[ Page 3053 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted on behalf of the entire Legislative Assembly to welcome delegates from the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division and branches. They were very gracious to have us to breakfast this morning and to demonstrate for us the successes around treatment of mental illness and the work that still needs to be done on behalf of and for people with mental illness -- and to recognize the struggles and the successes of people who suffer from mental illnesses and their families, as well.

We also join together in this chamber in celebration of the proclamation by the province of B.C. declaring next week, May 5 to 11, Mental Health Week. It is an opportunity for all of us to join together and move toward increasing the successes in treating people with mental illnesses. I would ask the chamber to once again make the Canadian Mental Health Association welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today is someone near and dear to my heart, Mr. Sheldon Friesen. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

I. Chong: Joining us today is a class of 35 grade 5 students visiting from Monterey Elementary School, a school in my riding, along with their teacher Ms. Woodley. They're here to watch the proceedings today, and they want to have some information on government and on history. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I would like to welcome some grade 5 and 6 students from Zion Lutheran School in my riding -- I think there are 27 of them who will be wandering the halls later this morning with their teacher Mr. Mellecke -- and nine students from Don Christian Elementary School with their teacher Miss Robinson and some other visitors. I hope the House, if they see them in the halls, will make them welcome.

T. Stevenson: I would also like to join in welcoming the young students from Monterey Elementary School, because I actually went to grades 1 and 2 at Monterey Elementary School. So welcome.

A. Sanders: I would also like to welcome the Canadian Mental Health Association and thank them for this morning. It was excellent.

As importantly -- if not more importantly -- I would like to welcome my mother Lila Robertson and my daughter Ms. Adrienne Sanders, who have come here for the weekend. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a longtime friend and acquaintance and a former mayor of the city of Trail who is here with the Mental Health Association, Buddy Devito. Would the House please make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: I rise in the House today to call attention to a situation which is literally a matter of life and death for many people in our province. That is the issue of organ transplantation and specifically the lack of donor organs, which is evident not only in British Columbia and Canada but throughout the industrialized world.

The number of patients in Canada on wait-lists for transplants continues to grow. The number of patients on wait-lists for kidney transplants in Canada doubled in the decade between 1983 and 1994. There are currently 324 patients in British Columbia who are waiting to receive kidney transplants, and the list just keeps on growing. So far this year, in 1997, the transplant programs at St. Paul's Hospital, B.C.'s Children's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital have done 27 transplants, but there have been 50 new patients whose names have been added to the list.

Hon. Speaker, people die in this province because of the lack of donor organs. There is no question that transplants save lives. The Canadian Organ Replacement Registry is an academic repository of data on the treatment of kidney disease and the outcomes of many types of transplant procedures. The registry statistics show that a patient on dialysis has a 50 percent expectation of five-year survival; a kidney transplant patient has an 85 percent expectation of five-year survival. Transplants save lives.

In British Columbia the provincial Renal Council has done an extensive analysis of the cost of various modalities of dialysis. Generally speaking, in British Columbia it costs in excess of $50,000 per patient per year to provide for the dialysis needs of each of the 1,200 patients on dialysis. An organ transplant, on the other hand, has an initial expense of around $30,000 and then the requirement of perhaps $10,000 per patient per year for anti-rejection drugs and monitoring. Transplants are cost-effective.

It is very seldom in medicine where one can see a treatment which is both economically and clinically superior. When that situation occurs, we should leap at the opportunity and encourage it in every possible way. But in British Columbia we see that the number of transplants is not increasing from one year to the next. In fact, the number of kidney transplants from anonymous or cadaveric organ donors has dropped off significantly in the last three years -- in 1994, 1995 and 1996. The total number of kidney transplants has, fortunately, stayed fairly stable, because we're seeing an increase in the number of living-related kidney transplants.

In spite of having a busy transplant program at the three Vancouver teaching hospitals, British Columbia has the highest proportion of dialysis patients on the wait-list of any province in Canada. Only about one in five patients who need an organ transplant will actually receive a transplant; the rest will not. Why is that the case? Is it because donors must be a certain age or a certain blood type or in a certain physical condition? Is it because we have outdated provincial or federal laws or regulations? Or is it because it's difficult to qualify or designate one's organs for transplant? The answer to all of these questions is no. The reason can be summed up in four simple words: lack of public awareness. The truth is that everyone can be a potential organ donor, but tragically, every year the number of organ donors is discouragingly low.

[ Page 3054 ]

The death of any human being is a tragedy. But even if only 1 percent of deaths in British Columbia resulted in organ donation, there would be an ample supply of organs for transplantation. Now, I entered the field of nursing 18 years ago, and at that time kidney transplantation was considered somewhat experimental. I remember we used to keep the patients in a isolation room for over a week before they would be allowed onto the regular ward. They would stay in the hospital for over a month. Nowadays patients are frequently discharged from hospitals within the first week following their successful kidney transplant.

Transplants of most other organs weren't even heard of in Canada when I first trained. Now we have centres of excellence in transplantation which are world renowned. The transplant societies in Canada are widely respected because of their willingness to collaborate and share data. Local transplant surgeons now successfully transplant kidneys, lungs, hearts, livers, pancreas, and now there have been successful experiments in humans with small-bowel transplants.

The tragic death of a single accident victim can benefit several recipients because of multiple organ transplant programs. I'm sure that all members of this House remember the case of a young Olympian athlete named Victor Davis. At the age of 25, Victor was tragically killed in a motor vehicle-pedestrian accident. His father, Mel, consented to organ donation, and six people became organ recipients as a result. Mr. Mel Davis said: "When we consented to Vic becoming an organ donor, we knew it was going to change the quality of life for somebody. The people who received transplants because we made that decision will live their lives more fully, and that's a good feeling."

[10:15]

We have been elected to this House so that we can influence public policy in a positive way and so that we can lead by example. Last week was proclaimed Organ Donor Awareness Week. But I can't help feeling that the proclamation of a special week makes it too easy for each of us to become complacent and to forget that we must take individual responsibility to improve the donor organ shortage situation. Each of us can personally demonstrate our commitment to the cause of increased organ donor awareness.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to the comments and response from the member for Rossland-Trail.

E. Conroy: I can remember about 14 months ago, and it's a time I'll certainly never forget, when I was parked in front of our local shopping mall. My 12-year-old son came running out of the store he was in -- where he was drooling over his fantasy bicycle -- yelling at me: "Dad, Dad, Dad, it's here! It's here!" I looked at my son, and I sort of thought: what? He said: "It's here, you have to go to Vancouver. It's here!" And indeed it was here. At that time I was on the list for liver transplantation. Somehow my wife had tracked my son down in the sporting goods store, because she knew that invariably we'd wind up there so that he could look at the bicycle he had been dreaming of getting. My liver had arrived, and I did have to go down to Vancouver to get transplanted.

It truly is a very emotional time not only for the recipient but for the family of that recipient. It's something that's very, very difficult to explain. But I would like to say how grateful I am for the transplant program here in British Columbia. If it wasn't for that transplant program, I wouldn't be standing before this House right now, dealing with this matter.

Looking at this issue -- knowing that the hon. member from the opposite side was going to deal with this -- has certainly given me an opportunity to express how grateful I really am and to say to the people of British Columbia that if we could just double the number of organ donations here in the province, we could wipe out the waiting list. Until you're sitting on that waiting list, not knowing if you're going to get your organ in time, with all of those unanswered questions. . . .

It's a very difficult thing for most people to realize, I guess, but simply doubling the number of donations would eliminate the list. Not only would it eliminate the list, it would save the taxpayers of this province, as the hon. member opposite illustrated, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. A transplanted person goes from about a $250,000 cost to the health care system over a five-year period down to about a $50,000 cost to the health care system over a five-year period.

To have the gift of life bestowed upon you by somebody or by families, who under very, very difficult circumstances have made a choice to give this gift of life to another person, is a very humbling experience. I know I speak for everybody in this province who has been transplanted when I say to all of those that have donated: thank you very much.

I also want to say that the network that has been set up in this province -- the B.C. Transplant Society, the transplant teams of the various hospitals, indeed our own Ministry of Health -- deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the programs that are now being undertaken in the various hospitals. I guess one has to walk in somebody else's shoes to really appreciate what we have here in British Columbia around organ transplantation. It truly is a wonderful program. Again, I'd like to say to the ministry, to the Transplant Society and to the transplant teams around this province: thank you very much.

I'd like to, if I could, move for a moment. . . . As many people are aware, we're wearing the hepatitis C ribbons today. I required the transplant as a result of hepatitis C. I have no idea how I got it; I probably had it for 20 or 25 years. Some people have it all their lives and don't even know they have it. In other people, such as myself, it manifests itself in liver failure, which is the process that began with me about six years ago. Hepatitis C is something that we've only discovered in the last six or seven years -- I believe that I was one of the first people diagnosed in this province -- and the tip of the iceberg is just now beginning to surface here in British Columbia. When I think about myself as an example. . . . Being what I considered at the time young and strong and healthy, I felt it was my civic duty to donate blood. I did it religiously for years and was unknowingly donating hepatitis C-contaminated blood. I know that we have the look-back. . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member, can I ask you to wrap up, please. We're out of time.

E. Conroy: Once again, I'd just like to say that we do have the look-back program now, where the ministry is searching out people who are infected with hepatitis C to warn them, and that they can get checked.

I'd just like to conclude by thanking the member opposite for raising this question in the Legislature today. It truly is something that all British Columbians should be aware of, and we have programs that everyone should be proud of.

[ Page 3055 ]

S. Hawkins: I thank the member for his comments and for his personal story; it's very moving. I think those are the kinds of stories we have to get out so that we can see the real personal benefits -- the real life experiences -- and see how successful people who have been transplanted are.

I like to think in terms of solutions and in terms of encouraging people to donate. As individuals, I think the first thing we can do is make the decision to be an organ donor and to sign that organ donor card. This is an altruistic gift that goes to the depth of caring and compassion. I think we have a duty to share that with the sick, and they have a right to expect caring and compassion.

The second thing we can personally do is share our decision with our friends, our families and our loved ones. Sharing with loved ones the decision to be an organ donor is as important as making the decision itself. At the time of death, the family is asked about donation. It's one of the hardest questions we've ever had to ask, and I think the decision is one of the hardest for the family to make. Sharing with them the decision that you would like to be a donor will relieve them of any burden of guilt about your wishes. As we've seen in the case of Victor Davis, the decision to give saved other lives and provided the family with a great deal of comfort in their time of grief. I certainly encourage individuals and families to talk to each other and make their wishes known.

I'll close my comments by inviting all members of this House, all the officers of this House and all those seated in the gallery today to join me in choosing to be an organ and tissue donor by signing their donor card. Share your life and share your decision. Thank you.

J. Smallwood: The statement that I prepared today, while it was influenced by a decision regrettably made by my school board in Surrey -- a decision that I believe is regrettable because of the impact that it has on our community and on the province. . . . I've chosen to speak about the banning of books in our library, and the intolerance and homophobic zeal that it is driving in the public debate.

I'd like to frame my comments broader than that, however. I'd like to engage all of the members in this House -- to use the previous member's own words -- in the need to influence public policy and to lead by example, because this is a debate that will impact all of us in British Columbia.

Let me talk a little bit about some of the positive influence and the positive history in the education system in breaking down barriers and in encouraging the involvement of all of the students in very exciting agendas. Let me first speak about the changes with respect to sexual stereotyping. I'm thinking of my time in school; perhaps one of the very first books that I ever had was a Dick and Jane reader. The changes that the schools have embraced have challenged some of the stereotypes that were spelled out in those readers, where Dick was an active, aggressive young man who did exciting things, and Jane was passive and supporting. Now, by comparison, the books that teachers use are books like Brave Irene -- where Irene is an adventurous young woman who does exciting things -- that make the point to young people that a woman can have an exciting life and play a strong role.

It goes beyond literature, though, because teachers challenge themselves in asking how they've reacted to boys and girls and how they've perpetuated sexual stereotyping. They challenge themselves to encourage a very inclusive and productive role for both little boys and little girls.

I want to talk also about some of the intolerance that we've seen over the years, regrettably, with respect to racism in the schools, and about some of the changes we've made that have embraced and encouraged young people to embrace a more inclusive role for all religions and races in our schools. A while back, I attended an opening at Guildford Park Secondary School. At that opening, the program was called Cultures United. Many of the young people at the school not only made their costumes but also read poems and did dances. All of the school benefited not only by fighting racism but by understanding more broadly what these cultures brought to the school and to the community.

We have a big challenge ahead of us with respect to gay and lesbian children and to children who have gay and lesbian parents. This challenge, I believe, will make for a very interesting discussion in schools. I think it's time that we embraced all of our communities, rather than encouraged intolerance. Encouraging intolerance has created an untenable situation for many of those young people. We already know from studies that have been done in Calgary that the suicide rate for, in particular, young men who are homosexual is 14 times greater than for other children.

[10:30]

Regrettably, during the debate at the school board in my own community, one of the educators who came to make their presentation to the school board said out loud, after the debate, to some of the people in the audience: "Don't you understand that young people are dying?" Regrettably, one of the people who had attended and was opposed to the sharing of that information turned around and said: "Good."

Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial topic. It is a topic that we can no longer hide our heads in the sand about. It is a topic that. . . . We must ensure that our schools are inclusive, that they represent all of the children who are a part of our community, and that we take a stand as a Legislature to ensure that the taxpayers and the citizens of this province are all represented by an education system that reflects their realities, both in their families and in their neighbourhoods.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate today and respond to the remarks from the member for Surrey-Whalley. I stand today as a teacher. I taught in this province for ten years prior to being elected. What continues to frustrate me is that we continue to have the tolerance discussion. It's time to move beyond the tolerance discussion to the acceptance discussion. It's time we accepted that all British Columbians have a right to all parts of society, to all aspects of service delivery in this province. It's not based on gender. It's not based on sexism. It's not based on ageism.

Certainly, as I look around this chamber and see other members of my gender seated in this Legislature, other female members of this Legislature, I know we're not down the road as far as we need to be. We're making some progress and it delights me. It delights me to see members on all sides of this House representing both male and female genders in this province. That's a good start but it's only a start.

The last federal election was the only time that the number of female members went down in the history of this country. We have another opportunity, on June 2, to see if 

[ Page 3056 ]

people's views are expanding in any way, shape or form. But it's time to ensure that legislatures and school systems reflect the communities they serve.

I too have serious concerns about the direction which the hon. member has gone in this morning, in terms of what's happening in her school district. I have a strong belief around where the B.C. Teachers Federation is going on their PAR program, the program against racism, a program against discrimination in any way, shape or form. That is something where we all have to stand up, be proud and be counted -- be absolutely counted -- in the sense that it's important to ensure that this is about leadership, about respecting individual rights of British Columbians.

It alarms me that we tend to go down the road of having particular lobby groups suggesting what is right and what is wrong and having the silent majority remain silent. People will, I think, be polarized around this issue. I think that's unfortunate. It's important that the information that's available be shared readily -- be valid information -- because if we don't stand together as a society, I believe we will all lose. I believe that all the uniqueness that people bring to this life will diminish if we don't suggest that everyone has a right to stand and be counted.

I too agree with the hon. member when she talks about vital, productive lives. We need to suggest strongly as a Legislature that that is important and that every person in this country and in this province has the right to pursue their life as they see fit. That to me is the essence of liberalism: to support individuality, to support humanity, to believe in what it is to allow people to make some choices. It is about informed choice. It is about having people be reasonable decision-makers, to see both sides of a question and to possess some flexibility, some humanity. That's what it is to be liberal, but frankly, that's what it is to be a decent human being in this life.

For some groups in society to set themselves up in judgment of others is fundamentally wrong. I know that the 75 of us here will take that message forward, but we are a small portion of the people -- close to four million -- who live in British Columbia. All of us need to take a leadership role around this issue and take forward the message that the principle of individuality is what's important, what needs to be fostered and what needs to receive a decent grounding from this Legislature. This is the launching point, if you will.

The message that needs to reach every corner of this community will be an enormously challenging message for many. We need to be there, and we need to stand with them as they deliver that message. I believe we can do it. I welcome all British Columbians to join in the fight to ensure that every single person has the freedom to choose their lifestyle, their life, and to express their individuality in the way they see fit. And I welcome each of us to come to this table and say we respect their right to do that.

J. Smallwood: I think it's important for all of us to recognize that this is not a discussion about morals; it's a discussion about rights. I appreciate the member's comments and the member's support, and I encourage all members, as they go back to their ridings this weekend, to open that discussion with their school boards and ensure that their school boards' mission statements go beyond simply a matter of words on paper.

The Surrey school board mission statement is, as I read: "Our mission is to assist learners to realize their full potential as individuals and as members of society by providing education programs, services and resources delivered in an effective and efficient manner." Regrettably, because of the decisions of the school board in the last week, they can now add to their mission statement: except if we disagree with their values, their lifestyle, their sexual orientation or the fact that they are gay or lesbian children or come from gay or lesbian families.

That's a dangerous precedent, and I think it's a precedent that we must all fight. I am committing myself to ensure that the Hansard from this particular debate is shared with our newspaper. I view this as an open letter to my school board, and as support for those families in our community to ensure that all children are welcomed, are recognized and are encouraged to their full potential, regardless of their sexual orientation.

A. Sanders: To turn to another topic of families, the topic I've chosen for this morning is something called Family Day.

For most of us, our family is a renewable resource. It is a source of love and support that we can draw on continuously. We share our successes and our failures with them. For those of us who are a geographic or an emotional distance from our families, we find close friends to fill the void, and they become our families of choice. Nevertheless, they are still our families. No matter what your definition of family, on May 15 the special day will be called Family Day.

The B.C. Council for Families has declared May 15 as such a day, and they have offered ideas to get you to think with your heart. Their ideas surround that mission statement, and they give a number of possible suggestions to individuals to do exactly that on May 15. Some of their suggestions are: if you haven't seen your brother or your sister and don't communicate very often, maybe that's the day you should send them an e-mail to see how they're doing; if you don't see your mom or you haven't shown your affection for her recently, take her out for lunch; if your dad has a favourite dessert and you've got the time, why not take it over -- or, if you're at home, just make it for him there.

For anyone who is interested, they provide a brochure of ideas which they have borrowed from the book Random Acts of Kindness, and the B.C. Council for Families has made these ideas available in list form from the B.C. Tel phone marts. You can get them directly from the council's Connect with Kindness phone lines, and on the posters that are available there is a toll-free number for you to do that. For those who haven't heard of Random Acts of Kindness, this is an interesting book. It provides a number of things that we can do spontaneously as individuals to show affection and kindness where we would not necessarily do so.

I belong to a women's business group in Vernon, and one of the women in that group had a very interesting story to tell us at a meeting. She had read Random Acts of Kindness and felt this was something very applicable to her life. She was at the tollbooth on the Coquihalla Highway, coming back to Vernon. She thought about the book she had been reading, and while thinking about it thought how nice it would be if someone would pay her toll. She then reversed that thought and looked behind her, and there was an elderly gentleman on a motorcycle. It was pouring rain. He was quite bedraggled and unkempt-looking and, in her assumption, probably could use ten bucks. So she told the tollbooth operator that she would like to pay the tollbooth fee for the gentleman behind her. She then gave the money to the tollbooth operator, who looked at 

[ Page 3057 ]

her with complete incredulity, and couldn't figure out why she was doing this. When she looked in her rear-view mirror to head out from the tollbooth, she realized that a Mercedes had pulled in behind her. The other fellow had gone to the other tollbooth, and she had paid for the gentleman in the Mercedes. That gentleman, who had probably never had anyone pay for anything for him, was twice as astounded that someone paid for him and spent the next 15 kilometres trying to catch up to her to see who had paid for his car to go through the tollbooth. They both stopped on the side of the Coquihalla and had a good laugh, and I think she probably made that gentleman's day, albeit it was not what she had originally considered when she had done her random act of kindness.

It is a very good source of ideas for those of us who have many people we care about and do not necessarily want to make a contribution to them in a traditional monetary way -- but to do something else that may mean something very important and from the heart.

I've been intrigued by the idea of Family Day since I saw the poster from the Council for Families. They've done it in a very thoughtful way. They've drawn what would normally be a cerebrum, the folds and crinkles on the surface of the brain. They've done it into the shape of a heart to represent your right and left lobe, and, if you've ever seen these brain diagrams where they show you where your left leg moves and your right leg moves and where your language and optic centres are, they've put kindness and thought, appreciation of family. It's a lovely, lovely poster, and I encourage everyone to see it. It has been sent to all members of the Legislature.

My intrigue with Family Day over the past month was basically: why hasn't it been thought of before? And how nice to make it into a concrete statement. The thoughts of family triggered me specifically, because I have a young family, reminding me that I won't be home on Family Day. So Family Day will occur on May 15, but for the next three months I'm going to be here with what's become my family. I must say that that was associated with a momentary feeling of self-pity, but I've decided to challenge myself to make the best of the circumstances.

The solution for that is to make Family Week, and it starts today for me. It starts with the arrival of my mother and my daughter. I am a member of the sandwich generation, where I am fortunate enough to have both lovely ladies, very good friends of mine, here with me. What we will be doing is that during the week from this Thursday to next -- so I've also moved it ahead a week -- we will be in Victoria for four days instead of me travelling back to Vernon. These two ladies will be treated with love and respect. They will be shown off in the Legislature and to all the people I work with. We'll be going to the zoo and the museum and the petting zoo, and we will be doing things that we don't always get to do, with the special background of Victoria.

[10:45]

Interjection.

A. Sanders: I'll pass your peanuts over later.

When my family returns to Vernon on Sunday, my husband and son will be coming back from Toronto, where both of them are at the national tae kwon do championships. They will then receive their random acts of kindness from afar. At that point we'll arrange for grandma to make my son's favourite dinner, and my husband will get the daily phone call, no matter how busy I am here.

The Speaker: Could I ask the member to wrap up, please.

A. Sanders: I hope everyone will take Family Day to heart, as I plan to do. And for all of us who have families of all definitions, please remember May 15, and do connect with kindness.

P. Calendino: I'd like to thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon for her comments this morning. I'm sure her mention of the random acts of kindness are not isolated to the friends she has.

We have seen one of these acts in the last few days in the flood-stricken areas of southern Manitoba, where not only family but friends, neighbours, neighbouring communities and members from all over Canada have gone there to lend a helping hand to the people in need in that disaster area.

The member, I'm sure, reminds us that the Family Day theme is connected with kindness, and I know that she has connected very well with a lot of kindness by having her mother and daughter here. It reminds me of my own family. I come from a very large family -- well, moderately large; I know there are many larger ones -- with many brothers and sisters and many uncles and aunts. I know that sometimes there is friction in families that large, but most of the time we connect very well, with love and with kindness.

To me, a family should be respected not only when it's Family Day but throughout the year, because the family is what gives us our value system. It is what gives us protection. It is what helps us in our time of need. It is what guides us through our achievements and aspirations, and it is there when we have moments of depression and loneliness. As the member said, it is what gives us our support system.

But there are many kinds of families in the world today. It is not, anymore, the traditional family with the two parents and the children, sanctioned by the rite of marriage. The concept of family is changing in these last few years of the millennium. There are many kinds of families. There is the single-parent family, there is the foster family, there is the same-gender-parent family, and there is the extended family. None of them is more valid or legitimate than any other one.

The member from Surrey pointed to some of the events that have occurred in Surrey and around the province lately. I would like to draw attention to the fact that we still need to work together to accept families that may be different from our own. Both our homes and our schools must be safe places to discuss and learn about differences in religion, in races and in sexual diversity. In my view, it is through education that we can teach our children to accept people who are different from themselves. As a teacher of a second language, I have watched kids struggle to learn a new language, but what I've also seen is the support that they receive from their peers.

Kids are not born with prejudice; it is something they learn. It comes from ignorance and fear, and it can lead to discrimination and even hatred. It is not this kind of world that I think we want our children to grow up in. Instead of teaching our children prejudice, we need to teach them acceptance, tolerance and respect for the differences that they will surely encounter throughout their lives. I think we owe that to them.

Earlier I talked of my own family, which is, everybody would agree, a traditional family. But as I mentioned, there are many different kinds of families. It is not the traditional family alone that provides a good environment for children. The 

[ Page 3058 ]

well-being of children is really not dictated by the type of family they are in. It is not dictated by separate-gender parents. The well-being of families and children is really dependent on the degree of time, on the degree of kindness, on the degree of understanding and on the degree of affection that parents display to children.

I think my red light is on, and I will conclude by thanking the member for her statements and for giving me the opportunity to state my views.

A. Sanders: As the hon. member has pointed out very correctly, one of the things the B.C. Council for Families does is define the family not on the basis of the nuclear family but on the basis of the family of choice. That was one of the things I liked especially about their synthesis of that information.

The reason that's important -- and the hon. member has really pointed that out -- is that children learn through two classifications of learning behaviour. One is called the orientation and attachment learning, which is an innate behaviour which all children need. This comes from their ability to attach. As long as they have someone to attach to, it doesn't really matter who that is; they need that bonding experience. If they have enough of that, there is the luxury of experimental-based learning which then allows them to move out, and this is a process of individuation.

That's why Family Day is so important. If those children do not have that attachment-based learning, they will never get to the individuation stage. Therefore, supporting a family of every kind -- any kind -- is critically important for the kids we raise.

S. Orcherton: It has been my view for some time that many of the issues that we deal with in this House -- issues around providing quality education, quality health care, good transportation facilities and infrastructure for this province -- are huge challenges for us as government from both sides of the House to deal with. Those issues would be made a lot easier if the government started to move in a direction to address the larger issue facing the people of British Columbia, and that's employment opportunities. I think it's time that we start having discussion and debate around the issues of opportunities to bring more employment opportunities to the people of British Columbia.

There are two ways that people talk about sharing existing work and wealth, and that's in terms of the redistribution of work. We can look at shortening the workweek and dealing with issues around overtime to address that.

In 1923 this House passed legislation to move to an eight-hour day and a 48-hour workweek. Traditionally, shorter workdays -- and weeks and years -- have been sought as ways to share productivity gains and reduce unemployment, as well as ways of improving the quality of life of working people in our province. In the first century and a half of the industrial revolution, the standard workweek was reduced an average of two hours per decade. If this trend had not been stopped at or about 40 hours over a five-day week as a result of unprecedented post-World War II growth, the standard workweek in British Columbia today would be 30 hours and a four-day week.

There has been recent interest in redistributing work with alternative work times, and in terms of unemployment and employment it's driven by several trends. We've got high levels of unemployment, and private markets and traditional government policies fall short in terms of creating enough jobs to meet supply, especially for youth, women, immigrants, displaced older workers and other sectors.

An especially alarming trend in recent decades has been unemployment levels that go higher in recessions and stay high in recovery, rising in Canada by almost 2 percent per decade and about 3 percent in the 1960s, to over 9 percent today in the 1990s. Half again as many workers are found to be underemployed or no longer looking for work. B.C. has fared much better, creating jobs at 3.3 percent of an annual rate over the past decade -- more than 500,000 jobs -- but it's barely ahead of the 2.7 percent annual population growth. At best, unemployment is forecast to plateau at current levels, and at worst, many analysts foresee mass unemployment.

We have to look at solutions to deal with the issues of not enough employment opportunities for people in British Columbia. We have to look at having a quality-educated workforce, a workforce that's prepared to move into new job opportunities when they do arise. I think that the time has come for us to explore options around employment opportunities and how we, as government and as members of this assembly, can stimulate debate and discussion not only here but outside of this assembly -- in the public at large. There are opportunities out there to reduce the hours of work. People working can move to a shorter workweek, reducing the workweek from 40 hours to something less than 40 hours. It's my view that if we enter into those kinds of debates and discussions publicly, we will find solutions -- employment opportunities -- for people in British Columbia.

If the members in this House and the public at large buy into the notion that if we reduce the workweek there will in fact be more employment opportunities for people in British Columbia, then I think it is extremely important that we move in that direction. There are ways to look at this situation. If we as government were to put in place hours-of-work tax incentives for employees who choose to reduce their hours of work -- an hours-of-work tax credit, if you will -- that would help employees or workers to make those kinds of decisions, leaving them with close to their same take-home pay every week. On the other side, to encourage employers to move in this kind of direction, we could certainly look at tax incentives and payroll tax reductions for employers who move to create more employment opportunities for people in their employ -- making sure that those tax reductions or tax incentives do in fact result in more employment at those workplaces.

I think that the government itself can play a role in terms of moving towards a shorter workweek, a role that I think has been articulated in many jurisdictions. The one I wish to raise today in the House is the Dutch experience. An innovation was put in place in the Netherlands in the 1980s, and now they have a 32-hour workweek in the public sector. They embarked on a program of hiring new employees into the public sector at 32 hours per week. There has been a 30 percent increase in employment in that sector in Holland, with a 13 percent decrease in the hours per person -- that's from 1983 to 1991. What a tremendous thing for that jurisdiction.

We in British Columbia should be looking at that as well, and I think we can do that in the public sector. As we move to those kinds of directions, we have to be innovative in terms of how we approach these situations. We should be looking at areas where workers' wages are well above the poverty line. Rather than having a 1, 2 or 3 percent wage increase, perhaps we should be looking at a 1, 2 or 3 percent hours-of-work-reduction increase -- an increase in the benefits for workers. A 

[ Page 3059 ]

1 percent reduction of hours of work in lieu of a 1 percent wage increase, which would mean that the workers would keep their current wage but have more time off, would in fact equate to 2.6 days per year per worker for time off to spend with their families and to enjoy a better quality of life, while maintaining their economic situation.

I look forward to the comments from the members opposite on this topic, and, as I said, I also look forward to much more discussion and debate on this issue in the future.

[11:00]

J. Dalton: Hon. Speaker, today is. . . . I guess we might call it May Day plus one. Last Friday the member for Comox Valley commented on May Day, and now, of course, the member for Victoria-Hillside has shared his views on another aspect: "The Workday and the Workweek." I'm going to make some comments that actually what we're dealing with and debating here -- and I know props are not allowed, hon. Speaker -- is The End of Work.

We know that the author of The End of Work, Jeremy Rifkin, was the keynote speaker at the NDP convention earlier this spring. When my colleague from Delta North was responding to the throne speech, he made the following observation: "I sincerely hope that this government took more direction from his speech than the 30-hour week."

What do we learn from Rifkin when we read The End of Work? I would suggest that we don't learn much, but we certainly raise our eyebrows when we read some of the comments of Mr. Rifkin. And I will quote page 291, for example, if members wish to make reference for their future reading. "We are entering into a new period in history where machines will increasingly replace human labour in the production of goods and services." I would suggest that what is happening in this province is not the replacement of labour with machines, but the displacement of labour due to undue regulations and taxes. Our primary industries -- in particular, forestry, fishing and mining -- have been stifled because of the pending end of work.

More references to Mr. Rifkin. Some might describe his book as "Robert's Rules of Disorder." As we know, it's also recommended reading by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I recall that on occasion he's been observed reading this book in the House. On page 224, again in Mr. Rifkin, is an interesting chapter title: "Re-engineering the Workweek." And again I will quote: "Today the demand for the shorter workweek is being actively promoted, once again, by a growing number of labour leaders." As a side comment, I suppose we might even say "some Premiers."

Later in the same chapter there are interesting comments about the shorter workweek. Here's a comment from Italy. The hon. member made reference to the Dutch experience. In Italy, where "trade unions are marching under the new slogan" -- and I'll try my Italian -- "lavorare meno; lavorare tutti," which we're told translated means: work less and everyone works. . . . Again, in that same chapter, the resulting lower wages that the author is commenting on will be "offset by the national government's assuming the burden of financing unemployment insurance." Well, I'm sure Paul Martin would be interested to hear that prospect coming down the pipeline. How many taxpayers are there? How many pockets does this one taxpayer have?

I will conclude with another quote from Rifkin: ". . .government is likely to play a much reduced role in the affairs of commerce" -- as an aside, I would say it would be good news if government would get out of commerce -- "and a far greater role in the civil society." I would suggest that, unfortunately, this civil society will be unemployed as we continue down this slippery slope, ending the workday and the workweek and culminating, of course, in the end of work.

S. Orcherton: I must say that I'm somewhat surprised and somewhat disappointed that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano has taken yet another approach that's been exhibited so often in the House from the members opposite -- this negative Nellie-ism that goes on. As the critic for Labour, I'm also surprised that there doesn't seem to be an interest to enter into discussion and debate on this issue -- rather, just a negative criticism on this topic.

It's surprising, as well, that the reality is that the majority of jobs being created in this country and in this province are in fact part-time jobs -- jobs deemed to be at 30 hours per week or less. The reality is -- and the member opposite should know this as the critic -- that the majority of employers are seeking to hire more and more part-time people. So there's no question that in society, here in British Columbia and in Canada and around the world, working people are moving more and more to part-time employment opportunities. There's no question that the hours of work for people in the workforce are shortening. The real debate and discussion that we should be entering into in this House, and that the member opposite should understand, is a discussion around the benefits and wage rates paid to people who are working less than the traditional 40 hours a week that we've had for so long in this country.

The member opposite makes reference to the labour movement. Let me say that at the last convention of the B.C. Federation of Labour, a resolution was adopted unanimously that organized unions affiliated to that body embark on negotiating processes to secure shorter hours of work for their membership, with a view to building a better quality of life for their members and also offering more employment opportunities for people who don't have jobs. In my mind, that is a step in the right direction, one that this House should be watching with interest. I think that moving in a direction to try and encourage and stimulate employers to move to shorter hours of work, and to using the government -- through some of its employees, both direct and indirect -- to move to options of increasing benefits as opposed to wages in terms of more time off for workers is the way to go on this issue.

It seems to me, hon. Speaker. . . . And I hope that we can move from this point forward. It's with much disappointment that I listen to the negative comments of the member opposite. It seems to me that on this particular issue around labour and work and employment and investment, they continue to subscribe to initiatives to offer tax breaks to employers, to cut down regulations to employers and to somehow think that that trickle-down theory will offer some incentives for changes in our employment opportunities. It's clear to me that the member opposite and, I suspect, his party -- and I hope they change -- at this point have no policy on this topic.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I wish everybody a safe trip home, and a hard-working weekend on behalf of our constituents. With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:08 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada