Hansard -- Monday, September 19, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 1, No. 8 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Private Members' Statements		125
	Crystal meth
	R. Hawes
	M. Karagianis
	Support to families
	N. Simons
	H. Bloy
	Social innovation
	G. Hogg
	A. Dix
	Seniors housing
	D. Routley
	K. Whittred

Motions on Notice		133
	Human Rights Commission (Motion 3)
	R. Chouhan
	J. Yap
	H. Bains
	D. Chudnovsky
	M. Polak
	D. Hayer

R. Hawes: It's my pleasure today to kick off, I guess, our first private members' statement. Today I am going to speak about a threat to all of our communities, and that's the onslaught of crystal meth. Last spring I spoke in the House here and sponsored a motion to do with crystal meth. Since that time, this dreaded drug has continued to ravage our communities, destroy our kids and destroy families all over this province.

On Saturday I had an occasion to speak with Shelley O'Connor. She's the mother of a young man named Shane O'Connor, who died a couple of years ago with one incidence of using crystal meth. After quite a psychotic event, he died. That's how serious this is.

Mercedes-Rae Clarke is a 13-year-old grade nine student right here in Oak Bay — at Oak Bay high school — who died just a couple of weeks ago thinking that she was ingesting Ecstasy, which is not a harmless drug but clearly laced with crystal meth. She died, and there are other instances of kids around our province and adults that have died using this drug.

I did speak also on the weekend with Ed Auersperg. He's an internist at the Ridge Meadows Hospital, and he knows that more and more kids are being admitted into the emergency room. In fact, he mentioned that he's got one now on life-support systems in Maple Ridge, a young person whose life has been snatched away by using this poisonous drug.

For those who don't really know much about crystal meth, this is a drug that's manufactured using a whole combination of poisons. You almost wonder why anyone would think about ingesting this. It's based with pseudoephedrine from cold medication, but lithium batteries, household lye, acetone, red phosphorous…. All of these are things that are used in the manufacture of crystal meth. Unfortunately, it can be made in a bathtub with very little equipment — rudimentary stuff — and it's happening in communities all over British Columbia — the manufacture.

As we all know, this is absolutely deadly stuff in terms of its explosiveness. It puts communities at risk. The weekend showed us, with the recent busts in Richmond, that there are big labs running in homes in this province. Luckily some of them are being caught, but there are small ones.

There are small ones in apartment buildings and in basement suites and in many places in this province that are very difficult to detect. The more of those that you have, you know…. There's clearly no quality control with this stuff. So the poisonous aspect of this drug is prevalent throughout all of the manufacture of this. That's part of what really kills our kids.

The other thing with crystal meth is that it's so cheap to manufacture and its street value is so low that it's easy to get kids trapped into it. Those that are manufacturing it often will cut other drugs with crystal meth. So a $200 flap of cocaine cut with crystal meth will yield two $200 flaps of what will be sold as cocaine but will be predominantly crystal meth, and it's far more highly addictive than crystal meth.

The question is: what do we do about this? Well, the provincial government isn't going to come with a solution, nor is the federal government, nor is any municipality. This is a problem that involves all of us, and it takes the building of partnerships. That's how you solve the problem of crystal meth.

It takes the community coming together with the provincial government, the federal government, the school boards and service clubs and just individuals in every community. And every community is slightly different, so it takes individual solutions in each community. That's why I'm so proud of what's been going on in Maple Ridge and in Mission in my riding.

In Maple Ridge, the Ridge Meadows Rotary recognized the problem, and they began seeking a solution. The first thing that they knew that had to happen was a community meeting. So a big community meeting was set, and from that the people who attended became really aware of the problem and task forces were formed. There was a task force for education, for treatment and one for the policing aspects.

It has been incredibly effective in Maple Ridge. It was led actually by a fellow named Gord Robson in Maple Ridge. He now is going out across the province in community after community running the same sort of forum to get those communities started. Frankly, what happens at those meetings is it scares the pants off all of the people who attend. It shocks them and galvanizes them into action, and it creates a real desire in those communities to build task forces to deal with the problem on a community level.

In Mission a similar forum was held, again run by Gord Robson and sponsored by Fraser House drug and alcohol treatment centre. That forum started a task force in Mission. From that task force there have been a number of spinoffs and a program developed in Mission. I just want to feature one part of that: the educational component.

In Mission there has been a full education strategy put in place that involves the school board. It was put in place by a person named Angela Marshall, who works for Fraser House drug and alcohol treatment centre, and it has been noted as being the best educational program for crystal meth in the province. It's very simple. It tells parents what to look out for; it tells

teachers what to look out for. It tells students and kids what can happen to them.

I want to speak some more about this, but I am looking forward to the remarks from a responder from the opposition. I will conclude my remarks after those comments.

M. Karagianis: Thank you to the previous speaker for leading into my comments. Certainly, I would agree entirely with the comments the previous speaker has made in outlining crystal meth and its very destructive nature. It's currently a very destructive and invasive trend among the young people of our communities. This actually follows on a trend that we've seen over the last number of years.

A few years ago it was crack cocaine that was also a very destructive and epidemic drug trend among young people. In the case of the tainted Ecstasy that resulted in the death of one of our children, I think there's a call to action for all of us here to pay very close attention and to look at some solutions.

I know that here in this community, Ruth and Mark McLaughlin started the crystal meth society as a result of a tragic experience with their own child. It's incumbent on us, as one of the partners in looking for solutions to this, to look to communities across North America for some guidance.

I think Maple Ridge has done a terrific job of increasing awareness on this, looking at how we get education out to young people and looking at how we coordinate with enforcement departments. But more than anything, we have to look at real, sustainable solutions here on rehabilitation. At this time identifying that the drug is out there, how it's made and how insidious and dangerous it is, is not enough. We need to put in place more than just policing and preventative measures in education. We need to put some real measures in place to deal with those who are addicted, because that's where the problem will continue to grow and to eat away at our society.

Rehabilitation is one aspect of this that we have not paid enough attention to. Over the last number of years we have seen consistently that programs and funding have been cut to resources that would help and assist in setting up a full rehabilitation program here. We realize that the success rates of rehabilitation at this time are very low, but for example, we only have five beds here on Vancouver Island for rehabilitation, so I'm not sure we have a way of accurately gauging how rehabilitation can or cannot be successful.

The United Nations has identified that for every $1 we spend on rehabilitation, we will save $7 in crime prevention, health care and the social costs that go along with not rehabilitating all of these drug users. So I think it's very important for us to make sure that we put the resources and trained staff in place to actually deal with rehabilitation and the effects of this drug addiction. All the education and policing in the world is fine, but if we don't get these addicts rehabilitated, then they will go out and continue to be the criminals and the health care users and will drain the system and drain the energies.

I think it's important that we do all work together, but that we do it effectively. I want to see money, resources and staff put into rehabilitation, if we're really going to fight this lethal disease that's happened in our society.

R. Hawes: I can't disagree with what the hon. member was saying. I can't speak for the whole province, because I'm not familiar with what's happening in parts other than where I live. I know the Fraser Health Authority is trying to address the problem with building new rehab beds and detox beds. There are a number of them being built in Surrey and in Chilliwack to address that region.

However, I don't agree with the hon. member that the big deal is rehab. I happen to think that the big solution for us is education. I think of the words that the regional health officer for Fraser Health gave the legislative standing committee some years ago. The statement he made, which is a well-known statement, was: "We spend too much time pulling people out of the river and not enough time stopping them from falling in, in the first place." That's what education is all about.

We've got to get our kids understanding…. They need to understand the implication of the use of this drug. They need to understand that there are those out there who would prey on them and suck them into a life on this drug, and we need to get those people who would do that removed from our society. They are not drug addicts; they are profiteers. Frankly, they are murderers who are out there killing our kids, and we need stiff, harsh penalties for them. We need an education program that keeps our kids away from this drug and lets them know exactly what's going to happen to them.

I believe that the program that's put together by Fraser House is a very good example of what this does. In Mission, grade four kids are exposed to two hours on crystal meth. For grades six and seven, it's a repeat event. By the time they start entering high school, they've already had hours of instruction on how to avoid this drug, what it does to you, and they're very familiar with it. I think that's the way to go. It also educates parents, and parents need to be aware — acutely aware — of what their kids are doing and the changes in their behaviour that will result from the use of this and other drugs.

Education is absolutely the key to the future. We do need more rehab beds. We do need better treatment for those who are, unfortunately, addicted, but the long-term solution lies in education.

I know that we are dedicated. I know that the Solicitor General, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education are working today to put together a provincial strategy that I know will work for us and will build those partnerships so that it's not just…. People needn't look to the provincial government, or they shouldn't. They need to look at their own community,

and we need to be partners with them. We need to assist them and show them the kinds of programs that are going to safeguard our kids, and I know that is what's coming.

While there's bad news that this drug is still out there in big, big numbers, the good news is that there are programs coming that will make things better. Thank you very much for your time.

I also want to thank the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, as well as my friend the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, for the considered thought they put to the issue of crystal meth. Obviously, it's a concern to so many of us, whether we're urban or rural communities. This drug is like no other that we've seen in this province. I worry about its effect, and I worry about the fact that once it's used, it can often have irreparable damage, and it's too late to do anything about it.

What I'm here to talk about today is an issue that I believe is fundamental to our society's health and our role in supporting children and families. Ultimately, what comes even earlier in the development of the problem about drug use and drug abuse is how we support families — how we as a society put families and the strength of families as our number-one objective.

Let me begin by saying that I truly believe that every member in this House, every member opposite — I guess that includes those who aren't opposite but are over here — is as concerned about our communities and the health of our communities and families as any of us. What I would like to suggest at this time, while we are apparently in this — I'll get the slogan right — glittering gold, globs of gold decade, is that we have an opportunity to take full advantage of this apparent wealth to truly make a long-term strategy, to develop a long-term strategy for the strengthening and supporting of families in this province.

I don't want to suggest that we are interested in making British Columbia the best place to raise a child, because that implies, in my opinion, that raising children is a competition. Really, what we're all most interested in is making sure that we have a healthy place to raise children. What I'm suggesting is that we develop, if at all possible, maybe even in a bipartisan way, a well-planned approach to addressing the issues facing families in British Columbia.

Programs that are put in place to create healthy families should be, in my opinion, protected from massive restructuring, massive budget cuts, political interference and sudden change, just for the benefit of the stability of programs that are designed to protect families. Programs for children and families should be stable and have predictable funding. They shouldn't be artificially fragmented to create new ministries of state. Fragmentation of programs for families does not make sense philosophically. It is not considered a best practice by any measure, and in the long run — and I know this is the priority of this government — it doesn't make sense financially.

It's clear when it comes to social programs that you either pay a little now or you pay a lot later. We all know that even from looking at the issue of crystal meth. If we look at preventative programs, we know that ultimately we are saving costs in incarcerating people and treating them for perhaps mental illness or crime.

So I'd like to just maybe discuss a few programs that we need to implement and support and encourage in order to make sure that our children are nurtured. Some families, unfortunately, do need help making sure that they raise healthy children, and it starts with our need as a government. I believe it's the role of government, and I'm including the opposition in this because looking after children shouldn't really be a partisan affair. We need to make sure that when children are born, they're born healthy and that they're born into a supportive environment.

I will commend this government for beginning to address the issue of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I think that's a huge issue for all segments of our population.

Another concern of mine, when it comes to families' needs for assistance, is income security and food security. It's not an issue we talk about. It doesn't have its own lobby group. It doesn't often get the attention it really requires or deserves. But it's very clear to anybody with an ounce of common sense that the welfare rates, and I won't call it something else… It's welfare. It could be income assistance. It changed a few times while I was in the ministry, and I was only there for nine months. I don't think it really helps to have a euphemism for it. It's welfare, and it's woefully inadequate for any person to live at even the most basic existence on the amount provided under the welfare system in this province.

You can be absolutely sure that most people on welfare will require food banks or soup kitchens or other supplements to their income just to get by, just to get through the month. You can be sure that many of the families accessing food banks or living on welfare have children — children who see their parents suffering, children who see other children with adequate lunches at school. I see these children. I've seen them for the last ten years or 15 years of my career. They come to my office.

I know when I see poverty. It is incumbent on this government, and it is incumbent on us as the opposition, to ensure that child poverty and supporting fami-

lies, both economically and through programs that are effective and measurable, are put into place in this province.

I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll be told that welfare rolls are down and that employment is up. I would just like to say that the statistics I've seen indicate that British Columbia has seen the most dramatic increase in the use of food banks in this country in the last year. I'm afraid the only word for that is shameful. I know that word comes up a lot, not necessarily because of the members opposite but because of some of the programs that were perhaps implemented with a lack of vision.

N. Simons: Oh, that's what the red light means. I was going to learn that later.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for his comments. For myself and for the government, we want to see every child in this province looked after. We want the best opportunities for every citizen in this province. We want them to have every opportunity that they see for a better future. It's up to all of us to work in this House in a non-partisan way to make that happen.

I'm really proud to have been part of the government over the last four years and been re-elected and coming back in. As part of our great goals for a golden decade, number three was to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. That is something that we worked at over the last four years, and we have a number of accomplishments in that area. By any measure, taxation, social, health, housing and employment are the steps that our government took over the past four years to improve support for families, and we will continue to build upon these supports over the next four years.

First, I want to talk about something that happened this weekend in response to people with special needs. The Minister of Education made an announcement on Sunday that we're now going to provide 100 percent funding for children with special needs. These are children in private institutions. The one that's in my riding is called Variety Learning Centre, a mediated learning centre.

When I spoke to the parents there about this announcement, they were ecstatic. There were tears; there were smiles. I even got a hug from the principal, if you can imagine that, as well as parents. They were so thrilled with this announcement, because now parents have choice for what's best for their child. Not every situation is perfect, so you have to let the parents have that choice. They were so ecstatic — and the students. I believe this is a wonderful announcement for the province and children with special needs.

When we look into how we have helped…. You talked about it's the lowest unemployment rate in Canada. Yes, it's the lowest taxation in Canada. We do these great things, yet some people just don't seem to make that minimum line. So how do we help them?

One of the reasons I ran for office when I was first elected was truly to help those most in need. Where is that level? I know in our past budget we made a number of references to increasing the minimum lines, trying to help those people most in need.

It's a special sector that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast talks about. As a former social worker, he's well aware, and being in the field, he sees this on a daily basis. I look forward to his contribution to the House to find that assistance that's required there.

I do have to talk about some of the things our government has done to help children and families. We've increased the monthly amount that persons with disabilities can earn without a penalty. This year we're up to $500 for those that are able to work on a part-time basis, as a start. For people with persistent and multiple disabilities, we've increased the amount of money they can earn on a part-time basis. We've expanded access to speech pathology for special needs children in B.C.

Another important area for people with special needs children is the respite they require to get that break from their family, and we've increased the funding there. I know how much it's appreciated from the families I talk to in my riding.

There's another area we can look at. Our plan with the declining enrolment in British Columbia is to look at some of the schools we have and start to open up these schools so that they become not community schools but more of a community centre. Maybe there's a health structure we can get into some of the empty classrooms we have, so the school becomes the real centre of the community, and we can address many needs within that one facility for the children that go there, especially in the economically challenged areas of our province.

There's $76 million to provide universal access to hearing screening, sight testing and dental health for all children under six, which is a great start, so that our children are prepared for school. If they need any further assistance, we're there to help them with it, and we're identifying it at an earlier age.

N. Simons: Thank you to the member for Burquitlam for his words. I, too, recognize when a government does make positive steps. I can't help but sometimes be a little bit cynical after seeing the massive cuts that preceded these reinvestments. I would only like for government to recognize that this lack of consistent and sustainable funding is really at the core of the problems facing people working with children and families.

I recognize that time goes at a different speed when you're standing in this House, but I would like to say, before I run out of time, that if you look at the most vulnerable children in this province, Madam Speaker, the most vulnerable children in this province are those who are at risk in their family. Nowhere have cuts been more severe and more hurtful to families than to those at risk of abuse and neglect.

I would just like to point out, despite the fact that I will point out the positives in the government's move towards helping families, that when I see corporate income tax cut before family services are re-funded, I'm a bit ashamed of the government's priorities, to put it mildly. I would like to see…. Perhaps we will get beyond this at some point and look for a comprehensive, long-term plan, not only for child care and early childhood learning — those should be together and integrated — but for longer strategies for families that include the broadest holistic approach to ensuring that families are supported.

G. Hogg: I think each of us in this House at some point turns our mind to what type of society, what type of community, what type of world we want to live in. As we do that, we look at what the pieces are that we are able to talk about through legislation or policy — our belief systems within our communities that help us lead to what that type of world might be. Certainly, as we look at that, I think most of us want to live in the type of world that is inclusive, a type of world that accepts people not for the deficits each of us has, but for the gifts that each of us brings. I think that social isolation is probably the worst form of discrimination that exists. We want to look at ways that we can be inclusive in terms of addressing the needs of people as they move forward.

Certainly, Robert Putnam, in his seminal piece of work and the man who made popular the notion of social capital, talked about the dramatic changes that happened societally over a century ago. He said that we used to be able to make decisions where we came together in small communities, and everyone got together and were able to make decisions that were good for the communities and move forward.

When we had immigration, industrialization and urbanization, a lot of that changed. We didn't have the same type of connectedness that started to exist. He says that in North America in particular we started to adapt to that, to respond to it by developing and having a number of service organizations. So we look at the development of our service organizations. Virtually all of them — Kiwanis, Rotary, Elks clubs, Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, 4-H clubs — were formed between about 1885 and 1910 in an effort to, again, find a way for social capital to come to the forefront, to help us deal with the disconnectedness that started to happen about that time.

There was a great growth in the participation of those, which happened up until about the 1950s. Then there was a drop-off of that. Putnam postulates that part of that has come as a result of the suburbanization that's happening now and some of the issues with suburbanization — what happens with the isolation that comes from computers and being locked into games, so being isolated within the context of a broader community.

He looks at ways that we might again start coming together to find ways that we can have that type of social interaction, social capital being the relationships that exist between people and communities and the ability of those relationships to effect change. He talks about the need for doing that. Some of the work that's being done around the world now and the notion of social enterprise or social capital and building on that, I think, respond to what might be some of the things that Putnam referred to as we go into this century and looking at the needs that exist in this century.

Gregory Dees, who's the entrepreneur-in-residence at the Kaufman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, says the idea of social entrepreneurship has struck a responsive chord. It is a phrase well-suited to our times. It combines the passion of social mission with an image of businesslike discipline, innovation and determination commonly associated with, for instance, the high-tech pioneers of Silicon Valley.

He says the time is certainly right for entrepreneurial approaches to social problems. Many governmental and philanthropic efforts have fallen far short of our expectations. Major social sector institutions are often viewed as inefficient, ineffective and unresponsive, and social entrepreneurs are needed to develop new models to go into the new century to deal with some of the issues that Putnam refers to. He says that they can become the change agents in the social sector by adopting a mission to create and sustain social values, not just private value; by recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities that serve that mission; by engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning; by acting boldly without being limited by resources in hand and exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes realized. This is clearly an idealized definition, and I think social sector leaders will exemplify characteristics in different ways and to different degrees.

I was interested to find that the federal government, in a report issued in July of this year, which is just a few months ago, started to look at the social economy and ways that might respond to it. In fact, they responded, I believe, by including some reference to it within their budget a year ago and starting to make social entrepreneurs eligible for some of the funding that has more traditionally just gone to the more business-oriented sector. They're suggesting some new approaches in this report. They say that the social economy has proven that community-driven and citizen-led initiatives such as social enterprises are successful mechanisms to address social issues at the local community level. Across Canada social enterprises are proving to be flexible and sustainable tools that help communities achieve social and economic objectives such as job creation and skill development, social supports, sustainable environments, economic growth and neighbourhood revitalization.

The report — in fact, the part I just referenced — was from the Hon. Eleni Bakopanos, who is the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Social Devel-

opment with special emphasis on the social economy. They have even, organizationally, put in place a framework for starting to look at and to deal with this. The highlights or the recommendations that they've come out with in their report say that governments should facilitate the formation of organizations that advance shared common interest and public service objectives.

They say that governments can better support that in five specific areas. One is descriptive research and data development. Second is in regulatory frameworks. Third is when and how governments should find and look for ways to support the social economy, including tools for measuring their impact and best practices for governments within that framework.

In British Columbia we have indeed been blessed with a number of organizations, individuals and people who have shown leadership around the world in the development of service delivery that looks at some pretty commonsense responses to things. These include being able to ask those people in need what type of services they want and getting them engaged in those, rather than a much more paternalistic nature or process which would say, "Here's what our services are, and here's what we're providing to you" — actually engaging people in a way that I think Putnam, in his popularization of the notions of social capital, would be supportive.

I think that as we go forward in facing this new Legislature and some of the monumental challenges we face across this country, including poverty and homelessness and some of the issues previous members have referred to, this is one of the opportunities that we have to look at, perhaps, a new paradigm for starting to address those needs.

A. Dix: This is the first time I've taken part in private members' hour because it's obviously the first time I've been in the House for it.

Just to let people outside the House know what happens, on the Thursday before a member puts forward an idea, they say…. In the case of the hon. member for Surrey–White Rock, he talked about social innovation. Then one of us is asked to respond. Of course, that's a fairly broad topic. I was surprised and delighted that the book I brought over to think about what I was going to say in response was Bowling Alone, which is by Robert Putnam. I'm not sure, and I'll leave it to members to judge whether…. I'm not sure if it's a case of great minds thinking alike or fools seldom differing, but I'll leave other people to judge on that.

One of the important things he talks about in this book — and it's important for us consider in this House when we support community and community development — is that participation in society is an important determinant of how we succeed. In Putnam's book he shows, I think, pretty interestingly and pretty definitively that the more community activity there is in society, the more success that society has in terms of social determinants of health and education. The more clubs we have, the more we do to support each other, the more participants there are in events like the Terry Fox Run that many of us participated in this weekend, the more other factors in society succeed that don't seem directly linked to it but are seemingly linked to it.

I think we have to talk about how it is that we can support businesses — because the hon. member talked about business — that support community development and that, in addition to being successful financially, actually contribute to the community in very specific ways. We face real challenges in this regard.

A lot of people in British Columbia right now are dealing and thinking about the sale of Terasen. Terasen — and its predecessor, B.C. Gas — has been a company in B.C. since it was privatized. It was explicitly a B.C. company. If you compare Terasen — its contribution in the community, its contribution to the arts…. I know as a non-profit executive director that their contribution to some of our community activities was extraordinary.

When you see a company such as Terasen leave the province and its head office head to Houston, I think you begin to worry. The challenge that we all face in losing the benefit of having that company locally, of having the head office of that company and having those people participate in the community…. What we lose, in addition to all those other questions that will be part of the debate, when we lose control of a company such as that and the importance of supporting companies that have their head office and have a true stake in our community…. I think these questions frame, in part, that debate.

I was thinking this weekend as well, as I visited a businessman in my riding. He runs a restaurant called Simply Curries. His name is Vishy. He's like Cher. He has a last name, but he calls himself Vishy. He and his wife Karthy run this business. They employ. They're involved in the local neighbourhood house. Karthy is on the board of the neighbourhood house. Vishy is an active volunteer in the community. He hires a developmentally disabled adult to work in the business. He participates fully in the community.

We have to find ways, I think, when we're making decisions about taxes and other things — and I note in the budget that his business didn't get a tax cut — how we can benefit local entrepreneurs and local businesses that reach out and benefit the community more broadly; how we can make it possible for more businesses to engage with the community living sector, to involve people in the community living sector so that people's lives are fuller.

I know that the hon. member for Surrey–White Rock, who spoke about these issues very eloquently at the Community Living B.C. opening a couple weeks ago — about the importance of involving the whole community in addressing these issues…. I think he'll agree with me about that.

I think these are important issues for us to consider that the hon. member has raised in this parliament: how we can support both local non-profit organizations and local businesses to contribute more broadly to the community, how we can provide incentives to

do that, and how we can ensure that communities themselves are able to decide their own futures in an increasingly globalized world.

G. Hogg: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway for those comments around this issue. He brought forward something else that came to mind in terms of the notion of engagement and how we're engaging our society and Putnam's argument that there's been sort of a reduction in terms of that social engagement and the things that happened with that. As we've been talking in British Columbia, that some of the discourse around the notion of voter participation, as an example…. Putnam, in one of the more recent books than Bowling Alone, argues that we've seen in all of the western democracies…. He says, categorically, there's been a reduction of the participation in terms of the voters. That reduction, he says, follows about ten to 12 years behind what the United States has been doing, in all the western democracies.

He says one of the ways that the sociologists would measure engagement in society has to do with voter participation, with workplace participation — participation in unions, with organizations that exist — and places of worship. He says, ironically perhaps, that the participation rates in all three of those areas have dropped to about the same level. When we start to focus specifically on voter participation, I think that we miss something a bit more broadly based than that. It's about engagement in society that seems to be dropping. There are some real concerns about why that might be happening. It may be a false direction to focus specifically on the notion of voter participation without looking more broadly at what's happening in our community and, indeed, what's happening societally.

I would like to reference one of the seminal thinkers in Canada and perhaps even in the world around the notions of social enterprise. That's Al Etmanski, the founder of PLAN, which is an organization that deals with the developmentally disabled and started with that simple premise: let's engage them in terms of what they want to do and help them become more included in society. He says:

He talks about the social entrepreneurs in B.C., and they're known for being bold visionaries and collaborative across all sectors — public, private and civic — and they're results-oriented and talented at convening people with diverse perspectives and self-reliance.

Some of those in British Columbia include Ken Lyotier and United We Can, the dumpster divers from the downtown east side, who earned revenue by becoming one of the biggest recycling depots in British Columbia, enhancing each individual's self-respect through that process.

He refers to LegaciesNow, which is changing the way in which the Olympics can benefit communities before and after an event, putting practical applications forward with a triple commitment to economic, environmental and social sustainability. He references the Vancouver agreement, with three levels of unprecedented relationship with civic planning.

I recognize, just as the member from across the way has said, that the time runs out. I think it is time for this Legislature to look at some of those big-picture issues and look at some more creative, positive ways…

G. Hogg: …of challenging some of the systemic issues that we have to deal with in our society. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

D. Routley: I'll begin my comments with a bit of a story. In 1971 my grandparents retired to my community and took up residency in a mobile home park very close to our Cowichan River — a very beautiful location. Over those years, as they were still alive — for 20 years — they built friendships, relationships, and they built community in this mobile home park. It's become quite a story around our community, as we have our own little off-hours rush hour. It's called our grey rush hour as the seniors help each other get to and from town and undertake daily activities, like shopping and medical appointments.

There's a great sense of community and a sense of interdependence and empathy for one another. I'm sure that it has resulted in great savings to our province. Many communities like this community result in great savings, because these people are able to support each other and thereby stay in their homes much longer than they might otherwise be able to.

But these small communities and mobile home parks, which have so well supported seniors and their interests, are at risk of conversion because of the very high and inflated real estate market that we witness.

The soaring costs are putting pressure on owners of the parks to convert and subdivide to new housing. This is potentially a great tragedy for these people because, of course, there aren't any new spaces available, and many of the mobile homes themselves are much too old to be moved or cannot reach standards for new parks.

Unfortunately, the government has presented no plan to address this impending crisis of scarcity of stock. The narrow focus we've seen so far on income supplements in order to address housing issues and the unwillingness to listen and be responsive to stake-

holder interests means that there is no adequate plan in place to capitalize on federal dollars, housing dollars that are expected to flow in the near future.

By embracing innovative funding models and mechanisms and by encouraging partnerships with developers that could facilitate the replacement of stock, the effect of this funding could be greatly multiplied, and we run the risk of losing that opportunity. Also, with the Olympics approaching and demographies being what they are, this issue, from a senior's point of view, will struggle for attention with the interests of housing for the addicted, for the disabled, for low-income families and for the mentally ill. In short, things look rather bleak. It may be that this surge, this tide we see at the food bank doors, is merely a storm surge of an approaching crisis of homelessness that will explode in the faces of our seniors.

We need to have our government present a plan to replace social housing before we reach this crisis point that we can all see on the horizon. I believe it is necessary for this government to consider solutions to the housing crisis, to the homelessness crisis, that takes it outside of ideological frameworks and consider all available options, as many partners are waiting for that measure.

K. Whittred: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the member's statement. I was told the member was making a statement on seniors housing. In fact, it tended to be more on social housing. However, I still congratulate him on his statement, and I also hope that he gets as much pleasure out of his critic assignment as I did. My very first critic assignment when I was elected in 1996 was that for seniors. I found it to be just a fascinating topic. Certainly, the whole area of seniors housing was one which I immersed myself in and I believe over the years have become quite passionate about.

In my remarks I'm going to say a little bit about what I found with seniors housing when I was first elected in 1996. I went out around the province and what I found everywhere were people telling me: "This housing is not adequate." Sometimes it wasn't adequate because it involved too much care. Often it was inadequate because it was simply outdated. We had moved beyond that. Sometimes it was not suitable because it did not have the correct or adequate supports.

What I have worked toward, and I think what my government has tried to do, is to work to correct that deficiency. We have worked, I'm very proud to say, to create for seniors a spectrum of choices across a range, from housing that offers little support — a kind of supported housing where there may be things as simple as bars in the bathroom, which is a simple support — to the very most complex kind of care that people sometimes need if they suffer a range of illnesses.

We have tried to base these choices on those things that seniors value. It's interesting in my community that an organization known as Lions View Seniors Housing has just recently concluded a very thorough study where they have gone out in the community in North Vancouver and interviewed all sorts of seniors. They've asked them: "What kinds of things do you want in your housing?"

One of the first things they wanted is to be close to a grocery store. They wanted to be close to transportation. These were things that were all very important to them. They wanted to be able to walk to their bank. They wanted to be close to the hairdresser or the barbershop. So these are things, of course, that we need to keep in mind when we're talking about providing seniors housing.

One of the most interesting things I learned in working in this field is that one of the most popular services in any seniors complex is in fact the hairdresser. So much for all the health services — it's the hairdresser that is really important.

In making decisions about choices for seniors care, I think it's really important that we do value the things that they say are important. Seniors value their independence. Everybody I know wants to be as independent as possible, regardless of their degree of disability, perhaps, as they age.

I am reminded of a lady in Quesnel, I believe it was, that I met. She was a very vocal dissenter about the building of a new assisted-living facility there. She carried placards, and she talked to the newspaper. She was quite vocal in her criticism of this project. Once it was built and she actually moved in, she said to me: "You know, if I'd have known it was going to be this nice, I would never have complained."

This is the basis on which we try to develop our seniors housing. We try to develop it in non-institutional settings. I'm very, very pleased that B.C. has become a leader in this field. We have organizations coming to us from all over the world. I recently had occasion to sit down and talk to a party of people here from Germany who were looking at some of the work we were doing. I've had opportunities to speak to people from Oregon, from other parts of the States, and all of them see us as in the forefront of developing this range of seniors housing that is going to be suitable to support their independence, to care for their needs in ways that are appropriate to their level of need.

D. Routley: I thank the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale for her comments. I appreciate them and her advice, but the intent of what I have said here is to put focus on the fact that there is great pressure on a dwindling stock of housing. This affects seniors in a particular way because of their perhaps limited ability to respond and to be flexible to replace that themselves.

In fact, the member referred to a broad spectrum of options that are available, that are going to be made available. I would like to refer to the broad spectrum that is available and that is currently under threat. Many of these mobile home parks which I have referred to are quite conveniently located to services such as grocery stores, banks and hairdressers and do provide the kind of clustering of density which allows small communities to plan transit routes more effectively — among many other measures of efficiency that can be achieved by preserving this stock.

The intent of the statement is to encourage the government to take measures to preserve existing stock and existing components of that broad spectrum so that we don't add to the burden of social housing unnecessarily and so that government works in partnership with local governments to ensure, to encourage, to give impetus to landowners to preserve those mobile home parks and thereby allow those small communities to continue. Because all across this province many small communities exist on the edge of oblivion — even small communities within larger ones.

The repercussions of losing that capacity will be very difficult to measure ahead without this sort of warning but will be very easy for us to measure when those people arrive at our doors and need assisted living, where they could have been much more independent had this sort of relationship resulted in the preservation of existing stock.

Hon. M. de Jong: After discussions with the Opposition House Leader, I call Motion 3 on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 3 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

I rise today to speak in support of a motion which is very close to my heart. It's my view that this motion deals with an issue that is of utmost importance to British Columbians: the protection and importance of the human rights of our citizens.

This government has a dismal record on the issue of human rights. In 2002 they cut the funding of the B.C. Human Rights Commission by one-third. Then on March 31, 2003, this government brought Bill 64 into force, amending the Human Rights Code of British Columbia and making sweeping changes to the administration of the human rights system in this province. They abolished the B.C. Human Rights Commission, making British Columbia the only province in Canada without one.

The government's action attracted a lot of criticism from human rights activists, both in British Columbia and in the rest of Canada. Keith Norton, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, called the government's action a black mark against Canada.

Canada is known throughout the world as a champion of human rights. We provide technical expertise to developing countries that wish to establish human rights institutions. We are considered leaders when it comes to human rights internationally. The leading human rights instrument, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was co-authored by John Humphreys, a Canadian. Imagine the reaction of the world to know that a Canadian province was abolishing its human rights commission.

The purpose of human rights legislation is to identify, prevent and eliminate discrimination on the basis of prohibited grounds and to provide redress to those individuals who have been discriminated against. Its overarching purpose is to ensure that each person has an equal opportunity to live his or her own life without being hindered by discriminatory practices. We must keep the purpose of this legislation in mind when we discuss its administration.

Some of my colleagues in this House will be aware that the first human rights commission was established in British Columbia in 1973 by an NDP government. This commission was then abolished in 1982 by the Social Credit government. In 1993 the New Democratic Party government of British Columbia retained Prof. Bill Black to conduct an independent study of the administration of human rights in British Columbia and to make recommendations. Professor Black held 22 consultation meetings or public hearings in various towns in B.C. Professor Black recommended that adjudication be assigned to a human rights tribunal and that functions such as investigation, education and mediation be assigned to a human rights commission. This recommendation was accepted by the government, and these two separate entities were established as of January 1, 1997.

In abolishing the British Columbia Human Rights Commission, this government said that there was a considerable amount of duplication of services between the two organizations and that the system could be made better by abolishing the commission. The fact was that there was no duplication between the two agencies as both had separate mandates.

The mandate of the British Columbia Human Rights Commission was to prevent and eliminate discrimination. The commission did that by receiving and investigating complaints of discrimination, filing complaints and becoming party to complaints filed by others alleging systemic discrimination, undertaking research into equality issues by providing mediation services to parties to complaints, referring certain cases to the Human Rights Tribunal for hearing, intervening in important human rights cases, promoting and approving equity programs, and educating people about human rights law and equality issues in British Columbia.

The tribunal's mandate was to adjudicate complaints referred to it by the Human Rights Commission. During the five-year period before the commission was abolished, it referred 10 to 15 percent of the cases to the tribunal for hearings. That means that up

to 90 percent of the complaints were disposed of by the Human Rights Commission without any action by the tribunal.

I would like the government to show me the duplication of services between the commission and the tribunal. There was absolutely no duplication. Even the majority of the small number of cases that were referred by the commission to the tribunal were resolved before hearings were held.

One aspect of the Human Rights Commission's mandate that is seriously missed these days is the mandate for education on human rights. The commission often made statements to the media on human rights issues, thus generating debate and discussion. The commission also issued annual reports which were very educational tools. It had an officer responsible for education, and it worked in concert with community organizations to provide education.

When the provincial government introduced Bill 53 in 2002, it faced a lot of criticism from advocacy groups and community organizations, particularly in relation to the commission's education mandate. The government later withdrew Bill 53 and introduced Bill 64, which was eventually passed.

This bill contains section 5, which was not in the previous bill. This section reads: "The minister is responsible for developing and conducting a program of public education and information designed to promote an understanding of this Code." The government, in making this change, was trying to respond to criticism that the educational mandate had been eliminated. The minister responsible for education and information is not the same as a human rights commission. The big problem here is that the minister responsible for human rights is in a conflict situation. The province is a major service provider to the residents of British Columbia. It also is a major employer. The province is often the subject of human rights complaints.

Whenever such complaints are filed against the province, they are defended by the Attorney General. Quite often the legal counsel acting for the Attorney General argues that human rights legislation has no application in the given situation. All they would say is that the application of the legislation should be narrowly interpreted. They always act in the name of the Attorney General. The same minister is responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights in British Columbia.

My concern is not only the conflict. I have other concerns as well. Whereas the Human Rights Commission had a staff of six to ten staff members responsible for education, the minister responsible for human rights has not been able to find even one staff member dedicated to human rights education. I have been advised that a manager's position was advertised to undertake this work but was never filled.

The Liberal MLAs will try to justify the government's decision to eliminate the Human Rights Commission. They will try to say that they are all for the protection of human rights, but these statements cannot be taken as sincere statements. My research shows that the minister responsible for human rights over the last four years never made one single speech on the importance of human rights in British Columbia. That is a shame. I question whether the government is at all serious about protection and promotion of human rights in British Columbia. Diversity is a fact of life in B.C. It is important that we, whether in our workplaces or in our communities, recognize this as a reality and that it adds strength to the fabric of our society.

A significant challenge for us is to find more effective ways of getting the message out to members of our society that discrimination from a landlord, employer or service provider because of disability, gender, race or colour is not okay — and that we have rights, and we have laws in this province to protect those rights. This can only be done when we have organizations with the mandate and resources to provide information and education to British Columbians. It's important we recognize that differences have been and continue to be used to discriminate against people.

Discrimination is a reality in British Columbia. Discrimination can have devastating effects on the economic, social and cultural life of a community and is often the root of many of the social issues like poverty, crime and poor housing. As long as we have discrimination in our society, we will continue to have the need for institutions such as the Human Rights Commission.

In 1993 the United Nations General Assembly adopted principles relating to the status of national institutions, also known as the Paris principles, and called for the establishment of domestic commissions with broad mandates to protect and promote human rights. Canada took a leading role in the development of the Paris principles. Therefore, in the light of the government of British Columbia's action to abolish its Human Rights Commission, the government is presently in violation of the Paris principles. It is no wonder that British Columbia has been criticized at least twice during the last four years by UN bodies for abolishing the Human Rights Commission.

I would like to conclude by urging this House to condemn that action of the B.C. government of disbanding the Human Rights Commission. I further ask the House — and urge the House — that the British Columbia government restore and strengthen the Human Rights Commission.

J. Yap: Mr. Speaker, may I add my congratulations and best wishes to you on your election as our Speaker.

I also congratulate all members on both sides of the House on their election. This is an honourable calling that we have all answered, and we all have important work to do on behalf of all British Columbians.

It's an honour and a privilege to rise for the first time as the newly elected member for the great riding of Richmond-Steveston to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds. As the MLA for Richmond-Steveston, I'm particularly sensitive to the role the Human Rights Tribunal plays

in British Columbia. My riding represents a true microcosm of our multicultural society, with people from all ethnic and cultural groups living in harmony and seeking to work, play, live and raise families in a great part of the best country in the world.

Like the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, I believe it's essential that we ensure that human rights are respected and protected. We don't disagree there. As a province, British Columbia by and large does respect individual human rights. The protections offered by the Human Rights Code were not changed by the Liberal government in 2002 when the commission was eliminated. The changes made by the government were merely administrative.

This isn't a disagreement about whether human rights should be protected. It's merely a disagreement about how to proceed to build the best in B.C. I believe that all members of this House support this goal: to protect individual human rights and human dignity. This goal is important so that we can maintain a just and caring society, one that all British Columbians want.

Of course, some British Columbians may occasionally make mistakes and violate other people's human rights, and some people may not respect those rights without incentive. But I feel that the Human Rights Tribunal is competently executing this role of rectifying human rights complaints and providing penalties to those rare individuals who need an incentive to respect the human rights of others that they are in contact with.

The question is: are British Columbians better served by the Human Rights Tribunal alone, or do they need a commission? When individual British Columbians feel that their basic human rights have been infringed or denied, they expect and require a system which will allow them to achieve redress in an effective, timely and transparent manner. In the old system, with the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Advisory Council, this was not the case. The Liberal government changes to the system in 2002 have allowed British Columbians direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal for resolution of complaints. These changes were the first of their kind in Canada and have provided the more effective and timely system that British Columbians expect to protect human rights.

In the old system the Human Rights Commission acted as a gatekeeper, and this led to a serious backlog in complaint cases being heard by the tribunal. Today complaints can be heard by the tribunal within seven months and a decision rendered within three months. Previously it could take a whole year just for the commission to complete its investigation to decide if a case should be sent to the tribunal to be heard. It's been said that justice delayed is justice denied. This government should be praised for these improvements, but instead, the NDP wants to go back to the more inefficient system we had previously and have cases spend a year or more inside a commission before going to a tribunal to be resolved.

We have today in British Columbia a more effective, streamlined system for protecting human rights than we had in place under the NDP. British Columbians are being well served by this system of direct access to the Human Rights Tribunal. While the system was changed in 2002, the protections offered under the Human Rights Code have always remained. This new system works for those who need it, the complainants, and it works more efficiently, granting better and timelier access to justice for all British Columbians — access which all British Columbians want.

I fail to see any logic for this motion, and accordingly, I'll be voting against it.

H. Bains: This is my first opportunity to speak in this great House, and it is indeed a privilege. I'm deeply honoured to speak on an issue that to me defines our fundamental values, what we believe in, what kind of society we live in: protection of human rights.

We all know it is a very well-established understanding that the root cause of discrimination is lack of understanding and ignorance about other cultures, their values and their lifestyles. The Human Rights Commission had a responsibility in making us understand those values about others, and when the Human Rights Commission was removed, we sent a very clear message to the rest of the world, in particular to our own citizens, that we are not serious in educating ourselves about the society that we decided to make up and live in, about the values of each other, about other cultures.

That is wrong, and that has to be fixed up. Every person has inherent dignity and value. Human rights help us to recognize and respect that fundamental worth of ourselves and each other. Human rights are the same for all people everywhere — male, female, young, old, rich, poor — regardless of our background, where we live, what we think or what we believe. This is what makes human rights universal.

Human rights are important. I don't think anybody in this House or outside will argue with that. They're important because they recognize our freedom to make choices about our lives and to develop our potential as human beings. They ensure that we can live free from fear, harassment or discrimination. This is what defines what kind of society we live in.

Respect for human rights helps build strong communities based on equality and tolerance in which every person has an opportunity to contribute. Of course, having others respect our human rights comes with the responsibility that we respect the rights of others.

With the establishment of the Human Rights Commission back in the early '70s, we recognized those values and the protection of the values we believe in. If we are serious in eradicating discrimination from our society, then establishment of a human rights commission is a good start. We need to do that without any further delay.

All kinds of arguments are being made here why there was a need to eliminate the Human Rights Commission when we still have the Human Rights Tribunal. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you: all other jurisdictions

in Canada can't be wrong. The United Nations can't be wrong. We all know why it was eliminated. It was eliminated to save a few bucks, and that is a wrong thing to do. We understand that we need to be prudent with our money, but there are basic fundamentals that must be protected. We can't bargain away those rights just to save a few bucks. That's what happened three years ago, and I think it is about time we reversed that and sent a clear message that we are serious about what we say.

What the Human Rights Commission does is important. It fosters greater understanding and protection of human rights and addresses the human rights concerns of a broad range of individuals and groups, and that is missing right now with the absence of the Human Rights Commission.

It also helps us in education and public awareness and helps process human rights and discrimination complaints. Especially in Canada — and in particular in the lower mainland of B.C. — we have a land of immigrants. We have people that come to this country and make this country their home — new immigrants.

The Human Rights Commission was a tool used by those new immigrants to understand their rights and how to exert those rights as human rights. Now they're left on their own. It's like removing the police force out of our judiciary — that people can strictly go to the courts directly and prepare their own cases. That's what these new immigrants and others are left with now, and that is a wrong thing to do. We must reverse that.

A human rights commission also helps us in developing education programs for our schools, employers and community groups. That's not happening right now. It also provides advice and assistance to individuals, governments and employees so that they understand what their responsibilities are as to protection of each other's rights. It also undertakes and coordinates research into human rights and discrimination issues. It sets standards for employers, service providers and policy-makers to conduct, to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Code.

It used to advise, if individuals had concerns, whether those concerns were covered by the Human Rights Code, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds so rightly said. The member from Richmond, I must say, is so wrong in saying that there was duplication, in saying that this is to expedite those complaints.

Most of the complaints were dealt with at the lowest level possible without going through the judiciary or through the tribunals and wasting the tribunals' time. They were advised whether they had the complaint or not. They were advised how to deal with complaints that may not be human rights complaints. As the member said, 80 to 90 percent of those complaints were dealt with without even proceeding to the tribunal. That is a very efficient way of dealing with those issues.

As the member for Richmond said, justice delayed is justice denied. That's exactly what is happening now, I must say. Because now, first of all, they are lost as to what to do with those complaints. By the time they put the process in place, they are waiting in the lineups only to be told by the tribunal that they were wrong or that they were right. It takes time.

I think we must send a very clear message that we are willing to walk the talk. So far what we've done is a lot of talk, putting a lot of rules and legislation on paper. That's what's been happening the last four years. We have sent a very wrong message to the rest of the world that we're not serious about what we are saying, that we're not serious about eradicating discrimination.

With that, I must say this would be the proudest thing for this House to do by saying we made a mistake. We made a mistake when we, in order to save a few dollars, removed a very important component of our complaint process to deal with our citizens' complaints on human rights, to educate our public on what their rights are and what the rights of others are so that we can live as we say we do. We can live in harmony, with understanding of other cultures. We can celebrate our differences. Once again we can send a clear message to the world that we are a prime example for the rest of the world to see how different communities and different groups are living together in harmony and that we are the best country in the world to live in. That's the message we have to send, and if we re-establish our human rights commission….

I urge those members from the other side that this should not be a political issue. This should be a fundamental issue that we all believe in as a society. I urge them to support this bill so that our citizens can once again rest in comfort that they do have a process — process of education, process of understanding — to deal with their complaints.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to rise this morning to support the motion that was introduced a little while ago by my dear and old friend, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I have two short points that I'd like to make in support of the motion.

The first has to do with the way we deal with concerns and challenges in the area of human rights. I think it's fair to say, and others have said it, that everyone in this House knows and understands — there's no division between us in this House — that we live in a tremendously diverse community. Later in the week I'm looking forward to coming before this House and talking about the diversity of my particular constituency.

We all agree that we live in a tremendously diverse community. I think we will also agree — and I am confident that the members opposite will join us in an understanding — that in our province there continue to be challenges, problems, instances of discrimination on many bases — on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age.

There are a whole number of incidents that take place, unfortunately — and I'm sure others in this House will agree — that are either instances of discrimination or perceived by some to be instances of

discrimination. The question we need to ask ourselves is how best to deal with those situations and how best to avoid such situations.

It seems to us and seems to me that the Human Rights Commission did and still could make a tremendous contribution to dealing appropriately with those kinds of problems. Why? Because it's the Human Rights Commission that was charged with avoiding litigation. It was the Human Rights Commission that was charged with being proactive. It was the Human Rights Commission that was charged with the responsibility of education in this area. Those are tremendously important tools to use in avoiding and dealing with instances of human rights violations or perceived human rights violations.

Now, it strikes me that there is a contradiction opposite. Earlier this morning we were debating the issue of crystal meth, and a member opposite made what I thought was a sensitive intervention. I didn't agree with everything he said, but one of the things he said was that in dealing with the problem of crystal meth, fundamental to solving that problem is education. Fundamental — that was the position he took. It seems to us and seems to me that it's a contradiction to say that on the issue of crystal meth, education is fundamental, but on the issue of human rights we're not going to have a commission that's charged with bringing forward education in the province. It's a contradiction, and I invite the members opposite to think about that when it comes time to vote on the motion that has been introduced by my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds.

The second point I want to make is about the independence of the Human Rights Commission. It's a well-established international principle that human rights watchdogs…. Human rights oversight should be done by an agency that's independent of government. That's what the structure of the Human Rights Commission was, and that's what we're calling for.

Today the functions of the Human Rights Commission are placed in the hands of the minister, and I have no doubt that the minister takes those responsibilities seriously. That's not the question. The question is: internationally, through the years that we've come together since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, why is it that in jurisdiction after jurisdiction the Human Rights Commission, the oversight of human rights, is done by an independent agency but not in B.C.?

Why is that? Well, for two reasons. First of all, because the government and its agencies can sometimes be involved…. The perception can be there or the reality can be there that the government, or its agencies, is involved in a violation of human rights. It is inappropriate to have anything but an independent commission, an independent oversight process, for investigating and dealing with those problems.

The second reason why it's accepted internationally that oversight for human rights issues be done by an independent agency is because the people of the jurisdiction — in this case, the people of British Columbia — need to be confident that human rights are above politics. Whatever the motivation or the principles of a particular minister, the people of the province have to be confident that our human rights, which are fundamental to us living together and building our communities, are above politics. That is not the case in British Columbia today. It would be the case if the motion that was introduced a few minutes ago were to be passed, and I invite and encourage all members here to vote for the motion.

M. Polak: It is indeed a privilege to rise to speak to such an important matter on my first time speaking in the House. I'm quite, well, moved by the suggestion that we ought to be taking a second look at our educational programs around human rights, particularly since there seems to be such a great deal of misunderstanding amongst the opposite members. Indeed, perhaps that's an area of education that we ought to attempt to address, because they do seem to be lacking today.

Let's be clear here. We're talking about the restructuring of a human rights model that was developed in the '70s. It reflected a '70s world in British Columbia. We're in the year 2005, and many things have happened and changed in that time. The needs of British Columbians have changed. Their desire and their knowledge about human rights have changed.

I want to cast the House's mind back to the '70s. I want to talk a bit about what I grew up with and give you a bit of an idea of the personal framework that I bring to this debate. I was raised in a family that was highly unusual in its day. My mother suffered from cerebral palsy, which meant that she was a paraplegic and had limited use of her arms, and other facets of her physical condition were impaired. As a result of that, we walked around the world as children not really understanding why but seeing that people would look at us differently in the mall. Or maybe when it was time to go through a door or to do something that people thought my mother couldn't do, they'd fall all over themselves and weren't really sure what to say, and sometimes they'd look down their nose.

Sometimes, as a child, when I would be standing in a shop and talking to an adult, the adult wouldn't speak to my mother because they assumed she wouldn't be capable of understanding. They assumed things about her disability because they didn't have an awareness or an understanding of what life for disabled people can be like and what they're capable of.

There was one occasion when I was in my preteens. I remember an adult in a store patting my mother on the head as they spoke to me about whatever purchase we were making. That was a world where people were only just beginning in British Columbia to think about what human rights really meant.

In 2005 we've come an awfully long way. We've come to a point where it's not just the actions of people that have changed. Certainly, that's important, but we don't want people to be taking discriminatory actions. We don't want people to be being hurtful to one an-

other in their words or in what they do. But it's more than that. One of the members opposite spoke of tolerance. I would say it goes beyond that. It goes to acceptance, and that only comes from the kinds of changes that can take place in the culture around us. It takes place in hearts and minds, and we see the results of it when we see the reaction to acts of discrimination.

Recently there was a very unfortunate incident that took place in my riding at a soccer match. There was a soccer match involving teams from all over the province. In fact, I think there were some from out of province. At one point in time one of the players was asked to remove his religious headdress. He refused. He debated with the official and was then ejected from the tournament.

Here's where we start to see the evidence of hearts and minds changing. Someone made a mistake. It's been acknowledged. They made a horrible mistake in doing that. But the reactions are telling, because they're very different than what would have happened 20 years ago.

First of all, the reaction of the teammates. These teammates didn't miss a beat. They didn't look at their fellow player and wonder: well, my goodness, why is he making this all hard for us? Why does he have to wear that silly thing anyway? That wasn't their reaction. I'm proud to say that their reaction was to stand with their teammate. These were teammates who immediately realized as a gut reaction that there was something going horribly wrong. They stood with their teammate despite the fact that that meant they were then forced to forfeit two games. That's an incredible thing for young people to do. It's an incredible show of leadership.

What was the reaction of the sports association involved the next day? I'm proud to say that that team was back playing and that player was back playing. There had been firm instructions given that this not only was to be investigated, but this incident was to be addressed.

Then, the reaction of our minister. The Hon. Olga Ilich, Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts, sent a letter to all sports associations in British Columbia not only describing the incident and the wrongness of it but asking them to take a look at their own organizations, their rules, their structures to ensure that something like this would never happen again.

I submit to you that in 1973, when the commission was established, that never would have happened. This is a different world. It's not one without its problems. It's not one where people have, intuitively, a sense that they always should do the right thing. There will be people who do the wrong thing.

I happen to believe, as do members of this government, that every British Columbian has a right to access justice at the Human Rights Tribunal directly. They don't have to go through a gatekeeper. If they feel their rights have been violated, why should they have to spend a year while a bloated bureaucracy takes a look at their complaint and discusses it with them? Meanwhile, they expend time and resources and at the end of the day may not even have their case heard before the tribunal. British Columbians have a right to go to the tribunal directly now, and that's something I'm very proud of.

I want to talk a little bit, too, about the drive toward education that the members opposite seem to think is currently lacking. Let's talk about how important that is. I think it's very telling that this government, in terms of setting its priorities, doesn't just put education lumped off with a bureaucracy that sits in a major centre in British Columbia that people have to come to, and maybe they have some pamphlets and some programs. We now have the Attorney General's ministry statutorily charged with the responsibility for developing educational programs in this province. That says in what kind of priority this government holds education on human rights. We've accomplished so much.

We've accomplished so much because we've involved not just a bunch of paid bureaucrats who will go around and create work for themselves. We've involved community organizations, organizations on the ground that involve everyday members of their community. These are people who know the issues in their community and know how to address them. They know those issues far better than anyone else, and we've seen the evidence of it.

Just this last week in the Kamloops Daily News there was a recognition of a lady whose name I, unfortunately, have forgotten at this point in time. She was acknowledged, as are many others across our province, for a time of service in an immigrant-serving agency that sought to educate people not only about their individual rights but about what it means to live in a country like Canada, a province like British Columbia, and what their responsibilities were to bring to our communities.

People like that, organizations like that, are being honoured all over British Columbia frequently throughout the year. Why? It's because the Attorney General's ministry now involves them in reaching out to the public.

What's happened in public education? I'm quite sure that in the 1970s, if you walked into most public schools in British Columbia, it would be very unlikely for you to walk in during the celebration of a religious holiday or cultural event from anything outside of a Judeo-Christian perspective. Nowadays you walk into a public school in British Columbia, and you're going to be hit by a microcosm of celebrations — not only celebrations but understanding of one another.

When you're in a kindergarten class these days in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, you're not looking at students who even notice if their seatmate's skin colour is different from their own or if they happen to eat a different kind of food or if they happen to have an unusually formed family. It's just not part of what those children see in their world anymore. That's because we've had effective education that's been brought down to the level of everyday citi-

It doesn't surprise me. I mean, when the NDP was in government, their form of government was one of saying: you know, we want to take care of you, and we're going to do it better than you can. This government believes that British Columbians themselves want to achieve great things in the area of human rights. This government believes that British Columbians are the ones who have been most responsible for bringing about change in the hearts and minds of citizens. It's how we treat each other every day. It's when I walk to the Legislature and say good morning to anybody that walks past. Those are the ways in which we build a community of caring. That's what human rights are all about.

It's time that the opposition stopped whining about labels and names that attach themselves to structures and instead started looking at outcomes. We are seeing incredibly positive outcomes in British Columbia. We're seeing those in our young people. We're seeing those in every community across this great province. We will continue to see them.

I'm going to support this motion because I believe that British Columbia is moving forward, and it's time that we don't go back to the days when people had to stand in line to get justice for their human rights concerns.

D. Hayer: This motion has no foundation. It has called for reinstatement of a level of bureaucracy that has been replaced by something that is far more effective and efficient. The Human Rights Commission was merely a group of people who made recommendations to the Human Rights Tribunal.

Let's be clear. The tribunal makes no decision, nor the commission. It was something I heard our colleagues from the opposition talk about on Radio India, Radio Punjab. It's something not always explained very clearly.

What this government did, enacted and brought in force in 2001 was the first direct access to a human rights model in Canada. It was visionary. In other words, we eliminated the middleman. We made it easier and quicker for someone to lay a complaint and for that complaint to be adjudicated.

If you look at the word "commission" in the dictionary, you'll see that it merely means "a group of people authorized to perform certain duties or functions." On the other hand, if you look at the word "tribunal," it means "a court or a form of justice; a person or body having to hear and decide disputes so as to be binding on the parties." What that tells me is that the opposition wants people in British Columbia to regress, to go back in time. They want to bring back the middleman, because that is what the commission was. Its role was only to recommend.

What we have done since 2003 is to allow people with complaints to go directly to the tribunal, to the decision-makers. That makes sense. It is effective, and it is efficient. That is what visionary thinking…. Government doesn't work in the past. It thinks and works in the future, for the future, for making things easier and less bureaucratic for all British Columbians; making ways to get to the heart of the matter quickly, efficiently and effectively; making it easier for decisions to be made, not wasting a lot of time.

The NDP would have us go back into the darkness that evolved in the province in the '90s. They would have us go back to the past, yet our citizens and our communities expect us to think and govern with the future in mind. They don't want us to dwell in the past. We have been there; we have done that. They want government to make things effective and efficient, and among those things is elimination of the commission with retention of the decision-making tribunal.

Also, let's make it very clear that extremely important issues of human rights involve everyone. It is not restricted to any particular race or religion, colour or ethnicity or any political party. In fact, a mother who lived in Lumby, just outside of Vernon, won a human rights decision late last week for her 14-year-old daughter that now permits the girl to use the same changing rooms and the same showers as the boys on her hockey team. Now, you and I, Mr. Speaker, may have different opinions as to how appropriate that may be. But the fact of the matter is that the tribunal heard the mother's complaint and made a decision on it.

That decision was based not on the colour or creed, but on the gender. It was made quickly. It didn't waste years and years of time. How long might a decision have taken if that mother had to first be forced to convince a commission under the old system, which then had to decide to make a decision to make a recommendation and then present that to the tribunal, which then had to decide to act on the recommendation and then had to hear from the mother? Bureaucratic red tape, Mr. Speaker — ineffective and inefficient.

People want change, but what the NDP wants by this motion is a return to the old days. People don't want to go back to the darkness. They don't want us to be inefficient and ineffective in dealing with their concerns and their complaints and the issues. They want actions, and they want results. They want them soon, not to wait years and years in the making. They want them as soon as possible.

When this government dumped the inefficiency that was the commission, it made sure that people had resources and understanding to file their concerns and their complaints. Yes, they wanted to make sure the resources were there and they had the understanding how to file for those concerns. By creating the human rights clinic, we as the government — a new and integrated human rights system — helped them with that. This clinic is designed to provide education, training and legal assistance. Let me repeat for the opposition. This clinic is designed to provide education, training and legal assistance to those seeking to lodge a complaint. It is funded to the tune of $1.8 million a year and $5.4 million over the three-year span of this pilot project. As that mother in Lumby can tell you, the new method of dealing with human rights complaints and concerns is working.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if it didn't work, I'd be the first one to knock on the doors of the Attorney General. I want you to know that I will be voting against this motion, and I urge every other MLA who is concerned with ensuring that human rights are dealt with fairly, effectively and efficiently as soon as possible to do the same.

Noting the time, I move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.