[ Page 8407 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES
FOR B.C. STROKE SURVIVORS

According to the B.C. Ministry of Health's hospital admission records for 1995-96, approximately 8,500 persons were admitted for stroke. While commonly thought of as happening to older persons, we should remember that one-third of all stroke victims are under age 65. Stroke is an injury to the brain, a brain attack comparable to a heart attack. Physical assessment seems to be done as a matter of course as part of the survivor's medical attention. However, when speech impairment is involved, as it often is, there is little support for the continued recovery of that ability.

Imagine a caregiver being told in hospital that they will have to arrange for the stroke survivor's speech assessment. Stroke survivors who return to the community after hospitalization often face difficulty in their ability to communicate. What will happen to the stroke survivor returning home without continued help with his speech? Family members and loved ones, as well as the stroke survivor, will be frustrated by this lack of communication. Without speech, there is little chance that younger adults can return to work. They face difficulty using the telephone, a necessity for independent living.

There are many other disabled adults living in community settings who would benefit from speech therapy. Many people, such as those with Parkinson's and MS, could also benefit from speech therapy. At present, if you add the scheduled amount of time that speech language pathologists devote to working with adults throughout the province, it totals less than ten full-time positions to serve B.C.'s more than three million adults. This means that speech language services for adults in British Columbia are sadly inadequate.

Who are British Columbia's stroke survivors? I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that they include many individuals of a variety of ages: 60-year-olds, 50-year-olds, 40-year-olds and, more alarming, individuals who are in their twenties and thirties. Women giving birth often experience stroke -- a debilitating condition that impacts on their families. A married woman I will cite here is in her late thirties and had an aneurysm rupture on two occasions. She had small children at home -- a two-and-a-half-year-old, a four-year-old and a nine-year-old -- and their lives were completely traumatized by their mother's inability to speak to them. Many, many individuals are in their thirties and forties today. They have family members at home. They have children and would like to be part of their lives, and they indeed are compromised in their ability to parent, to work and to be members of the community. They are completely frustrated by their inability to communicate.

Richard Kaczor, a resident of Richmond, experienced a stroke in October 1995 at the age of 59. His wife was left with the responsibility of obtaining speech language services for her husband. This is one of the responses she received: "The absence of speech and language therapy for adults in the Richmond region has been identified as a significant gap in the rehabilitation continuum. Your experience reflects that of all the persons requiring speech and language services. Services are only available privately or outside the Richmond community."

Hon. Speaker, you will know that this is my community, and you will know that many, many individuals desperately need this service to return to productive lives. The Kaczors have left a thought for the Legislature. They would like to ask each member of the Legislature to stop and think carefully about what life would be like for them and their families if in an instant they lost their ability to speak effectively, to comprehend speech completely or to read and write.

I think we need to move to the juncture where we discuss possible solutions. What's required for speech and language pathology services to stroke patients? Adequate speech pathology staffing in hospitals to assess communication and swallowing problems resulting from strokes and to assess potential patients for rehabilitation is currently missing today. Adequate staffing and rehabilitation facilities to provide collaborative treatment for stroke patients to get the maximum benefit out of shorter and shorter hospital and rehabilitation centre stays. We know that's a fact. We know that people are staying for shorter periods of time in hospital settings and that those services should indeed be available to them in communities.

Also required is a coordinated, collaborative out-patient program. People are living at home and are going for therapy daily or perhaps two or three times a week to continue rehabilitation of speech disorders, which take, as we all know, a very long time to resolve. Also missing in our health care climate today are aphasia centres to teach compensatory strategies to enhance the communication of the stroke patient.

All of those issues are hugely significant. How are they handled today? They're handled by the stroke recovery clubs of British Columbia. Indeed, there are 40 clubs today, serving individuals from Dawson Creek to Victoria. We know that the number of individuals surviving strokes today is only growing, so those services will be in greater and greater demand. The first stroke club in British Columbia was formed in North Vancouver in the fall of 1974. Since then, the number has grown to 40 clubs. But we are talking about 8,500 people in '95 who suffered a stroke sometime during that calendar year, so we know that already the resources of those clubs are severely strained, that indeed they would wish to provide greater services.

I think we need to evaluate the discussion around moving services to the community. We have indicated to British Columbians that those services would be there for them and that they would be delivered in a timely fashion. That has not been the case to date, and I believe that their lives have been compromised as a result. Their ability to have independence, to make choices, to be part of their families' lives and, frankly, to be part of their community's life and livelihood has been compromised by their inability to speak -- to speak at all in some cases, and clearly and effectively in other cases. That's a significant concern for many, many British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, you will recall that a number of individuals came to the Legislature and will continue to advocate for this issue.

[ Page 8408 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

H. Giesbrecht: I rise in response to the statement. I might say at the outset that we should consider ourselves very fortunate if our lives haven't been touched by some member of our family or some relative going through a stroke. I would say that many of the speech and language services are provided in hospitals and community settings. Of course, since 1990, the emphasis has been on providing speech and language services to children. Children benefit greatly from receiving speech and language services early in life, but that's not to detract from the member's concern that more needs to be done.

In the context of more needing to be done, let me simply start by saying -- and I don't mean this to detract from the urgency and the need in any way -- that it should be noted that B.C. spends more than one-third of its budget on health care and 19 percent of it on doctors' fees. Aside from that, we spend $1,860 per capita -- more than any other province. Even Ontario, which is the wealthiest, spends $1,650 per capita. That's just to say that the resources are not always there, even though the need is there. Clearly we could get into a long discussion about how one would distribute those resources if they were present, particularly how one would distribute them in the rural areas. It's sometimes very easy to cover the needs in urban centres, but it's much more difficult in rural areas.

Some adults require help with speech and language and swallowing skills to maintain their independence, their sense of control over their environment and their sense of belonging. Adult speech and language services focus on the rehabilitation of oral and communication skills lost or impaired through stroke, cancer, trauma, progressive degenerative nerve diseases, hearing loss, Alzheimer's and other diseases and disorders.

[10:15]

The consequences of placing someone with a communication or swallowing disability in the community without speech language support varies from unnecessary dependency, to isolation, to life-threatening situations. Each of these situations significantly affects the quality of life, the safety of the individual and their caregivers, and health costs. The examples of health costs secondary to communication and swallowing disabilities include costs related to depression, living in extended-care facilities, malnutrition, pneumonia, ambulance calls, unnecessary and inappropriate surgeries and medications, and frustrated, exhausted and depressed caregivers and spouses who seek medical attention. Effective communication strategies and swallowing rehabilitation reduce those associated health costs.

There is absolutely no question that there is a need here that needs to be addressed. With that in mind, it should be noted that on June 16 a provincial speech pathologist workshop is taking place in Vancouver to look at strategies for the future. We in B.C. have an aging population. The regions don't have the services they need. We must get at this particular therapy early, and certainly there is a great need for that.

Probably the best approach would be to get into a preventive mode. Clearly there's a role here for all of those strategies that reduce the risk of heart disease. We could talk about changing lifestyles -- more active lifestyles. We could talk about tobacco reduction strategies and all those things. But the fact still remains that there is a need. Hopefully, out of the workshop and out of the consultations that are taking place there will be a plan developed and a strong commitment to do that.

I'm convinced that the ministry is looking at that. Again, given only the limit in resources, there should be some progress made. I thank the member for her comments.

L. Reid: I would begin by thanking my colleague opposite for his remarks. Certainly the points he makes regarding children and their need for speech and language services are valid. I would only say that their anguish is equally shared by adults who have difficulty speaking. If we're looking at citizens who would make an additional contribution to their communities, and if we're experiencing stroke survivors today who are in their twenties and thirties, it is a 30- or 40-year working life that has been compromised by the fact that services, frankly, are not available.

I would make the case that stroke survivors deserve the quality of post-stroke care and rehabilitation to be at least as good as the quality of the emergency life-saving medical care they receive. We are saving greater numbers of stroke individuals. With that, we must commit to resolving the issues of their life and livelihood. They are going to be living many, many years longer. It's important that they believe they can make a contribution, and it's important that government rises to the occasion and understands how important it is that they be given those opportunities early on in their care to improve their quality of speech and language production -- vitally important.

I would make the point, hon. Speaker, as I said earlier, that hospital stays are shorter. As a result, those services are required in the community at a much earlier time in that person's recovery. That challenge is there for this Legislature to meet. We know that the services today are not covered. MSP does not pay for the speech therapy sessions, and medical plans usually pay only $150 to $200 annually, at best. These exercises are ongoing; they're time-consuming. There are upwards of thousands of dollars of services that any stroke survivor would require in order to be a productive member of their community.

It's important for all of us to participate in the decisions that will allow individuals who have suffered from a stroke to have greater choice, to experience greater independence in their lives and, frankly, to be better communicators. That is something we would wish for all, because it makes their lives far easier in interactions with their families, with their spouses and with their employers. These people do deserve the opportunity to become gainfully employed in the system, hopefully to return to their original employment and to be supported throughout.

The comments my hon. colleague made about children are valid. But these individuals are also parents. They too want to participate fully in the lives and livelihood of their children and to experience the whole range of parenting responsibilities. That is improved only if they have a skill set that allows them to communicate more effectively.

[ Page 8409 ]

CRIME IN OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD

I want to emphasize and distinguish at this point that I'm not talking here about young offenders; I'm not talking about young people specifically. We've had some recent tragedies associated with some of the students at New Westminster Secondary School, but I think all of us in the community know that it's a good school and that they're good students. All too often young people are tarnished with the same brush when some people want to make judgments about young people and crime.

What's truly astonishing is the number of people who raise with me things that have happened to them or to their neighbours. Most people know someone on their street who has been the victim of a break-and-enter -- whether of a car, their home or what have you. In some parts of the city there is prostitution. In some parts of the city there is a drug trade that has been affecting our neighbourhoods directly for a few years now. Parents are finding used needles in their back alleys in some cases -- too close to their yards where their young children are playing. Sometimes they are even found in school yards. I know this personally, because I live with my wife Ana and our son Colin -- my two-and-a-half-year-old -- on Dublin Street in New Westminster, right off 12th Street. We see this ourselves. I have to say as a parent that the used-needle problem associated with the drug trade terrifies me.

These are good neighbourhoods, and they are good people who live in them. I'm proud to live there, and my wife Ana is also proud to live there. We think it is a good place. We chose to live in this neighbourhood because it's a good place to raise a family. We have another child on the way in October, and we continue to believe it's a good place to raise a family. It's the same as other people in New Westminster have felt for so many years. We share the frustrations of our neighbours and of the people I talk to on a weekly basis in other neighbourhoods.

But the question is: what is to be done about this? Now, I think the first thing is that as citizens we have to be able to depend on our criminal justice system to send a clear message when people are caught committing a crime or allegedly committing a crime. If you commit a crime in our neighbourhoods and you are caught, there will be consequences associated with that. I have to say first of all that I believe -- and I think most citizens believe -- that our police will do everything they can. They're overworked, and they're under tremendous pressure. It's important that as citizens we don't take our frustrations out on them but that we give them our patience.

When it comes to our prosecutors, it's important that they are instructed -- and I know that in New Westminster they are -- that when it relates to the drug trade, they take to the courts the feelings of the citizens about the gravity of the offences committed and how they are impacting on ordinary citizens, particularly in the drug trade, and that they ask the courts to take that into account -- in sentencing in particular.

It's also important that we have effective diversion programs. Diversion programs, I think, make a great deal of sense, in particular for first-time, non-violent young offenders -- I have to emphasize non-violent. It's important that those people realize that their crimes are not committed in anonymity, that there is a victim and that perhaps they should face that victim, pay restitution and see the anger, frustration and pain of regular citizens. Even when it involves a minor incident of vandalism, it is not minor to the victim involved.

I also have to say that it's important that our courts be as sensitive as possible to these community concerns and the impact of the court's decisions on the community. I want to emphasize at this point. . . . I think most citizens understand that, of course, the independence of our judges is absolutely paramount. Citizens understand that in our democratic system, it's important that the government not be able to directly influence our judges. Certainly citizens understand that if they're ever in a dispute with the government, the last thing they would want is for the government to be able to influence judges. But having said this, I think it's important that judges are as sensitive as possible to the concerns of people in impacted neighbourhoods. We've made great strides in recent years in ensuring that we have a representative judiciary. It's something we've been working on as a society: making sure that it's as representative of socioeconomics as possible and that different demographics, visible minorities and women are represented.

Maybe we're getting to the point where it may be time to take a step further. Citizens have to have confidence in the process that leads to the appointment of judges. It shouldn't be seen as an elite or elitist process. There be more average citizens involved in that process, so they can take those concerns to the process and say: "Look, we as individual citizens have these concerns, and we want to make sure that the people who sit on the bench are people like us and share our kinds of concerns." We all know that judges do have values and that those values will inform their judgments and their decisions.

I think it's important, though, that we don't focus just on the criminal justice system. I want to emphasize again at this point that there is, in my view, no room for excuses or misplaced sympathy when people commit crimes in our neighbourhoods. People -- average citizens -- have the right to be angry and frustrated by what they're experiencing. They have the right to expect the punishment of those who commit crimes, and they have the right to expect the protection of citizens and their families and their homes. It isn't too much to ask that people feel free to walk through their neighbourhood without their child stepping on a used needle. It isn't too much to ask that their child be able to play in their front yard without having that fear.

At this point I'm going to take my seat, and I'll gladly hear what the hon. member opposite has to say about this issue. Then I'll be addressing the issue of what we can do beyond the criminal justice system.

G. Plant: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak this morning for a few minutes on the subject of crime and safety in our neighbourhoods. The community that I represent is largely a suburb with small businesses and a relatively small commercial-industrial sector. I campaigned for office for the first time in 1996, and one of the things I made a point of doing in the early stages of my campaign was visiting neighbourhoods -- to spend time in the culs-de-sac where kids play hockey and basketball and to listen to parents talk about their concerns.

[ Page 8410 ]

[10:30]

On May 28, the charges having been laid, there was a first appearance in Provincial Court in Richmond. For reasons that I suppose from the perspective of the accused made some sense, the accused did not attend in court; his lawyer attended. There were many people from my community in court that day, because they wanted to see for the first time the man who is charged with the offence, and he didn't show up. There was a lot of anger in that room, and I think I understand why there was that anger.

I think that we here in this chamber must never lose sight of the fact that people react strongly to alleged criminal activity. People feel the issue of safety and concerns around criminal justice very personally. When the member opposite speaks about his neighbourhood, his street and his family, that's true for all British Columbians. I share the same feelings. All of us react when we hear about home invasions or break-and-enter cases or prostitution in our neighbourhoods. We as legislators need to make sure that we respect that and that our criminal justice system in all of its aspects respects the apprehension and the concerns of citizens.

We as members of a community can do something to contribute to public safety, to safety in our neighbourhoods. In my town of Richmond, there is now a community advisory task force that's reporting to the city council on policing issues. Two community policing stations have recently opened up, where there is community input into the way in which police do their job. That helps to contribute to a sense that the police are in fact present on the streets of Richmond and are doing their job.

There are lots of ways to approach this problem. It's a subject that we could talk about at some length. I am delighted to have had the chance to just offer a few comments today, and I look forward to the concluding remarks of the member opposite.

G. Bowbrick: I'd like to thank the member for Richmond-Steveston for his thoughtful remarks. I want to say, though, that it's not enough for us to just look at the criminal justice system and think about crime and punishment. We have to start thinking more about how to really prevent crime in the first place. As I said, there is no room for misplaced sympathy or excuses when people have committed crimes; there should be consequences when people commit crimes. But what about preventing that from happening? I don't want to suggest here that there's any one simple answer to this question. It's a very complex problem, and people understand that.

I do want to talk about one thing in that regard: our children and what we do in raising our children. As parents and other caregivers -- these days grandparents are increasingly looking after children while their parents are at school -- it's important that we spend time with our children. It's important that we instil values in our children -- values like honesty, tolerance, consideration and empathy. It's important that we talk with them and that we know what they're doing and thinking. It's important when they're younger that we watch TV with them, so when they're watching violent programs we either turn it off or talk to them about it -- what's inappropriate and what's appropriate. It's important that we read to them to make sure that they get the best start possible, so that they'll do well in school. We know that people with higher levels of education have greater hope and are far less likely to get into trouble with the law. As a society, I think it's important that we start looking at more support for early childhood education, for preschool. Other countries -- western European countries -- have universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds. We know that education is the great equalizer. Not every child is born with the same advantages in this world.

We know the first four to five years are critical to every human being's development. So I say: let's give all children a chance early in life. They'll do better later in life. They'll be less likely to get into trouble with the law. I believe that in the long run we'll see less crime. I think we all know intuitively, if not empirically, that when kids get a good start, as I said before, they're much less likely to get into trouble, including trouble with the law. They have greater hope, greater aspirations. They are simply going to be better citizens.

I want to emphasize again that when we're dealing with crime that if a crime has been committed, that it's important there be consequences for that -- no excuses, no misplaced sympathy. But as a society we're going to have to go beyond that if we really want to get to the root of crime; it's a complex problem. There are a number of things we can do to address it. I say that the first step in the right direction is that as a society we have to pay more attention to our children. We have to raise them to be better citizens.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's been a pleasure speaking this morning.

AUTISM

The reason that they believe in early autism treatment is that they have scientific proof, developed over the last 35 years, which shows that if indeed we get to children that are afflicted by autism at an early age, there are tools, programs and mechanisms to change much of the damage that autism can do to children when they grow up to adulthood. Catching them at that early age often creates a situation where children with autism become adults that can live with autism in a respectful, productive and social manner.

[ Page 8411 ]

I have been very fortunate, in the early stages of being an MLA, to have been contacted by a group of parents who all have the same common interest -- that is, they all have a child or children suffering from the affliction of autism. Through these parents, I have gotten to know a number of patients. I want to briefly mention three different patients that I have learned to get to know and who all have acted, because of either participation in or lack of participation in a program, to deal with their life.

The first person is a young man, who is 29 years of age today; his name is Ben. Ben was found to suffer from autism fairly early. At the time that this happened, there was very little or nothing at all that the medical branch thought could be done about it. Then Ben developed into a child that definitely had problems contacting and socializing with other people. Ben did lack the skills of communication. Although Ben's parents tried to do everything they could for the young man, by the age of 14 they were just no longer able to do this, and Ben had to be put in a foster home. Ben has been in a foster home all his life since the age of 14. He has a very caring foster father and mother.

However, Ben, now being 29 years of age, is beginning to get kind of uncontrollable, a little bit more aggressive. For Ben there is, unfortunately, not much more than a future in an institution. Ben, at the age of 29, has very little to look forward to. He will go into an institution in the very near future. That, of course, will cost the system -- us, as caring taxpayers -- millions of dollars. Nobody would argue about spending that kind of money. Unfortunately, it is a shame that we are put in that position, because had Ben been given treatment that was available at the time but was considered to be experimental, he would most likely not have to go into an institution today.

I can say that because of a second person with autism that I met. He is a first-grader, and his name is Robert. Robert, as a child, was very quiet. He didn't speak well, and his parents were concerned. Robert, like Ben, started to show the signals and symptoms of autism. Fortunately for Robert, he was born into a family with money. When the parents saw that Robert was different, they made some inquiries and found out that it could indeed be autism and that there were programs developed in the States that had proven to be very effective in countering autism if it was done at an early age. Robert was flown to the States and met with the experts. A Lovaas program was created for Robert to indeed become a more communicative person, a more effective person. Robert has been, through luck, exposed to the Lovaas program for a number of years. The Lovaas program is an applied behavioral analysis that will take the negative that the illness causes and turn it, through therapy, into a positive. Today Robert is in school, in first grade. He's got friends; he plays with friends; he talks with his friends. Although Robert will always have some problems in life -- he will always be a person living with autism -- he is living proof that it can indeed make a difference if proper treatment is given to children with autism.

The third person I'd like to talk about is Alison. Alison is a young girl three years of age, who a year ago was diagnosed with autism. Alison, unfortunately, does not come from a family with money. However, she has -- thank God -- a very determined mother. Today her mother has two jobs. She works extra time when colleagues want a day off. She rents out every bedroom in her house.

All that money is used to give Alison some of the treatment that is available from the States by people -- volunteers or from universities -- at a fairly expensive cost. This mother is giving up everything she's got in order to give Alison a smile and the kind of treatment that will make Alison a better-functioning person. Yesterday, when Alison's mother was here in the House, she told me that after a year, Alison can now smile, can give a hug and is beginning to function.

I feel we have to somehow recognize that people with this affliction must have the protection of a health care system, in order to avoid Alisons of today becoming like Bens of the past.

P. Calendino: I thank the member opposite for raising this issue in the House. It is an extremely important issue, even though the incidence of autism is very minimal in our society. Those very few cases that are in existence are of very serious concern to the families and certainly to the classrooms where at times these children are registered. They cannot function in that setting.

[10:45]

The reality is that there seems to be no medical consensus about the causes of autism. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any medical consensus on what the best method of treatment is for the children with autism. As a matter of fact, research says that there are a whole variety of treatments that have been used. The best is the one that the member is advocating, the Lovaas method, which is directed at modifying the behaviour of children. Those seem to be the most effective ones, but at the same time, researchers say that even the administration of vitamin B6 with magnesium seems to have a very good effect on improving children's behaviour.

The Ministry for Children and Families held a workshop a couple of months ago and invited parents who have children with autistic problems to discuss the various issues associated with autism to see if they could come up with some policy direction for the government. The government is looking at some of those -- not necessarily recommendations -- points that have been discussed and will be looking at this Lovaas method in the future to see whether it is the best way or an effective way.

I must say, as well, that the medical associations both here and in the States are really not recommending the Lovaas method as the only method or the one that should be funded by governments. Certainly it seems to have a very good effect on the improvement of both the behaviour and the language skills of many young children. As a matter of fact, I have a case in my constituency with which I dealt last week. The mother wants a Lovaas method treatment. I've worked with

[ Page 8412 ]

As is any American treatment of illnesses, it is a very expensive method -- about $20,000 a year or more per child. In times of revenue shortages, governments have to decide what the best methods are of treating illnesses. The member opposite is advocating covering it, but I wonder whether he would say the same thing if he were in government. He would have capped funding for health care at $6 billion, and I wonder what else he would have cut besides not funding this particular program.

With that, hon. Speaker, it seems my time is up. I conclude my remarks, and I look forward to the member's response.

T. Nebbeling: Just some brief comments in reply. First of all, in the States every child suffering from autism is covered by the federal health plan; it's federal law. So it is there. In Alberta children with autism are covered under the health act. In Ontario children with autism are covered under the health act. They are, because it is proven, as the member opposite acknowledged, that Lovaas makes for a remarkable improvement in the well-being of the child. The member also said that it is at a cost of $20,000 to $30,000 per child per year.

At the same time, we talked about the patient that I know, Ben. He's going to go into an institution for the next 50 or 60 years, because children with autism do grow up to old age. Ben is going to cost the system $60,000 a year. So the key is that it shouldn't be an issue of whether it is worth the money or we can afford the money. The thing is that we know that there is not a cure, but there is a mechanism to make the quality of life so much better for patients with autism and for the families who live with them, and I think that's what we have to focus on.

Having this group of people supervised by social services doesn't matter. The hon. member said that they had just got some money for a member in his community who suffers from autism. Well, the member should also know that that financial commitment stands for six months, because Children and Families commits for six months and then you have to reapply; you have to start all over again. There has to be certainty that programs can be initiated and can be completed. That's how the child is going to benefit, and until such time. . . .

I hope that that happens, and it can only happen when it is under the Health Act. I hope that you will support me every time we bring this issue to the floor, because for the Alisons of this world, I am just not going to stop. I believe we have to make the switch from Children and Families to Health to ensure long-term care for these people without having to take them out of our society one of these days and put them in an institution where they will wither away.

A BRIDGE FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Since it opened in 1938, the Lions Gate Bridge has become one of the city's most well-known and beloved trademarks, much like the Eiffel Tower is to Paris. For 60 years it has served as a vital link between Vancouver and the North Shore. Many governments have grappled with finding the best way to ensure the bridge's long-term survival. The number of discarded plans has grown along with the maintenance costs and vehicle traffic over the past three decades.

Many people have shared their views and concerns with me, as the MLA representing Vancouver's West End, regarding the Lions Gate Bridge. On a personal level, I have observed the situation over a number of years, and I fully support the government's decision to rehabilitate the existing three lanes on the bridge. In fact, I felt so strongly about this option that I publicly stated my position well before a decision was reached and an announcement was made by the government.

The idea supported by the Vancouver parks board is either two lanes and a two-lane tunnel underneath, or a four-lane tunnel underneath. I believe that's a short-sighted one, and one I opposed publicly. I understand that the parks board wants to unify Stanley Park, and so do I, but a tunnel directly under the existing Lions Gate Bridge would simply add one more lane of traffic, thus dumping even more automobiles into the West End. This is something I strongly oppose.

If we must have more automobile traffic between the North Shore and downtown Vancouver -- and I'm not convinced at this point that we must, for it seems to me that our city is already clogged with cars -- then my preferred option is a tunnel further east from, say, Lonsdale to Main Street. This would result in the unification of Stanley Park without dumping additional traffic into the West End. But given the financial realities at this time, unfortunately, this option is not possible. If we had built a tunnel under the existing bridge, it would have locked us into this location forever, for we would never look at another tunnel option further east in the harbour if we had expended millions of dollars to build a tunnel under the Lions Gate Bridge at this time. Rehabilitating the Lions Gate Bridge as it stands gives us the opportunity to think about other options further down the road. This action will greatly improve the structure of the bridge deck, as well as make it more earthquake-proof. This is good news for drivers, cyclists and all who share the bridge.

The safety issue is also a very big concern, and this major rehabilitation will address that issue. I know that some critics say that three lanes on the bridge are not enough, but statistics have shown that as soon as more lanes are added, they are immediately filled with traffic. One of my main priorities, as I've already stated, is that there be no increase of traffic in the west end of Vancouver. Quite simply, the West End is a small area and cannot take high-volume traffic. Residents have said to me repeatedly that they do not want more traffic in their neighbourhoods. They live in the West End for its quality of life and its pedestrian culture -- something I will work to preserve. More lanes would bring about a serious decline in air quality, another issue for residents of both downtown and, of course, the North Shore.

This announcement comes after an extensive look at options that began, in 1993, with broad consultation and input gathering. Over the last year, government has closely examined two of the most feasible options for the crossing: rehabilitation of the bridge and a four-lane crossing. Under

[ Page 8413 ]

Regardless of which option would be chosen, the government established certain criteria. These included a comprehensive consultation process, improved bridge safety, no damage to Stanley Park and neighbourhoods near the crossing, and improved access for cyclists and pedestrians. I was involved in many of these discussions. They included the minister, the Vancouver and North Shore mayors and officials from the Vancouver parks board and the greater Vancouver regional district. In fact, I urged the Minister of Transportation and Highways so many times to keep the three-lane bridge intact that he started calling me a pain in the neck because of my persistence. I don't mind the title at all, as long as the voices and concerns of my constituents are being heard.

In the end, many interests and opinions were listened to, and I think our final decision reflects that. The mayor of the district of North Vancouver has said that improving the three lanes is the best solution for the crossing and that the decision also supports the input he has had from North Shore businesses and residents. The mayor of Vancouver has called the solution realistic and is relieved that there'll be no increased traffic as a result of the decision. Peter Busby, the president of the Downtown Vancouver Association, supported the rehabilitation of the Lions Gate Bridge. In a letter to the Vancouver Sun he is quoted as saying: "We applaud the provincial government for listening to the public and responding with the changes that precipitated this announcement." Others who supported the government include Vancouver city councillors Gordon Price, who said it was a huge victory for the West End, and Lynne Kennedy, who said it was good news for the West End and good news for the whole of the downtown peninsula.

I want to emphasize that at the very top of our list of priorities surrounding the bridge was the issue of safety, not just the issue of traffic volume. The most recent statistics available from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways indicates that the Lions Gate Bridge ranks seventh or eighth in greater Vancouver for traffic use. In 1995 the number of daily trips over the Lions Gate Bridge was about 67,000. That may sound like a lot, but when you compare it to the Second Narrows, where the number of trips is 120,000, that's not a lot. While the Port Mann Bridge operates at capacity much of the day, the Lions Gate Bridge sees that kind of traffic only for a short period of time.

In the end, the decision to rehabilitate the existing Lions Gate Bridge will best satisfy residents. . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time has expired.

T. Stevenson: . . .heritage and other interested organizations, and local governments.

I know, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member. . . .

T. Stevenson: Although the dilemma of the Lions Gate Bridge does not affect all British Columbians. . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

T. Stevenson: . . .it is most important for the West End.

Deputy Speaker: Order, member.

[11:00]

J. Dalton: I guess this is like last night's hockey game, which went into overtime.

The "Bridge for the New Millennium" has had an interesting career in the current millennium. In 1894 the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Co. was granted permission to tunnel under the First Narrows. A lot of discussion took place over the decades since then. In 1927 the people of Vancouver rejected a road that was proposed to run through Stanley Park. In the early 1930s, A.J.T. Taylor -- after whom Taylor Way is named -- secured financial backing from Sir Arthur Guinness for a bridge. Delays continued until 1936, when approval to construct was given. July 7, 1937, saw the first sod turned -- although quite frankly, I don't know how one turns the sod in the First Narrows. November 12, 1938, saw 5,616 vehicles cross the bridge when it opened with a 25-cent toll. The bridge was officially opened two days later, November 14, and on May 29, 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth presided over the royal opening of the bridge.

The province bought the bridge in 1955, and tolls came off April 1, 1963. Personally, I can say that I remember that day well. Having to travel the bridge to UBC every day at that time, certainly it was a relief to us poor students to have the toll removed.

Talk of a third crossing and improving the bridge has gone on as long as I can remember. I first used the bridge in September of 1942, when I travelled from St. Paul's Hospital, where I was born, across to West Vancouver, where I grew up. I actually, literally, had the Lions Gate in my front window.

The process called Choices -- the hon. member has referred to that in his comments -- began in 1993. After five years and $6.9 million the province has made the choice -- the one that we know about and that the member has commented on -- which is, namely, to simply rehabilitate the bridge with widened lanes and the sidewalks separated from the roadway. The causeway will be repaved but will not be widened. Also, there is nothing budgeted for the north approaches of the Lions Gate, particularly the bottleneck across the Capilano River leading into West Vancouver. Today being Friday, I can tell you as a fact that you will not be able to drive off the bridge to get onto the cloverleaf into West Vancouver. That's how bad that bottleneck is.

Last year I wrote to Ron Duhamel, the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification, to explore the possibility of federal funding, particularly in the context of the pending millennium. I received responses from Mr. Duhamel and from Jim Doughty, who is the executive assistant to the Secretary of State for Parks, and they included information on national historical sites and also funding possibilities.

Federal assistance for the conservation of historic sites must be applied for by the owner of the site. So I then wrote to the Premier, because of course the bridge is owned by the province. In his response to me, he replied that he did not see a financial advantage in designating the bridge as a heritage project, so that idea died on the vine.

So what do we have? Well, we indeed have a project for a rehabilitated bridge, but somehow I feel we have missed

[ Page 8414 ]

We celebrate the Lions Gate, hon. Speaker, but I'm not sure that the next millennium will see us actually moving any better or with any twenty-first-century thinking.

T. Stevenson: My history is somewhat analogous to the hon. member. I too came across the Lions Gate Bridge in 1945, wrapped in swaddling clothes or whatever, and ended up in West Vancouver, looking at the Lions Gate Bridge as I grew up.

I want to take issue. I really think that we should be looking at alternatives other than more cars going back and forth to Vancouver. I am not stating that I want another tunnel just for the sake of it; in fact, I thought I was quite clearly stating that I am not convinced that we want to have more cars going back and forth. If it is decided in the future that we need them, then indeed build a tunnel further east -- not under the Lions Gate Bridge.

The amount of traffic that goes across the bridge at the present time is very low in comparison to other bridges. The member talks about bottlenecks. I don't think the member has gone out on No. 1 or on No. 99 to see what bottlenecks there are. They wait for a fair bit of time. The bottleneck into West Vancouver is not very bad. I travel back and forth on that route a great deal of the time myself. Yes, now and again one has to wait, but I think that if what you're advocating is another lane so that maybe somehow that might be relieved, then I reject that.

I know the opposition Transportation critic has stated that we should have started back in '93 or '94 with cultivating people and getting them ready, so they could have a fourth lane and tolls and all of that sort of thing. We reject that. We don't want more lanes. We need to be looking at other alternatives. I agree that maybe SkyTrain is an alternative as well as more SeaBuses back and forth, but to jump right into having more traffic -- particularly more traffic into the West End. . . . As you know very well, a great deal of that traffic goes into the West End and goes through the West End to UBC, as you used to, and causes quite a problem; whereas if you're going to West Van and North Van, that's not the same thing.

I think the decision that the government has made is the best one for the time. I certainly will be urging my government to look at other alternatives to cars -- as I say, SkyTrains and so on -- in the future. But I think that we have a winner here, and it has certainly been accepted by a vast majority of people. There are just a few on the opposition benches who are saying that they want to have more traffic into Vancouver. Everyone else is saying, "No, let's keep it where it is," and it's not that high where it is.

With those remarks, I'll sit down before the red light this time.

Deputy Speaker: That completes private members' statements.

Hon. D. Streifel: I call the summary of estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as completed in Section A.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD

I said at the beginning of these debates that we have a number of important issues facing British Columbia in the area of agriculture. The most compelling issue is the agriculture financial safety net. The minister himself has said that he wishes to develop an agricultural safety net that works.

I'm prepared to take him at his word and trust that we will receive copies of the review currently underway regarding the whole financial program for farmers, including crop insurance, whole farm insurance, loan guarantees and NISA. This is one of the critical components of sustaining agriculture in this province and living up to the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission when it was established, which is to support the agriculture community. The minister has a ten-point action plan underway, and I would like to congratulate him on this initiative. I hope to review this process with him at a later date.

Issues relating to the agrifood industry. We've discussed the effects of free trade and GATT, marketing boards, the issue of supply management and the issue of regulation and taxes. The fact is that the minister said there is a payoff by releasing producers from unnecessary regulations. I hope the minister also lives up to this quote. The minister said, in his own words, that he has promised a plan to fight back to preserve the B.C. processing industry, an industry where we have recently seen a mass exodus from the province of hundreds and hundreds of jobs. We are anxious to see what the plan means in the days and months ahead as we see more and more processing plants moving to Alberta.

The issue of the agricultural land reserve. There is no doubt that pressure on farmland in terms of subdivision will be markedly reduced if we continue to support and sustain agriculture as a growing and lucrative industry in this province. It's just that simple. We have an obligation to the farmer-producers to help them help themselves. If we do not take significant steps in sustaining production and processing, then there will be no need to preserve farmland because we won't have any farmers left.

I look forward to the industry review, which, according to the minister, is due for completion in the next few months. This issue is also critical and deserves our immediate attention. As we have a select standing committee on agriculture established in principle, I would like to suggest to the minister that he activate this committee to review and raise the profile of agriculture in this province.

Hon. Speaker, I'd like to mention that again, because I think it's very important. If we're going to work to raise the

[ Page 8415 ]

It is clear that many of these issues are not going away. They will continue to demand our attention, and solutions must be found if we're going to protect the agriculture industry in B.C. I agree with the minister in his thinking that many of the solutions must come from the industry itself, but it's also critical -- as I mentioned earlier, about regulations and red tape -- that government offers real help and not hindrances to the process.

I do want the minister to know that I'm not without sympathy for the challenges facing the ministry and the industry at this time. Having said that, there is no doubt that we will have to disagree on some occasions. I believe that while we share some common goals, there are some differences in the way we approach things. It is true that our philosophies are fundamentally different. That difference is measured in our approach to management. . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time has expired.

B. Barisoff: . . .and in the kinds of solutions we bring forward.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to let the member finish whatever he had to say.

Deputy Speaker: On agreement by all members in the House, please conclude, member.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, minister. I appreciate that. I've just got to find where we were.

It is true that our philosophy is fundamentally different, and that difference is measured in our approach to management and the kinds of solutions we bring to those problems. Philosophically, it is clear that this government has an obligation to support the objectives of union and labour organizers. Unfortunately, this has proven to be a very costly approach for farmers. I believe that we have seen the effects of the regulation and an inflexible Labour Code on our agrifood industry. Success in this industry is better accomplished when we see an investment climate that fosters growth through free enterprise and one that is not overburdened with red tape and regulation. That should be our common goal, and I hope that we can all work towards that end.

It is my intention to continue to consult with the minister and his staff, and I would like to thank them for their offer of assistance in this regard. I would also like to continue to encourage the minister and this government to consult with the constituents. We have seen too much fallout in this province from a government that's not listening -- one which acts now and consults later. There have been times when this government has changed its position, but very often it has been the fact that the public is losing trust and confidence as a result. This might be avoided in many cases if there were a thorough consultation with all members of this House.

[11:15]

Hon. C. Evans: I wanted to allow the member opposite to conclude his remarks because we don't often get a chance to talk about agriculture in here, and we don't often get to find out what one another thinks. I actually think we should cut each other a little slack to finish a thought, especially when a member in this House is willing to take a philosophical position and talk about what he thinks actually drives the industry.

Before I get to that, though, let's talk a little bit about the changes in the ministry that we discussed in estimates. This year we took apart the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we made the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Also, there was a cabinet shuffle on this side and a critic shuffle on that side. We got a new Minister of Fisheries and a new critic on the other side. As far as I'm concerned, I got the best of the deal because I got to keep being the Minister of Agriculture, and I quite like the job, the ministry, the staff, and the client group. As the member opposite pointed out, yesterday was quite a wonderful day. For the first time in ten years, we got all those people together -- staff, opposition, government and producers in the gallery -- and started what I hope will be a tradition of bringing this industry to the light of day and talking about its contribution to the economy and its needs for the future.

I want to welcome the new opposition critic and say that I quite enjoyed estimates. I quite enjoyed the discussion, and I think we'll work well together.

But now we've got a couple of minutes. . . . The critic suggests that what we really need is free enterprise to make this thing work. I think it's about time we got down to what people actually believe in, because there's a problem with agriculture. In this portfolio, everybody believes in farming. Even if they get up in the morning in their condo in West Van, they go driving and as soon as it turns green, they say: "This is farming; this is good; this is healthy; this is the country. My great-grandparents used to live like this." They're driving in their car, and they say: "I believe in this." Some of us even come into these chambers, where we're supposed to try and figure out how to manage society, and we still have the same attitude. We just say: "Oh yeah, farming is good."

We don't actually talk about what makes this thing work or not work. The member opposite says that he thinks it's free enterprise. Unfortunately, in estimates we didn't have any real philosophical discussions like that, and unfortunately, in question period we never get any questions like that. So we don't get down to: where are we really coming from? We don't actually cut to the chase. The men and women over there, hon. Chair, are Liberals or federal Reformers. I'm a New Democrat.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: Well, I'm not really sure. I don't mean to be insulting. I kind of thought it was true. They are Liberals or Reformers, and I'm a New Democrat.

Now, the folks over there are the ideological, philosophical allies of the folks who brought in, let's say, the free trade agreement and drove that agenda, and brought in the GATT and drove that agenda, and killed feed freight assistance and changed forever what we used to define Canada as -- killed

[ Page 8416 ]

But the irony is that it's the folks on this side who are actually trying to manage agriculture in the new world with the rules set by the guys on that side. The critic says: "What it needs is free enterprise."

I read Adam Smith; I read that book, Wealth of Nations. Did you? Did you notice in that book that the author -- the invisible-hand guy, the guy you guys love to quote -- said that free enterprise means it's actually free, that you don't have huge corporations that can wipe out the competition in a moment? He actually said that the role of government is to make sure that free enterprise is free.

We are now operating in a global economy brought in by the Fraser Institute friends of the folks over there, hon. critic, that took away anything that's free about agriculture. You now have those jobs that you're bemoaning, saying that they're all leaving because of the union workers and the labour government. Nonsense. What is happening, hon. critic, is that your friends -- I'm not blaming you; maybe you had to do it -- changed all the rules.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. C. Evans: Ah, through the Chair.

Those good folks' friends changed all the rules. And it's true that there might be companies moving to Alberta. It's also true that Maple Leaf Foods in Edmonton. . . . What did they do? They bashed those workers in Edmonton, closed the plant forever and moved them to Ontario. And in Ontario, what did they say to the workers? "You work for $9 an hour, or we'll take this plant and put it in South Carolina."

Those are the rules that the folks over there put in place, affecting not just British Columbia but this whole country -- this world. And we're attempting to manage it. Tommy Douglas used to say that in order for the government to function, there had to be a functioning opposition. So it is time. . . . In estimates, QP -- I don't care where you do it -- you've got to some day stand up and say: "How do you see this thing working in the rules that your friends put in place?" The folks over here are trying to figure it out.

It's true that 1,200 jobs have moved east in the last three years. It's also true, quiet as it's kept, that 3,600 new jobs have sprung up in British Columbia in food processing. Now, what kind of jobs are those, hon. critic? Do you know anything about those jobs? Have you thought about the fact that maybe what's happening is that now that we're working in this new world that your pals have put in there, we're going to have to change a little bit? In that change, this side and that side are going to have to say what they believe in.

We're going to do that through the development of an agrifood policy over the course of the rest of this year. It behooves everybody sitting over here and everybody sitting over there to figure out what "policy" means. If you believe in free enterprise, hon. critic, help us make it free. If what you mean by free enterprise is the great, big international Cargill corporate sector eating the little guy in British Columbia, hon. critic, that ain't free. That may be capitalism, but that ain't free. If you think that we can build a kind of free enterprise that supports the family farm, the little guy, the British Columbia producer in the world that you built, then give us a hand, because I'm all with you. That's what we're going to try and do.

But don't mess with me by saying it's the regulatory regime, it's the trade unions, it's the nasty workers and all that. The world is changing, and you've got to start now, saying what side you're on and how you are going to make it work. I hope that in estimates next year we can actually have a real discussion, and not just the nice stuff that we've been doing thus far. The time has come to say what side you're on.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I call presentation of reports.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

Law Clerk:

"June 4, 1998. Hon. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: that the preamble to Bill Pr 401, intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; that the preamble to Bill Pr 402, intituled Victoria Foundation Amendment Act, 1998, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Tim Stevenson, Chairperson."

T. Stevenson: By leave I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401 and Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I call summary of my estimates, the Ministry of Human Resources.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

I'd like to start by thanking the minister and her staff for the briefing and the assistance and support they provided to me and to our staff as we were preparing for the estimates and working through them. We discovered that both sides of this House agree that the best public policy, the best social policy, and the best response to the demands on our welfare system, our social safety net, is a job. We know that 70 percent of the people in this province receiving B.C. Benefits are employable and that the vast majority of those do want jobs.

[ Page 8417 ]

The basis of any successful, comprehensive welfare policy must be a healthy job-creating economy, yet this year's provincial budget projects an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. Today Statistics Canada announced that B.C.'s unemployment rate is 9.7 percent -- the highest rate west of Quebec and a full 4 percent higher than the rate in Alberta.

Our modest gains, set against an inflated welfare base, suggest that we have yet to embark on comprehensive welfare reform -- reform which must be combined with a revitalized economy in order to be effective. Our economy seems to be out of sync with the rest of North America, and until we are able to correct that, no amount of change in our policy will have the impact that we want it to have. The provision of positive options, the ability to assist the over 70 percent of people on our welfare rolls who really want training that will lead to actual jobs. . . . We need change in the economy to affect our social policy.

[11:30]

In British Columbia we have led the way in welfare reform in this country. In 1996 we introduced a very far-reaching, farsighted, progressive package of reforms called B.C. Benefits. That package of reforms recognized that since we first introduced welfare and then GAIN in this province, in fact the clientele -- the British Columbians who are using this system -- have changed in nature. We've gone from a caseload of 15 or 20 years ago where people primarily were unable to work for one reason or another to today's, where approximately 70 percent of the people on assistance are in fact able to work, willing to work and want to work.

The member opposite, the critic, raised a number of points. One was the growth in the caseload in British Columbia, and I want to address that for just a moment as we wrap up. There was indeed a significant rise in the caseload in British Columbia, and that was due to a number of things. One of them was the fact that provinces like Alberta and Ontario brought in punitive welfare reforms such as workfare, where people had to pick up a shovel in order to get the basic subsistence for living. It wasn't like B.C. Benefits, where we provide people with basic training and job placement or the opportunity to go on to advanced education, based on their interests, abilities and skills; it was, in effect, punitive workfare. The result of that was that for a significant length of time, at the same time as British Columbia was receiving the biggest cuts of any province from the federal Liberals, from the federal government -- endorsed and supported by the members opposite, who also called for deeper cuts in health, education and social assistance payments from the federal government. . . .

At the same time, other provinces passed through their cuts, added more of their own and went into punitive welfare. That meant that for a significant length of time we had up to 2,200 people a month coming to British Columbia to escape from those punitive policies, primarily from Alberta and Ontario. That did increase our welfare rolls; there's no question. We have dealt with some of that, but it certainly put an excessive burden on British Columbia.

I believe the members opposite have the graphs and charts in their possession that show that at the same time the federal government was cutting our income assistance share -- the moneys that they owe to British Columbians, to Canadians, so that they can move around this country. . . . At the same time they were dramatically, drastically cutting those payments, they also rearranged unemployment insurance. When their caseload of people on unemployment insurance -- or employment insurance now -- dropped dramatically, there's a mirror image where those same people are now on income assistance. Of course we had a bulge in the caseload in British Columbia.

We have changed the system. We have brought in a very comprehensive, progressive package of reforms and supports that move from an archaic system that was passive, that trapped people on welfare and in poverty, to one that assists people to move from welfare to work. Hon. Speaker, I am proud to say that in the two years these training programs and supports -- such as child care, the family bonus, B.C. Healthy Kids and the kinds of supports that people need -- have been in place, we have seen the most dramatic decline in the caseload of social assistance recipients in British Columbia in 20 years. That is significant and important; it's an indicator of our success.

We have in the last two years seen approximately 73,000 British Columbians move from welfare to work or into training opportunities. British Columbia, it's worth noting, is the only province in Canada where people engaged in post-secondary learning are on the increase rather than the decrease. We stand alone because of the things our government is doing to make post-secondary education increasingly more accessible. So there are 73,000 fewer people who have to depend on income assistance, and that is significant.

I want to point, too, to our job creation record. We are countercyclical in B.C. We had a boom here while the rest of the country was in recession. Our economy has slowed, while their commodities have meant that their economies have grown. So we are countercyclical, there's no question. When the markets improve, so will the number of jobs in British Columbia. But between 1990 and 1997, employment in all of Canada grew 5.9 percent. In B.C. it grew by 18 percent; that is significant. We obviously are working very hard to continue to create jobs in British Columbia, in cooperation and partnership with the private sector. So we have done well. We had more than one-third of all the new jobs in Canada between 1990 and 1997. Although we are in a slower part of our business cycle today, there is significant work happening.

Hon. Speaker, I want to point to one thing. The members opposite quite rightly say that in order to alleviate poverty we

[ Page 8418 ]

We in British Columbia have led the way in the fight against child poverty. We've had what's been called a quiet revolution going on in British Columbia for the last two years. The net effect of the B.C. family bonus, which provides up to $103 per child per month; plus the $121 million a year we spend in child care subsidies; plus the B.C. Healthy Kids program, which offers free dental and optical to children under 19. . . . Those programs affect 42 percent of the families in British Columbia. The net effect of those has been that poverty in families in British Columbia has been reduced by 19 percent in just two years; that is significant. It's been reduced for single parents by 25.5 percent in two years; that is significant.

We have a long way to go, but in British Columbia we are leading the country. Every British Columbian should take pride in that fact. I want to close with saying that the work that we've done in British Columbia has been recognized across this country and beyond. In fact, the B.C. family bonus is the model for the national child benefit that's coming in on July 1. They have looked at what we're doing here in British Columbia; they've seen the success. To its credit, the federal government is beginning to contribute, to take that program across the country. All children in Canada will benefit from that -- from the work that we've done in British Columbia. I'm very proud of that, as all members of our government are.

Again, I thank the critic and the members opposite for a good debate.

Hon. Speaker, I now call the summary of the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY

I'd like to start with the Stopping the Violence programs. Primarily, they're centred around the transition house programs. This is the second-stage housing, safe homes that provide temporary housing in a safe and secure environment for women and their families leaving abusive relationships.

I think that all members of the House -- and certainly we had a very good debate on this particular issue -- agree that preventing violence, breaking the cycle of violence, protecting and enforcing the various orders that are available, the support services and crisis intervention for women leaving abusive relationships are extremely important.

We talked about the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy of the Attorney General and the fact that there are some very large gaps in that particular policy: there needs to be constant response and coordination in applying the policy; there need to be discretionary practices of the police, which have been identified as a problem area. . .the role of dispatch; lack of coordination of the K-file system; the availability of police willing to assist women; Crown and police relationships with victim-serving agencies; and the dual-charging policy used by the abuser to manipulate victims. These are all issues that we have discussed and that the minister needs to take a stronger stand on and a stronger role with the Attorney General on in making sure that this particular policy is in fact serving the women of British Columbia.

The whole issue around the violence programs impacts very much on the justice system. Not only did the Attorney General's policy come under discussion but also the closure of the courthouses and how that impacts on women who are looking for various orders -- the fact that many of them have transportation difficulties in getting to regional centres with small children travelling on public transportation. These issues were discussed, as well, and are what the minister needs to address.

The Provincial Court backlog is an area that I think there needs to be much more discussion around. Provincial Court Judge Metzger's report clearly shows what he feels: the courts are in crisis. People making maintenance applications in family court wait for months. I just had a phone call this morning from a member of my constituency, and they tell me that in order to challenge apprehensions of the Ministry for Children and Families, they are now waiting a year in Surrey; there is now a backlog of a year in Surrey. This is unconscionable. Parents are going to have to wait for a year to get a court date to challenge the apprehensions of the Ministry for Children and Families. This is an issue that has to be addressed.

The other area that deals with the justice system is protection orders. The Attorney General and the Minister of Women's Equality made a presentation on the improvements they are making to this registry. But again, what the Minister of Women's Equality and I debated, along with the Attorney General, is that women are being given a false sense of security by this registry. These orders must be reported, but they must also be enforced. There has been example after example after example, particularly this year, of the fact that many of these orders are not enforced. Therefore it doesn't matter if they're on the registry or not; they're not worth the paper they are written on.

Legal aid restrictions is another area that has caused women a great deal of difficulty. Low-income women don't qualify, and I know the Minister of Women's Equality realizes that a lot of low-income women have difficulty accessing the court system. Many of them cannot pay and end up representing themselves in the court system, and this in turn contributes to the backlog, because judges are reluctant to make orders without these women having representation. So on and on it goes.

The contract reforms that the ministry has brought forward around the development of program standards, organizational standards and the ministry accountability system have been extremely beneficial. All other provinces in the country have them, so it's pleasing to see that the ministry is finally coming forward and making sure that it is accountable.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like again to take this moment to thank my critic, the member for Langley. Although we sit on opposite sides, I believe that we do share the end goal, and that is equality for women. What we mostly disagree upon is how to get there.

It is a pleasure to wrap up the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. I'm going to take just a moment to share a few things that we are doing within the ministry. Our government has been working -- as the member opposite has alluded to -- very hard to respond to the issues of violence against women. We have developed a strong network of transition houses, safe homes and second-stage houses, which

[ Page 8419 ]

[11:45]

One thing we have come to realize, though, is that despite our efforts around supporting the survivors of abuse and despite the work around being strong and tough on the perpetrators of crime, it is up to our community -- not just the ministry or the government -- to take on the ownership of prevention of violence against women and children.

When I think of preventing violence against women, I think of changing the way our society works. I think of changing the attitudes and behaviours which lead to violence against women, and I think of challenging the social structure and conditions that allow violence to occur. This is the goal of our ministry. Throughout the year, we will be dedicated to engaging the community around issues of prevention of violence in a much more proactive way.

With that, I'd like to say again to my critic that I appreciate the work she has put into her role as critic. It gives me pleasure to wrap up my estimates.

Hon. S. Hammell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:47 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada