[ Page 4417 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

V. Anderson: This morning I would like the House to remember and think of Lana Wright, who has just walked from Prince Rupert to Vancouver. She completed her walk this week, showing support for the families at Sir William Macdonald Elementary School and for that community. I think we should commend her for that walk. I can't imagine undertaking it myself, I'm sure.

M. Sihota: On behalf of the Minister of Finance and myself, I'm pleased to advise the House that a group of students is here from Spectrum Community School, whom I had the good fortune to meet this morning. They are here to see and observe a parliament in action, and I'm sure they'll enjoy it. They are all here to see that -- except for that one guy in the black shirt who's here to change lightbulbs instead, he tells me. Would all members please give a warm welcome to him and to Mr. Marchi, their teacher, who, I suppose, is no relation to Sergio -- if he is, we'll find out.

G. Abbott: One of our friends and colleagues in the House today is feeling a bit blue, because he has achieved another personal anniversary and has come to accumulate quite a great age. So I hope all members of the House will join me in wishing a happy birthday to the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING
(No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to present the Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997. This bill would empower the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen to deal with a unique and difficult situation, a situation which the regional district inherited when it assumed responsibility for the Naramata irrigation district in 1995. The people of Naramata are feeling a great deal of uncertainty as they await the outcome of an arbitrated settlement to a dispute between a developer and the regional district over actions of the former irrigation district.

I know that members on all sides of the House share a concern for the people of Naramata, and I know that we all share a desire to help to the extent that we can, while fully respecting the ongoing legal process. This bill will ensure that Naramata residents, through their local government, are equipped to deal with the outcome of the arbitration process and other issues related to the transfer of the irrigation district to the regional district.

The core of this legislation is a provision that allows the regional district to borrow money through the Municipal Finance Authority in order to spread the costs of any settlement over a number of years. We need to act on this now for a purely practical reason. If we wait until the arbitrator rules, there may not be an opportunity to pass this necessary legislation. This bill addresses a most pressing concern in the community of Naramata, and it will provide some measure of comfort to the residents of Naramata.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997

M. Sihota: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the transfer of the trusteeship and agency business of Central Guaranty Trust to the Toronto-Dominion Bank. In December 1992 the bank and its subsidiaries acquired the assets of the Central Guaranty Trust Co. Without this act, it would be necessary for each trust and estate, previously administered by Central Guaranty, to apply to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for an order appointing TD Trust as successor trustees. This cost would be borne by the various trusts, the beneficiaries of which are mostly in British Columbia.

Due to the number of trusts and estates involved, it would require an impractical and expensive series of court applications, which could take up much court time. This type of act has been passed in similar situations in the past and saves not only court time but resources of other government agencies, such as the office of the public trustee and various land title offices. The bill removes Central Guarantee Trust and appoints TD Trust as successor trustee in every trust, will, letters probate and similar instruments which are governed by British Columbia law, and sets forth how various court proceedings and public records are affected, such as in the land titles office.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1997

M. Sihota: This bill will achieve the same administrative efficiencies referred to earlier.

Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, PART II

[ Page 4418 ]

Before I begin my remarks, hon. Speaker, I would just point out the obvious: today is Friday the 13th. However, at 6:45 this morning there was a slight jolt felt in Lynn Valley, up through Sechelt but not as far as Powell River, because I called someone up there. Apparently even in Nanaimo there was a little shock.

My comments are titled "Political Correctness, Part II." The reason why it's part 2 is because on April 2, 1993, I gave what I thought would be the first and only statement on this subject. I said then that being politically correct would be out for 1993. How wrong I was. The year 1997 has brought us no closer to political objectivity.

The correction of long-standing social injustices such as gender inequality and minority issues has resulted and continues to result in an imbalance of approaches to seeking solutions. We all know that solutions must be found, but my submission is that we're not going about it the right way. We see evidence of this in elections, in legislation, in press releases and in street-corner discussions. It seems that being candid is being incorrect in this day and age, as in examples which I will cite.

The recent federal election gave witness to correctness. Women candidates were appointed in several ridings, preventing the local riding associations from going through the normal nomination process. The main source of criticism that I've heard -- and I know I'm not alone -- is from women. They find it offensive that an attempt to seek gender balance is a patronizing process. They feel, of course, that it is unwarranted. I would submit that women are more than capable of seeking and gaining political office, just as they are in business and social endeavours. I would just cite all the women MLAs in this House as evidence.

[10:15]

Parents of students in the K-to-12 system are upset and concerned about issues of curriculum content and teaching methods. The debate spills into the streets, with irrational behaviour on all sides. Attempts are made to prevent public meetings from being held because of what might be said at those meetings. Voices allegedly defending tolerance in fact become very intolerant.

The question of adopting native children into their own society and people has been mishandled, I submit. It is certainly a warranted attempt to protect native heritage and social values, and nobody quarrels with that. But what has happened to the best interests of the child? I always thought that those interests should be paramount in any such issues.

We have even witnessed a recent example of rearranging the plumbing in this Legislature. I suggest that the solutions become almost surreal in that sense.

Speaking one's mind is inviting political blowback. The family maintenance enforcement program is another example that I wish to cite. It is admittedly a difficult thing to manage, with well over 30,000 cases filed with that program. However, when we read headlines such as this one. . . . This is a direct quote from a headline in the Vancouver Province of June 6: "[Attorney General] Takes Aim at Deadbeat Dads." We know that there is a bias in the system when we see headlines of that nature. Admittedly, most of the defaulters are dads, obviously, because 97 percent of the payers in the system are dads. I'm suggesting that headlines like that only inflame the issue. People tell me that in many FMEP cases, the interests of children are secondary to political convenience.

Even the ministry itself sometimes slips into this trap. For example, there was recently a series of questions and answers on FMEP issues distributed to all members. One of the questions -- and again I quote directly -- reads, "fathers" who are forced to pay child support. I asked the Attorney General about this particular wording, and he admitted that it was an error and it should have been couched in gender-neutral terms but unfortunately was not.

It is time to reconsider our approaches to resolving social issues. Objectivity and sensibility must be the watchwords. The pendulum swings from side to side in seeking solutions. In 1993, I thought we were approaching balance. I was wrong, hon. Speaker. In 1997, I make no such prediction. The pendulum is still swinging. Who knows? In the year 2001, I may be back on my feet making similar remarks.

G. Bowbrick: When I saw the title of the member's statement today, I wasn't sure exactly what to expect, but it's become quite apparent to me now what the motivation is. The member is some years older than me. He is another white man like me, and it's apparent that he may feel a little threatened by advances towards equality in our society. I'd just like to make it very clear that as a young, white man, I don't feel threatened in any way. I think that we're moving in the right direction.

But with the term "political correctness," I suppose there might be one thing we might agree on. When I see the term "political correctness" used, I fear that we're falling into a pattern of intellectual laziness where rather than engaging in a full, thorough and vigorous debate, we use labels. I'm afraid that political correctness is one of those labels. I think that on the left and on the right, we always have to be vigilant when watching for intellectual laziness in debate. There's no substitute for thorough and vigorous debate.

For example, on the left there are certainly those who don't want to hear certain arguments, who don't want to hear open debate. Unfortunately, sometimes there are labels thrown around, and they're not used with precision. So on the left I've heard people use the term "fascist" inappropriately; I've also heard people use the terms "racist" and "sexist" inappropriately. However, those are terms which can be used with precision and can be used appropriately. We have to make sure that this is how we use them in a proper debate.

But on the other side, on the right, I fear that the major label that has been used in recent years is the label "politically correct." It really is an unfortunate substitute and not an adequate substitute for proper debate. It's a term that's invariably used by those who disagree with an idea or argument, and therefore they label it politically correct and then sit down and don't engage in further debate. I think that's pathetic. It doesn't get us anywhere in terms of advancing enlightenment in our society. As I say, I fear that political correctness is too often a term which is designed and used to quell debate, to belittle legitimate concerns that people in our society have 

[ Page 4419 ]

about equality and justice, especially for women, visible minorities, gays and lesbians, to name a few. So it disturbs me a great deal.

The member did indicate to me that he would be touching on the situation at SFU. I want to say this: while the hon. member says he wasn't commenting on the merits of the case, he certainly was commenting on the process. I think it's terribly irresponsible for legislators to stand up without knowing the full story of what happens in a situation and just start to pick it apart and make criticisms. I am the first to admit I do not know exactly what happened at SFU.

It's one thing for us as individuals to sit down and perhaps engage in private gossip about what happened. It's another thing to stand up in our role as legislators, which is truly a leadership role, and to make statements based upon limited information that can be found through the media. Perhaps the member could correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the member makes his statements about that situation based only on media accounts. As politicians, I think we all understand the shortfalls that can beset us by relying only on media accounts and the frustrations that we face in only reading media accounts of things.

As well, I should add that I think the hon. member is a lawyer, as I am. He should be well aware of the fact that this is indeed a situation where, clearly, administrative law issues are bound to be raised. It could very well be on its way to the courts.

It's one thing for SFU to review their harassment policy. It's another thing to be critical of that process right now, without us, as legislators. . . . I want to emphasize this. It's one thing for people to comment as private individuals. But for us to stand up in this House and criticize that process without knowing exactly what went on is, I think, terribly irresponsible. With that, hon. Speaker, I'll wrap up my remarks.

J. Dalton: I will make a few observations on what my hon. colleague has just stated. Firstly, he is correct: I am a lawyer, legally trained, as he is. I'm sure the member understands due process and natural justice, the two elements that I cited in the Simon Fraser example. I don't think it's inappropriate for anyone in a public context or on a street corner to comment on the lack of due process and natural justice in how things are handled sometimes. I did say in my remarks that I was not commenting on the merits of that case, and I stand to repeat that I am not commenting on the merits of that case.

I do agree with the hon. member for New Westminster about how debate is stifled. He was quite right about the left versus the right and the labels that are put on. That's unfortunate. But that's where political correctness, in my submission, intercedes in a true, open, honest debate, because it is too easy to label people as biased or whatever it may be. Objectivity, I submit, is lost in the exercise of debate. That's what we all want, both in this House and, of course, on the street corner. The member has said that maybe my comments were made because I feel threatened as an older male. Well, that's true. I'm 54 years old, so I guess I am kind of old. . .

An Hon. Member: A mere baby.

J. Dalton: . . .but not as old as my colleague, if I may say. But I was only making the comments to illustrate the current status of correctness. That was the theme of my remarks.

I would like this House to know that the member who replied served with my wife for several years on the North Shore Community Services board. I know that my wife and the hon. member were both seeking solutions to community issues, and that's why they served. I know that this member is motivated by community spirit, and I certainly congratulate him for that. However, I don't think that absolves all of us from searching again for the objectivity I think we must be searching for with regard to social issues and solutions to them.

I think it's too easy for issues to become lightning rods. Certainly that was so in 1993 when I gave part 1, and I submit that it continues to be so in 1997 when I am giving part 2. As for part 3, as I said earlier, I hope not. I hope that I won't be. . . . Well, I will be here in 2001, but I hope I'll be on that side. That's one movie that does not need a sequel.

A LEGACY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

I grew up with Stanley Knowles. I was just a kid when he came to live at my house in 1944. He came for one session, and he stayed for 40 years. He became part of our family, and we were his Ottawa family. He liked tea and arrowroot biscuits, and he liked plain roast beef sandwiches without any butter or mayonnaise. He sometimes made bad puns and sometimes not-bad puns. He liked listening to the news -- not surprisingly. He took the bus to the House of Commons. He made not a bad pot of porridge.

My sister and I got to hear many stories from Stanley Knowles. She, with the talent she has as an academic and as an historian, has written a book about Stanley Knowles, called Stanley Knowles: The Man from Winnipeg North Centre. It is a thrill to re-read some of those lines and those remarks she made in that book and to feel them as vigorous, as energetic and as poignant today as they were when she wrote them and when I experienced the household with Stanley Knowles as part of it.

Stanley Knowles, of course, had a family -- his primary family in Winnipeg. Let me just read a wee bit, a quote from my sister, from the service yesterday in Ottawa: "[Susan Mann] acknowledged there were many sacrifices, both for Knowles and his family. Politics, especially the single-minded kind that Knowles practised, required long absences from his Winnipeg home, his wife Vida and two children." She says: "They gave their father to Parliament and to Canada. Both gifts caused heartbreaks to the Knowles family." I want to pay tribute to the family, to David and to Margaret and their children, who worked with him and had to live with their father, sharing him with Parliament and with Canada.

[10:30]

Several issues, of course, were very important to Stanley and stand out in his long career in Parliament, and I just want to talk a little bit about a couple of those. But first a quote from his son David:

[ Page 4420 ]

"Initially, he" -- Stanley -- "decided that he would work to save people's souls" -- as we know, he was a Methodist minister -- "through the church. He soon realized that preaching from the pulpit wasn't going to put food on the table or get people hospital care. He realized he was in the wrong place, he should be in parliament."

"Knowles' preoccupation with pensions goes deep into his past, and people who wonder about the single (sometimes even narrow) mindedness of it all understand neither his background nor the parliamentary process. The socialist, the egalitarian, the builder of better worlds, the son of. . .an old man tossed pensionless onto the heap of the Depression cannot let go of the pension issue."

Stanley Knowles is elected in 1942 to replace the CCF leader, J.S. Woodsworth, and he takes up the fight. Knowles uses every opportunity to work into existing legislation what had happened. He demands a government inquiry.

It took a while for this to happen, but by 1946 the government inquiry returned a report that acknowledged that what Knowles and the Winnipeg Canadian Pacific workers were contending was absolutely correct. For the next two years Knowles tried to get even wider-reaching legislation regarding pensions enacted.

By 1948 the House is debating the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the Canadian labour code. Knowles sees a chance and takes advantage of Prime Minister Mackenzie King's impending retirement and gets an amendment into that bill that says it is unfair labour practice to interfere with pension rights in cases of strikes and lockouts. That took six years of enormous tenacity and determination.

But he wasn't finished yet. The Old Age Security Act -- January 1, 1952 -- ensured that there would be no means test imposed on people seeking old age pensions. Everyone over the age of 70 would receive a pension as a right, thanks in large part to Stanley Knowles. That took ten years. For the next 30 years, Stanley fought to make sure that the amount of the pension was appropriate and that it was indexed to the consumer price index. The age was lowered to 65. And he worked on the introduction of the guaranteed income supplement, so that no one like his father, at age 57, is turfed out of his job with no pension, no assistance, no unemployment insurance, no holiday pay -- none of that. That was never going to happen to anyone in Canada. And, Mr. Speaker, it has not.

There is another issue that is of interest to historians, the pipeline debate. It happened in 1956. It demonstrates to us again the nature of Stanley Knowles as a parliamentarian. He learned the rules early. He was not going to be put sideways by what the rules were. That debate goes down in history as one of the famous ones for all of us in Canada as parliamentarians and spokespeople for the rights of Canadians.

G. Abbott: First of all, I would like to compliment and thank the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill for a very touching and very passionate tribute to a great Canadian, Stanley Knowles. It's an honour for me to rise today to join in that tribute.

I guess the first basic observation to make about Stanley Knowles is that he lived a long life and a very remarkable life. He is, I think, very justifiably regarded as a great Canadian by both friends and foes alike. Even when we use the term "foe" in relation to Stanley Knowles, we use it in the best sense of the word -- of political adversaries, but certainly not in the sense of any personal dislike or disrespect. If there was any parliamentarian that ever enjoyed the universal respect of his colleagues, it was Stanley Knowles. Obviously some of the later distinctions that Stanley Knowles enjoyed certainly confirm that.

Unlike the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, I never had the good fortune to meet Stanley Knowles. The member, I think, is very fortunate in having known on a very close, personal basis a great man in this nation. I know she is much the richer for it.

I think I first learned about Stanley Knowles in political science 200 at UBC. The professor that year was Walter Young, lamentably now the late Walter Young. Walter Young was a good friend to the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill. Some time after political science 200, he became a very good friend to me as well. Walter Young was one of the leading scholars -- probably the leading scholar -- in terms of analyzing the CCF and later NDP movements in Canada. Walter had the greatest respect for Stanley Knowles as a parliamentarian and frequently cited the kind of work that Stanley Knowles did in the House of Commons as, I guess, the pinnacle of what can be achieved in a long and very distinguished parliamentary career.

I guess one of the most remarkable things about Stanley Knowles in Parliament was his encyclopedic grasp of the rules. I'm sure that all of us as members would love to be able to emulate him in that sense. I suspect he has set the bar so high that few will ever achieve it. But he was a remarkable parliamentarian, and he will be forever remembered for that reason.

I've had the good fortune, since university and during university, to have studied some of the great political figures in British Columbia and Canada. Stanley Knowles deserves in every sense to stand among those numbers that we would term great Canadians. His list of honours and achievements is far too lengthy to repeat here. But some of the highlights of a most remarkable career include 37 years as the member for Winnipeg North Centre. That in itself is a remarkable achievement and obviously a tribute to the kind of feeling which his constituents held towards him for that long period of time. He was deputy leader of the CCF, he was NDP House Leader and NDP Whip, and he was an Officer of the Order of Canada. On three occasions, Mr. Speaker, he was offered the speakership but on each occasion -- and I suspect with great reluctance -- refused.

Most happily, I think, in his retirement, his later years, he enjoyed the distinction of being an honorary officer of the House. I suspect this is probably the thing that made Stanley Knowles the happiest, among his many lists of achievements. In a rare deviation from House rules, when this was provided to him, he said to the Prime Minister of the day, Prime Minister Trudeau: "Pierre, Pierre, I want to thank you so much. You have given me a chance to live." I think that's an indication of the kind of feeling which Stanley Knowles enjoyed at having been acknowledged universally in the House for his achievements.

[ Page 4421 ]

Stanley Knowles, of course, will be best remembered as a great advocate of social and economic reform. He was a relentless advocate for the interests of the elderly, the poor, the unemployed. He achieved all of these things through personal struggles himself. But fortunately for Canada, Stanley Knowles overcame those. He lived a long life filled with achievements in a place that he loved. Canada is the richer for it.

G. Brewin: I thank the hon. member for Shuswap for his wide and generous remarks and for the relationship that he has had in the political world. I have great respect for the contribution he has made today and elsewise.

I'd like to finish off with a couple of direct quotes from Stanley Knowles. He wrote in 1957 -- and the language is inclusive language:

"The fundamental faith of a democratic socialist is his belief in the essential worth and goodness of man. We in the CCF do not accept the notion that man is forever doomed to a life of sorrow and insecurity. We believe that rather he has tremendous potentialities for happiness and that it is his destiny to achieve the abundant life. We believe that man derives more satisfaction from good than from evil, more satisfaction from holding out the hand of friendship than the fist of anger, more satisfaction from building up than from tearing down."

"Time seems to have a way of giving mankind one opportunity after another. The 1960s are giving us our chance. It could be our last, or we in this decade could build a society worthy of the dreams of centuries. To do so is a worldwide task. It will demand the best that man can give, in every clime, in every quarter of the globe. Our part is to set our own house in order, to establish security, justice and freedom, human dignity and values worth living for, here in Canada. We must do the job now, while there is time yet."

But this is even more reason to take up Stanley's fight. Now is the time to protect the social democratic institutions built by great men like Stanley Knowles, because now and in the near future is when we might need them the most. I say thank you, Stanley Knowles. We will miss you, and we accept that torch.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Surrey-Whalley on. . . ?

J. Smallwood: An introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Smallwood: Today with us in the House is Pamela Duncan, the teacher of 38 grade 6 students from Old Yale Road Elementary School. I'd like the House to make the students welcome. I'm very pleased they're here, in particular, to hear the last statement of the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill about the history of the great party I have the privilege of serving with.

M. Sihota: I ask leave to make an introduction, as well.

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: Following on the member for Surrey-Whalley, I notice that in the chamber today is a longtime friend and one of the teachers who is bringing the students here from Surrey. He is someone I met at university and a very skilled floor hockey player, if I may say. I haven't seen him for years. He is someone who had quite a humorous touch, and I hope that shows up in the classroom from time to time. It's good to see a good old friend, Raminder Randhawa -- or Mr. Randhawa, as I guess he's known as a teacher. Would all members give him a warm welcome.

[10:45]

THE OTHER CERTAINTY IN LIFE

There is, however, a hopeful and energizing aspect of death and dying that I would like to address today, and that is the hospice movement in caring for the terminally ill. The roots of modern hospice are found in Britain, where Dame Cicely Saunders founded St. Christopher's Hospice in 1967, and many strong initiatives in palliative care have started there.

But the concept of sensitive, caring, patient-oriented care as death approaches has been an integral part of societies and cultures throughout time, and it has in fact only been fragmented and increasingly ignored in the mechanistic, cure-centred medical approach of the current century. Indeed, the word "hospice" originally referred to an inn or a lodging for travellers, pilgrims and the destitute. Dame Saunders championed the principles of comfort and solace to the dying, stating: "You matter because of who you are. You matter to the last moment of your life, and we will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully but also to continue living until you die." The truth of Ecclesiastes is never clearer. "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die. . . ."

Drawing from traditional values and practices, hospice accepts death as the natural end-stage of life. It focuses on care rather than cure and devotes its efforts to making this period as pain-free, comfortable and meaningful as possible. Hospice is not a place, but a philosophy of care and comfort, focused at all times on the individual patient and always respectful of the dignity of the dying. It can be practised in homes, hospitals and other health care facilities. The Hospice Foundation of America describes hospice care as adding not more days to your life, but more life to your days.

But hospice goes beyond care of the patient. It also supports the family and friends who are travelling the road together and helps them in many ways: by being an extra pair of hands to ease the burden of daily activities; by connecting the dying and their loved ones with community resources, including medical, social and spiritual; and by simply being there, listening and caring. In the full spectrum of hospice services, care is also provided in the bereavement period as the loved ones work through the stages of grief to acceptance and healing.

In most communities in British Columbia, the bulk of this work is done by hospice workers who volunteer their time and talents with their local hospice societies. In my riding, the Delta Hospice Society provides a wide range of hospice services in pursuit of their mission to provide leadership, support 

[ Page 4422 ]

and participation in the development and delivery of hospice palliative care. This is a wonderful group of trained volunteers. They are personally committed to the benefits of hospice and have expressed to me that for the care they offer, they receive much more in return through witnessing the relief of the terminally ill and their loved ones. Hospice workers are of all ages and from all walks of life, and through ongoing training and mutual support, they find great satisfaction in the work that they do.

The office of the Delta Hospice Society is a warm and caring place, from the photos on the wall, the butterfly logos gracing their publications and the coffee on in the library to the heartwarming stories regularly shared among workers. It is the site of small miracles. Laughter is often heard, and tears are also understood. Simply put, the focus is not on death. It is on remembering that people are living until they die, and they continue on in the memories of those whose lives they have touched.

Delta Hospice offers several services to the terminally ill in our community, in addition to their trained-visitor program. One is the vigil service, which arranges for 24-hour visitation for clients in the last few days of life. A special group of workers form a solid chain of visitors to ensure that no one need die alone, and many patients whose families have died or are far away are benefiting from this special service. As well, the vigil service frees up the time of busy health care workers, who understand the needs of patients facing imminent death but are pressured by competing demands on their time.

Another new program in our community is the life review, where the dying patient records the memories he or she wishes to pass on. Recalling these stories becomes a therapeutic activity for the patient, and the records they create become cherished treasures for the families.

The bereavement support programs are the fastest-growing component of Delta Hospice. The society offers individual support for those in grief, as well as ongoing bereavement groups for adults and special groups for children and teens.

Beyond the human touch provided by hospice care, one other great benefit accrues: it saves money. Beds assigned to palliative care in acute care facilities are extremely expensive. At present the average daily cost in acute care is $970 per day. It is far more cost-effective to comfort and support individuals who choose to die at home, and government should be actively pursuing avenues for advancing this component of health care. It truly is a win-win situation: sensitive, patient-centred care at a fraction of the cost of the traditional hospital model.

Another option in the spectrum of hospice care that needs to be addressed is the provision of freestanding hospices. There are at present only two hospices in British Columbia not connected to an acute care facility: Rotary Hospice House in Prince George, with five beds; and the May Gutteridge Community Home in the downtown east side of Vancouver, with six beds. A third, a cottage hospice in East Vancouver, is currently being prepared for opening next year. The current daily cost of care at the May Gutteridge Community Home is $275, a savings of nearly $700 per day compared to Vancouver Hospital.

True to the Closer to Home philosophy, a fully realized health delivery system should fund a freestanding hospice in every community. The financial component is comparatively low, and there are wonderful health care providers and volunteers willing to provide trained and professional support. The only things missing are the education of the public to the benefits of hospice and the political will to help make it happen. It is to the latter that I request all members to direct their attention.

The Speaker: I just want to advise members that I did indeed give considerable time to the member to finish his statement. He spoke to me beforehand and said that he would be a little bit over but wanted to get it all in, so I was mindful of that. Thank you for your patience.

T. Stevenson: I wish to thank the member for Delta South for this very important statement. There's little known by the public generally about hospices and the hospice movement, and it's an extraordinarily important one. It's also a subject that is near to me. I was on the board of directors of the Burnaby Hospice Society for three years, and I was also a chaplain at an AIDS hospice in Vancouver for three years. So I've had a fairly close look at the hospice movement not only in British Columbia but elsewhere in this country and overseas, as well.

When I was beginning to prepare my remarks this morning, many memories flooded back to me, understandably, of so many people I had sat with at the hospice who have passed on. I remember them coming to the hospice and their first days there and how frightened they were and how the staff immediately comforted them and brought them to a new place and a new understanding, really, of death as a natural part of life, and that the hospice obligation is to help them live and to help them die.

The three groups of people I think about are, first of all, the people who are actually in the hospice, those who are dying, and also the staff and all the volunteers in the hospice society. I'd like to talk a little bit about all three groups.

It is, of course, a very difficult time in people's life when they realize that they have a terminal illness, that there is no cure and that they now must prepare themselves for the end of their life. Many are very frightened, as I'm sure most of us would be, when we come to that place.

I remember so many of the patients who became friends, not only with me but with the staff, and would share their life. Many of them did the life review process the hon. member speaks of, where they set their life to a recorder or wrote it down. You can imagine that process for an individual as they go back over their life and reflect upon it, and many leave that for their friends and families.

Hospice is also a place where friends and families can come and be treated as if they were in their own home. It is particularly helpful for family and friends, who are often having a more difficult time than those with a terminal illness.

The second group of people I want to mention is the hospice volunteers not only in a particular locale, but the many volunteers who go into hospitals and spend hours with people in palliative care units, or go into individual homes. I agree with the hon. member when he says that we all -- that is, the government -- should be looking at that as a very viable alternative. People obviously want to be at home, and we should be doing whatever we can. These volunteers go into the home and spend many, many hours not only with the patient but obviously with the family members.

Then I come to the staff not just of the hospice society but in the hospice itself. At the hospice I was involved with, the 

[ Page 4423 ]

average length of stay was 45 days, and then a person would pass away. The next day, that bed would immediately be filled with someone else. So the staff has to be on not only for the person who is coming to the end of their life and then passes away. . . . Then they're with the family and the room is cleared. The next morning someone else comes in, and they have to be right there with that person and engage them and start to talk about their life. This is extraordinarily difficult for these people, because they are forever losing friends, and a new person comes in and then another one passes away again. I often found myself in a role with staff of just being a listener, as the chaplain -- listening to the turmoil that this caused for them.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank the member very much for bringing up this subject. It's an extremely important one, and I think it's one that we need to be more understanding and educated about, and understand that indeed death is just a part of this process that we call life.

F. Gingell: I very much thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has added to this short discussion this morning a view from someone who has experienced and has been part of this movement. I know that his words and his understanding of the issue will be much appreciated in the commitment that he's made to this role in life.

[11:00]

Delta Hospice Society executive director Nancy Macey states:

"Hospice care attempts to help those who are dying live with as much quality of life and dignity as possible. Often people reassess their lives and their priorities, set their affairs in order, reconcile with family members or settle unfinished business. Control of one's final days is returned to the patient, where it belongs."

CHALLENGES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
OF GOVERNING

They've been doing this by reducing transfers to the provinces while still retaining the same level of taxation. Transfer payments that were to cover health, education and social services costs have been cut by 40 percent. The provinces have been compelled to pick up the slack, and British Columbians have demanded it.

In 1985-86, the federal government paid 31 percent of all B.C.'s health, education and social services costs. Today, the feds pay less than 12 percent of the costs, and for this year, our costs for health, education and social services are about $15 billion. The difference between the 31 percent and the 12 percent comes to about $2.8 billion.

Imagine what could be built in B.C. for $2.8 billion each year. If Canada still paid its share of the costs of the social safety net, there would be $2.8 billion more today for other needs -- not to mention debt reduction. Had a reduction of such magnitude occurred in a single year, the public would have been outraged. It occurred gradually over a decade, and the frustration and anger are often directed at provincial governments trying to provide the same level of services in all areas and not being able to do so.

Like all provinces, British Columbia is forced to try to do more with less. Public expectations have not diminished. Provinces must set priorities, often drawing resources from some other ministries to protect the essential services people need. It is no surprise that in British Columbia, the people decided that health and education were to be the priorities. The irony is that the federal government boasts that it has its deficit under control -- not eliminated, I might add -- but it has done so by cutting transfer payments intended for health and education in the provinces.

The challenges for B.C. have been great. Difficult decisions have had to be made by government. We have only cut revenue to local governments after five years of absorbing federal cuts, and we've minimized the impact of reductions in individual communities. More than half of British Columbia communities had funding fully protected, and no community was impacted by more than 3 percent of its total revenue.

Yet we increased spending on health and education for six years, something no other province has been able to do. British Columbia today spends about 11 percent more per capita on health than any other province, and our population is growing. We are accepting our responsibilities. Education spending has increased by 20 percent since 1991-92. All the provinces have reduced spending, and Ontario reduced its spending by 19 percent. In British Columbia, we are accepting our responsibilities.

As a result of the continuing decline in federal dollars, the provincial government has focused on job-creation and revenue-generating initiatives. Some people worry that this is at the expense of environmental concerns. Given our record of leading the country on environmental protection, the latter is a little difficult to accept.

Negotiations are currently underway with Alcan to relate power directly to increased jobs in the area. Negotiations are also underway for a jobs and timber accord in the forest industry to get more jobs in the forest sector. We have renewed the Forest Practices Code to ensure that the environmental standards remain in place, without excessive paperwork and red tape. This fall, we will be hosting a northern B.C. economic conference to bring northerners together with the common purpose of creating jobs in northern B.C. We are facing the challenge and accepting our responsibilities.

One wonders, though, why the federal government would cut transfer payments intended for social programs when report after report from Statistics Canada shows that 

[ Page 4424 ]

social programs are responsible for less than 3 percent of the financial problem in Canada. One also wonders why the federal government would not close some corporation tax loopholes when the same reports say that there's been a shift in the tax burden from corporation taxes to individual taxes. It has, in other words, carved the revenue pie differently.

Well, it all has to do with Canada, and therefore the provinces, not being isolated from other economic influences. Provinces are limited by financial resources -- and I've talked about that in terms of transfer payment cuts -- and also by the economic pressures resulting from other jurisdictions around their borders, with lower tax rates, lower labour costs and lower environmental standards.

One reason for this pressure is that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA have permitted the free flow of capital. Capital can move to lower tax jurisdictions, taking their jobs and economic benefits along. Even if the general population of a province wanted to shift more of the tax burden onto corporations, the government might not be able to comply. It is a delicate balancing act, where the point of balance shifts depending on what policies are adopted by outside governments.

The federal government is now in negotiations with members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for a multilateral agreement on investment -- MAI, as it has been called. If signed, it will render governments, particularly provincial governments, powerless to enforce labour or environmental standards and powerless to determine social policy. The MAI would extend free trade status of a nature freer than what is permitted under the FTA to any other country that signs the agreement.

No province can function in isolation. Perhaps only in countries which are reasonably self-sufficient, and where the population is committed to a quality of life rather than an accumulation of wealth, is it possible to have complete jurisdiction, along with complete accountability.

It is worth considering where all this is heading. Are we to continue down the slope towards a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest society like the United States? Can we resist the pressures and continue building a caring compassionate Canada? That is the challenge. It is also the responsibility of every British Columbian and Canadian to be aware of the outside forces which affect and limit Canadian and provincial policies. The federal government has adopted positions which limit the options for provinces. They may do so again. We should be on guard against further erosion of provincial powers. If not, we may lose the tools to accept the challenges -- and that, hon. Speaker, would be irresponsible.

P. Nettleton: I'm certain that members are anxiously waiting to hear what I have to say, if for no other reason than they can escape for the weekend.

The root word of governance refers to steering. By employing its right to issue laws, its capacity to tax and spend and its ultimate power to use coercion legitimately, a government has the ability to shape or steer society. At a policy workshop on regional governance in January of 1992, one member stated:

"Canadians are deeply dissatisfied with their governments. Survey after survey reveals that we believe we are overtaxed, overregulated, overrepresented and generally overgoverned. And yet, critical issues such as national unity, the economy and government debt appear to be running out of control. To many Canadians, government is simply income tax, property tax, GST and sales tax. How, we ask, can we have so much government and so little stewardship?"

Why is it that British Columbians are as dissatisfied with government, generally, as they appear to be? Government has failed in many respects to provide the management or stewardship necessary for British Columbians. This lack of stewardship has been particularly evident in the resource sectors, with forestry first and foremost.

Ken Cameron and Erik Karlsen, of the greater Vancouver regional district and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs respectively, suggested at the same conference:

"History will identify the early 1990s as the time when British Columbians encountered the limits to the abundance with which nature endowed their province. They realized that careful management would be needed in order to protect the province's endowment of opportunities, resources and livability for present and future generations. The controversy over the management of forests symbolizes the issue."

International pressures and considerations further complicate the management issues confronting government as we move into the twenty-first century. In a recent article on globalization and governance, Michael Hart suggested:

"Developments in communication, transportation and information-processing technology are spawning new products and industries at an unprecedented rate and creating pressures for new approaches to industrial organization, management and production techniques. Coupled with remarkable progress in bringing down barriers to cross-border trade and investment, these developments have also led to a quantum leap in the internationalization of the economy. Production is steadily being reorganized on a global basis and the nature of extra-national economic transactions reflects this change. Such exchanges now involve a much more complex and sophisticated range of transactions. . . . In effect, we are seeing the beginning of the transition from exchanges among a set of interlinked national economies to exchanges within an integrated global economy.

"While the changes are most apparent at the economic level, the long-term implications of this transformation are much more fundamental. We are also seeing a global convergence in political and other values. Ultimately, what appears to be happening is the gradual reshaping of the institutions of society and of social, economic and political behaviour patterns. . . ."

The Speaker: Member, that's now two occasions where you have clearly violated a rule that ought not to be violated. In this chamber we are not allowed to call sitting members by their first names. I'd ask the member to please be very careful and to wrap up quickly.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll conclude my remarks.

[ Page 4425 ]

Governments must be accessible, involving meaningful consultation, responding to the needs of those impacted by decision-making and, finally, leading to policies and programs that reflect the needs and aspirations of British Columbians in the context of a global environment.

G. Bowbrick: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Bowbrick: I was hoping that the school up there was a school from New Westminster, but I understand it isn't. In any event, I think it's important. I understand it's Noel Booth Elementary School from Langley. I don't know the name of the teacher because I don't have that information in front of me, but nonetheless I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome today.

[11:15]

For example, in the case of government setting priorities, it's fair to say that one person's essential service is often another person's frill or waste, and governments are in the business of finding compromise solutions, which sometimes adds to the dissatisfaction of the various sectors that might not necessarily appreciate a compromise solution.

It's interesting that when engaging in the conversation. . . . When governments cut revenues or reduce taxes, for example, it's never thought of as also a reduction in services. People demand increases in services. Frequently they don't understand that it requires a reallocation from one ministry to another, for example, or even an increase in taxes. So the challenges are difficult.

In the case of trying to make ends meet, as I said in my earlier statement, there have been an awful lot of changes in the past six years that I've been witness to. Not all of them have been that well received by the general public, but as I said in my statement, we have been compelled to initiate many of them in order to find cost efficiencies and some cost savings.

What I said, of course, is that the rules of governance by which provinces conduct business have changed and are still changing. The problems are not simple, and therefore the simple solutions won't work. For example, if I might use an illustration: simply removing the need for gun registration isn't going to solve the issues around jobs, health care or education.

Superficial political views will only make the problems worse and the challenges more difficult to face later on. Our responsibility as legislators is to do much more to ensure that citizens have the knowledge and the information to make the kind of informed decisions that the country needs. Future generations expect no less of us, and I maintain that that would be the responsible thing to do.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's Friday. It is Father's Day on Sunday, and I wish all members well. Have a safe weekend and expect to spend some time with your family. I move this House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:18 a.m.

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