except for his comments about liberalism. I will have to educate the member for Vancouver-Burrard in that regard. I think the kind of variety and cultural expression we have here in this Legislature, which has increased on all sides of the House, is very important, as it reflects the community of which we are a part.

I wish to thank the chairman of my campaign. In fact, John Rennie has been the chairman of the last two campaigns I have run in, and I have been successful in both of those, so I owe him a great deal of gratitude.

I also owe Gayda Coblin a great deal of gratitude as the chairman of the Vancouver-Langara riding; and Ken Coblin, who was the chairman of the election day; Jean Murphy, a longtime Liberal worker, who was the manager of the office during the campaign; and Lola Rennie, who looked after our volunteers and our phoning. There are many others I would like to thank, but I will have to leave that for another time.

[11:30]

Hon. Speaker, we look forward to the opening of the Legislature following an election and to the reopening each year with the throne speech to give us some sense of direction for the legislative session that is before us, in order that we might together, as legislators, grapple with the concerns of the people of the province and move on in ways that will strengthen and help them in their daily living.

One of the concerns I have this year -- and I find it very strange coming from a NDP government with a CCF heritage -- is that in the throne speech, to my great regret and surprise, I find that the only reference to social services has to deal with regard to federal-provincial cooperation -- or non-cooperation, as the case may be -- in social programs. Apart from those two references to federal-provincial relationships in social services at the beginning and the end of the throne speech, there is no other mention of that great and important area which traditionally has been a main concern of the CCF-NDP, and in that area they have made some very significant contributions to our community. So I have to bring that forward at this time, because I think it's a lack that needs to be highlighted and focused upon.

In previous years when I have raised issues about social services in our province, I have brought illustrations from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. Joke Book, as they call it, which talks about actual situations that people on social assistance have had to deal with in trying to have their very crucial needs met. Some may have thought that was biased reporting because it came from a group who had a self-interest, and even though they were illustrations of actual events, they may not have been able to accept them at face value.

This year I would like to bring a similar kind of experiential report of an actual incident as reported by the ombudsperson in her report to this Legislature and to the public. On page 19 of this report. . . . It's entitled "Sometimes the Early Bird Has to Wait":

"Income assistance applicants in one regional office were required to line up outside a Ministry of Social Services office before the office opened every morning in order to get an appointment -- and this in the thick of winter. This process did not seem fair to the people who complained to the ombudsman, especially since receiving a number was no guarantee of an appointment on the same day. Those people who either did not get a number at all on a particular day or whose number was not called had to start the process all over the following day.

"The ombudsman heard from one man who arrived as early as 6:30 a.m. and found 25 people already lined up ahead of him. The next day he arrived at 5:30 a.m., was sixteenth in line and still did not get a number or an appointment for that day. We heard of lineups starting as early as 2:30 a.m. during the very cold winter weather.

"We contacted the regional office and asked why applicants were not given appointments, as is the practice in most other ministry offices. We also asked why the office was issuing more numbers than the appointments available. We were told that the office dealt with a high volume of applicants and under an intake-by-appointment system, the waiting period for an appointment was up to four weeks. In addition, we were told that people who applied for assistance at that office were, for the most part, transients, and if the office were to issue appointments, several of the applicants might not show. We were also told that it was not possible to anticipate the number of appointments available each day because staff were absent for various reasons."

The ombudsman says she did not think the office practice was fair; she looked into it and there were changes made. But unfortunately, that's something that happens again and again and again.

We have to be aware that we need to understand the frustration of the people in our community. The ombudsman also says that certain facts of life are annoying but must be tolerated because we have no control over them. There's no doubt that the problems encountered by students who want to know if their student loan applications have been approved fall within this category. However, we must be aware that if the focus is on students' opportunities to get into college, then we must make sure that not only spaces are available to them, as the government has guaranteed, but also that the process is available to them in order to get to those spaces. That has not always been the case.

Also within the report of the ombudsman is a guest commentary by Judge Thomas J. Gove, who reminds us that we dare not forget Matthew's legacy. As a result of his very extensive study, he writes: "I concluded that our current child welfare system is not protecting children. This is not new information to those who work with children. What is new is the public profile given to our failure to protect children." He goes on to say that we are in this predicament because our child welfare system has been designed from the top down. He goes on: "We must stop, go back to first principles and design a new child welfare system."

I am very much aware that a process is in place to begin to deal with the concerns that Judge Gove has brought before us. But I find it very strange that this major concern, which was so crucial and fundamental to the lives of people of British Columbia, which made headlines for month upon month and which had delegations from every part of the province, is not even mentioned in the throne speech for the coming year.

We spent a great deal of time in this Legislature dealing with new guardianship and representation agreements, and there was an urgency for them. In fact, we worked late into the night to get these pacts so they could get on with the work. But those are not yet in place. In attending a meeting of those concerned about representation agreements, they were concerned even within the last four weeks that the regulations were not in place. There was a disagreement between the very people who put this forward and those who are working on the government side as to the direction and intent of those regulations. This very fundamental milestone in the activity of this Legislature was not even referred to in the throne speech. Nor was there an indication that these things would be brought forward and fulfilled or that amendments asked for would be brought forth in this session.

[ Page 350 ]

I think we need to look carefully at our whole process. The comment by Judge Gove regarding child protection services has broader implications than just that particular part of our life here together. I quote him again, from the ombuds report: "As long as we continue to allow the current administrative structures to drive the delivery of child welfare services, we will have the unprincipled, dysfunctional and inefficient system that contributed to the suffering and death of Matthew and others like him." That's not only true in the social services system, it's true in the confusion that we have in the health care system, and it's true in the confusion that we have in the Attorney General's system. We need to look at the whole manner in which we work together here in this legislative undertaking.

But just this last week, to bring these messages home to us even more clearly. . . . Perhaps not too many people will read it, but I would recommend to them that they read the 1995 annual report of the office of the child, youth and family advocate. This is a new officer responsible to this Legislature. This is the first report of this officer to this Legislature. It's important that we hear, in the light of the throne speech, what it is that she has to say and remind us of.

She talked about going out across the province and listening to people in order to understand what it is that they wanted to tell her. I would like to highlight just some of the things that she has reported on from those experiences:

"Most callers described current review and appeal processes as inadequate, unjust and, above all, lacking independence. Many described their fears about dealing with the existing power imbalance -- they described not being listened to, not feeling safe, not having the information they needed in order to proceed. They did not believe that the system was intended to serve them. Rather, they saw it as wanting to control them through specific rules and actions. Few described a partnership for achieving essential and nurturing services for children and youth."

When we look at the throne speech, which is an overview of where we're going, it's important that we hear these voices from the people across the province, who are saying to us collectively -- not just to the government, but to us collectively -- that the way we are managing the activities and business of this province is not understood, not appreciated or not responsive to the people whom we claim to be here to serve. Unless we highlight that and take it into ourselves and humble ourselves by hearing those messages personally, each and every one of us individually, then I think we will fail. The people want to bring their messages to us, and every MLA says that we're there to hear them.

The advocate says: "In the past, the idea of advocacy had been given short shrift in legislation and in the mandates of service agencies. This needs to change." We may be listening, but according to many people in the province, we're not hearing, we're not understanding, and we're not responding to their questions. We may be responding to the questions we've raised, but we're not responding to the questions they've raised.

[11:45]

The advocate reports that: "In terms of planning issues that affect children and youth already in care, there is an apparent lack of inclusive, comprehensive planning" for all interested people and particularly students. There is a lack of adequate assessments of many situations in which people are involved. These very serious condemnations of how we have been practising what we preach need to be brought home to us clearly and forcefully.

Finally, in this particular section, in listening to the communities that she has visited across the province, the advocate reports: "I was struck by how wide the power imbalance is between those who deliver services and those who need them." It's that power imbalance that we are charged to deal with.

One of the problems I think we as MLAs have, collectively and individually, is learning how to use the power that has been entrusted to us. It's a new experience for us, and it's very easy for us to fall into the traps of systems of the past and perpetuate the mistakes on future generations. That's not to say that there are not many things that have been done that have accomplished the aims of our people, but if we continually praise ourselves and don't look at our inadequacies, then we're not really doing our task.

The advocate goes on to point out that children with disabilities have been particularly disadvantaged by our system. There seems to be no clear consistency, "no clear ownership, no definition or fixed point of responsibilities. Parents end up having to educate service providers in order to access the services. . . ." I'm not blaming the service providers, and I want to be clear on that. These are dedicated, faithful people, but we have provided them with a system that has made it impossible for them to do the work for which they are trained.

She points out that in our rescheduling, replanning and reorganizing we must not abandon today's children and youth while we work for change for tomorrow. I think that's a very important reminder. Today's needs have to be met now, even as we change the system to meet the needs of the future.

She goes on to say about youth services -- about which we've heard much in this Legislature and for which there were some promises and hope in the throne speech, at least in the words that were presented. . . . She goes on to say, in this report that has just come to us within the last week, so it's current and up to date:

"Government presents a very confused face in its services to people between 16 and 24 years of age. In 1995, services appeared to be built on shifting sands. There has been a lack of clarity regarding such areas as entitlement, focus, approach, the availability of various programs in which government ministries are involved.

"Government's attitude," she continues, "as expressed in programs developed for this age group, has been alarmingly inconsistent. The messages seem to change constantly: 'Go to school.' 'Don't go to school.' 'We'll provide training for everyone.' 'Your family should take care of you.' 'You're just lazy -- get a job.' On top of this are such occurrences as social assistance payments being suddenly reduced by amounts which may seem insignificant to people who make an adequate living but are very serious for young people living in poverty.

"Youth in this age group who receive government services often feel that they are put into boxes and subjected to arbitrary rules and regulations, that authorities don't really care what happens to them, and that their voices are not listened to."

The child advocate in this case has listened and has passed on these messages to us, and it's important that we hear them, digest them and humbly ask ourselves how we are going to respond to them. There was no clear direction in the throne speech for children and youth and those with disabilities.

Likewise, as has already been pointed out by other members in their responses, there was, in fact, no response in that speech to the aboriginal community. She reports on that: "The advocate's office has received requests for assistance for indi-

[ Page 351 ]

vidual aboriginal children and youth who have been left in planning limbo because of current self-government developments and because of the adoption moratorium." In planning for the future, we have made the present more difficult for members of the aboriginal community. I think it's important that this message be brought home clearly, as she has done.

When we discussed the Child, Family and Community Service Act, one of the things that we encouraged was that the advocate would not only have responsibility for children who are under the care of Social Services but would have responsibility for and the opportunity to respond to all children within the province. One particular aspect of that she herself has highlighted. Authority was not given to her, and she would request that we consider that it be made available to her even in this session, because it is crucial that it come about as quickly as possible.

"My mandate," she said, "as set out by the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, is limited to services governed by the Child, Family and Community Service Act." However, she reports that 36 percent of the calls received in 1995 related to children or youth who were the subject of a court proceeding." She had no authority or power to act on their behalf or to take their concerns into account.

So, hon. Speaker, I want to highlight to the House once again that this is not referred to in the throne speech. I will re-quote her request so that it may be on the record. I hope the government members and particularly the Attorney General and the Minister of Social Services will hear: "In 1996" -- that's this current year, I might remind the minister -- "I will seek an extension of the mandate of my office to include family court matters."

It's my understanding that, the way the act was written, it can be done by an extension of the regulations. I would encourage them to take that seriously and to meet with the advocate within the week, because there are children and youth and their families who are suffering daily and hourly and at each moment because of inadequacies in the system that this advocate could help us to understand and correct.

So I urge, hon. Speaker. . . . We could go on again and again about the reports of the child and youth advocate, particularly about the concerns of children and youth in our communities whose needs were not directed and understood in the throne speech that is before us. There are great inadequacies in the throne speech. Because of that I find it necessary, with great sorrow, to move the amendment to the throne speech which is on the order paper in my name: "That the Address in Reply to the throne speech be amended by adding the following: '. . .but this assembly regrets the statements with respect to the 1995-96 budget included within the throne speech.' "

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 34
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Campbell	Farrell-Collins	Hurd
Sanders	Plant	Stephens
de Jong	Coell	Anderson
Nebbeling	Whittred	van Dongen
Thorpe	Penner	Weisgerber
J. Wilson	Reitsma	Hansen
C. Clark	Hawkins	Symons
Abbott	Jarvis	Chong
Coleman	Nettleton	Masi
McKinnon	Krueger	Barisoff
	Neufeld
NAYS -- 37
Evans	Zirnhelt	Cashore
Boone	Hammell	Streifel
Ramsey	Kwan	Waddell
Calendino	Pullinger	Stevenson
Bowbrick	Goodacre	Giesbrecht
Kasper	Orcherton	Hartley
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Sihota	Brewin	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Doyle
Gillespie	Robertson	Farnworth
Smallwood	Conroy	McGregor
	Janssen

The Speaker: The question on the main motion is now in order if leave is granted to proceed. Without a division, we can do that.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I was so worried that the Opposition House Leader was talking with you behind my back. So I am pleased to know that that didn't go on. I move adjournment of the debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wish everybody a safe trip home to their constituencies, and I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada