February 15, 2006
Response to the Throne Speech
Throne Speech Debate [click to view video]

M. Polak: I am really excited to respond to this throne speech because it does something in politics that I think has been missing for decades, and it continues to be missed time after time when there are important issues going on. I find that the highest level of political debate that I could uncover in British Columbia is, unfortunately, often not in this House, not in council chambers, not in school districts, but at the local Tim Hortons, at the Ethical Addictions coffee shop in Langley or at the Starbucks.

           There is a reason why: because in places like that people are allowed to ask the questions that they want. They're allowed to ask questions about: "You know what? I don't understand why the government doesn't do this about health care." People can have a good old discussion about it. Or: "You know what? I don't understand why the government teaches this in the education system. I don't get that."

           They can ask it without the Leader of the Opposition jumping up, pointing her finger at them and saying: "Aha, you're the one with the secret plan to privatize health care." They can ask that question without that kind of accusation coming back at them. Why? Because these are ordinary British Columbians who live their day looking at things in an honest, ordinary manner that just revolves around making the good argument.

           What makes good sense? What we want to talk about here is what makes good sense. Of course, really, the only way you can do that is if you're open to whatever the answers might be. I think that's really a difference. We've had occasion to hear our Premier talk about the fact that there's a difference between the opposition and government, not only in their roles but also in their approaches. I think this throne speech probably does the best job I've ever seen of highlighting that.

           What is it that the government's saying? The government is saying: "You know what? When we talk about health care, we're interested in what British Columbians are interested in — what works." We're interested in what works. We are not politically married to

the idea of no public health care, no private health care, only mixed health care, only this model. We want to ask the question, and we're open to whatever the answer might be, so long as it works and it stays within the principles we believe in for health care in this country.

           What do we hear from the Leader of the Opposition? We hear: "Yeah, of course. I want to ask the question. I want to talk about…. Oh, but thou shalt not talk about anything to do with private health care. Oh, and by the way, thou shalt not talk about anything that is outside of using absolutely union-contracted employees. But other than that, I'm open to talking about just about anything." Unfortunately, that's not going to get you the right answers. All that's going to get you is more political dogma.

           I was fascinated to learn today that along with the long list of usual NDP mantras that I've been keeping, there are a few that spill out now and again like "mean-spirited," "for-profit," "working people." One of my favourites is "average British Columbians." I love that one, because when you talk about undefined terms, that's a real good one. All I've been able to gather in this House is that average British Columbians must not refer to anybody outside of the NDP caucus, because certainly, if you're not part of agreeing with that, you're not average. If you're a B.C. Liberal, you're not an average British Columbian.

           I was really surprised today to hear that the word "rhetoric" is now a piece of rhetoric. That's the way it was used today. Instead of getting at the argument and the debate around the questions, we had the Leader of the Opposition saying: "Well, you know, it's time to stop the rhetoric." I think I actually counted about 20 times today when that phrase was used. "It's time to stop the rhetoric. Of course, then I'm going to proceed to go into a lot of rhetoric." It didn't stop her. But it's time to stop the rhetoric. Well, you know what? I think it is time to stop the rhetoric. I think it's time we actually asked the questions.

           When it comes to all the things that we need to take care of as a government, as a Legislature in this province — huge issues…. We've got the pine beetle to deal with. We've got child care to deal with. We've got education to deal with. We've got employment programs to deal with, housing programs, the homeless, child poverty, skills training. There's a real reason why thinking of those things would cause us to focus on health care and on asking the important questions around health care. If current trends continue, somewhere in the neighbourhood of the year 2050 or 2060, give or take ten years — you pick — health care is going to take 100 percent of the provincial budget. You know what? If we don't find a way to deliver health care that's sustainable, we're not going to be able to do anything about pine beetle, child care, child poverty, skills training, homelessness. We probably won't even be able to care for our aging seniors and the people most in need when they have a health care problem.

           Let's be clear about this. The reason there's a focus on getting a handle on health care, on answering those tough questions, is precisely because we have to have the ability to deal with all the needs of British Columbians that come before government.

           Why can't we talk about these things? Why is it that it's not okay to bring up the scary issues of change in health care? It seems to come down to the opposition not wanting to discuss the issues. They'd rather talk about portraying people in a nasty light.

           I read today some of the quotes that pointed to saying that the Premier doesn't like the Canada Health Act. Oh, he really doesn't like the Canada Health Act. In fact, I'm sure he gets up every morning and thinks: "Oh my gosh, that Canada Health Act. I really don't like that." That's preposterous. The Premier doesn't like the Canada Health Act. In fact, he hates it so much he's going to enshrine it in legislation. He's actually going to find out what it means and how we might make it work. Yeah, I'm sure he must really, really dislike that Canada Health Act.

           It's the same kind of stuff we get when they talk about health care as though suddenly, magically, when there was a B.C. Liberal government, we had issues in health care. Suddenly it was a challenge. You know what? Back when I was about six years old and I had to go to the emergency room and we lived in Surrey, my mother and father took us to Peace Arch Hospital. Why? Because if I was at Surrey Memorial, I'd be waiting for six hours to get in. That wasn't anywhere near a B.C. Liberal government.

           We all know that health care is a challenge across Canada, across North America. We all know that health care has been an increasing challenge over the decades, despite governments of all stripes spending millions and billions, and do you know what? We're going to get to be spending trillions of dollars trying to improve it.

           Why do we need to go and talk to Sweden? Why do we need to go and talk to other countries with other models? Well, because the only other two countries that do the things we do are Cuba and North Korea — not real open to tourism these days. No, it's because we know it doesn't work.

           You know, let's call a spade a spade. If you go to the coffee shop, if you sit and talk to people, they give you the commonsense answer. They say: "If I bust my arm, if I get hit by a car and they wheel me into some place where they're going to fix me up — you know what? — do I care whether or not that doctor, that hospital, that facility is going to make a profit? No. Do I care whether or not this is something that is completely operated within a public system or not? No."

           What they care about is that they get fixed up. They care that they get back to work. They care that they're okay and that it's paid for through their medical premiums. That's what they care about. The rest of it, they say: "Hey, figure it out. Make it work. That's your guys' job."

           It's not our job to sit here and debate whether or not this side or that side has the more evil intent. It's a throwaway. You say those kinds of things when you

don't want to debate the issues themselves. I mean, some of this stuff is just…. Well, hear it for yourself. Today a quote from the Leader of the Opposition: "Sustainability is a code word for Gordon Campbell and the Liberals to privatize."

           Deputy Speaker: Member, just be aware that we don't use formal names in the Legislature.

           M. Polak: Oh, I'm sorry. Inadvertent. My apologies.

           The Premier. I will adjust the quote: "Sustainability is a code word for the Premier and the Liberals to privatize." Well, if it is a code word, then I'm challenged. I didn't get my decoder ring, and to me, sustainability means the kinds of things I have heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about. The Leader of the Opposition talks about sustainability in almost every other area of government that she wants to talk to us about. What's wrong with talking about sustainability in health care? Why? It comes back to being afraid again — right? If you've already ruled out some of the answers, you can be afraid to ask those questions. If you're the Leader of the Opposition and you have already ruled out those answers, you don't want to ask: what are the fundamental changes we must make to improve our health and to protect our precious public health care system for the long term? You don't want to know the answers, because what if the public comes back or other people come back and say: "Well, we ought to do something that doesn't mesh with your philosophy"?

           On this side of the House we say the only part we're tied to is the principles of the Canada Health Act. That's it, and that's pretty basic. But when it comes to who's going to do what, when and where and who they're going hire and contract with, hey, we're open to talking about it. We don't have special interest groups that are going to yank our chain if we don't get the right answer. We don't have a dogma or doctrine that says: "We can't consider this. We can't consider that. Those are ruled out. But other than that, we'll talk about anything." It's a pretty limited view. It's not one that's going to get us the answers we need.

           It reminds me a little bit of…. I don't know. I was thinking about the myth-busting show today. You know, you've got the two guys on that come and take whatever myth that happens to be handy. I mean, there was one where they did a really great one about shooting ice bullets. Basically, two special-effects scientific guys go in, and they construct the urban myths that we all hear, the urban legends. This debate that has erupted around the throne speech, I think, involves or needs a little bit of myth-busting — myth-busting in the sense that we have got lots of people in the public who look at this stuff. And when they hear us politicians say it…. I hear it from my daughter, who is 18. They sit in front of the TV and say: "Oh, come on. Oh, come on." That's the reaction.

           I had that reaction today in question period when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier about user fees in Sweden. Of course, if the Premier wants to go to Sweden, oh, it must be because he's decided that that one little component of user fees is what he wants to do. Come on. I mean, does anybody really believe that? No. That was good theatre for question period, but it still doesn't get us closer to the answers.

           There's one really good thing, though, that has come out of the health care questions that have been put forward in the throne speech. And I'll give all credit to the opposition on this. That is that, however reluctantly, they have been drawn into a discussion about health care. I'm really glad about that. I don't necessarily agree with what they're saying, but they're putting forward some ideas and thoughts and saying: "You know what? Here are some things you could do. You could do some things like some specific initiatives to cut down on the wait-lists for knee and hip replacements." Well, great. Good, we've done that. Check. Good, I liked that. We agree on that.

           You could do some things about using nurse practitioners. I heard the Leader of the Opposition today on the radio talking about that. Guess what? We've graduated a class of nurse practitioners. They're out there for the first time in British Columbia. This is great. We agree on that too. And you know what? Check. Tick. There, we've done that.

           What else should we do? Maybe we should double the number of doctors. I don't know. Do you think we should do that? Well, we have. We've doubled the number of doctors in training. It's incredible.

           Maybe we should increase the number of nurse practitioners we're going to be training. We've done that. We are going to do that more. Maybe we should increase the opportunities for people to take medical training around the province so they don't have to go to the lower mainland. Well gosh, we've done that too.

           There's a lot of agreement taking place here, but it's going to take us moving off our doctrinal positions on health care. It's going to take us saying: "You know what? Finding the health care that works is more important to me than sticking with my political doctrine." We're ready to do that. We're ready to ask the hard questions.

           We're ready to ask them in education too. In education, with the Learning Round Table, we're ready to talk about what happens when you have special needs students who need to be in classrooms but their needs are impacting on the system itself. What happens when you have ESL kids that have special requirements that you're challenged to meet in the classroom? How do you do that in the 21st century?

           We're willing to ask those questions. Why? Well, it's same thing as in health care. The people on this side of the House, the government side, are saying: "You know what? We don't want to define the answers for you. We don't want to tell you this is the way you have to do it. We want to find out what works."

           What does the other side say? The same kind of thing as in health care. "Well, that's okay. We want to talk about it. Oh yeah, we want to talk about those questions, but as long as you don't go here, as long as

you don't talk about using non-unionized employees for certain aspects of your skilled trades in schools or as long as you don't, maybe, fund independent schools." That's been another one they've been challenged by for a long time. "As long as you don't go here and as long as you don't go there, then we'll have the discussion."

           Well, you know what? On the government side we have the guts to say: "We'll go where the public needs us to go. We'll go with what works. We'll go with what builds the best. And we'd better."

           In health care and in education…. I think that one of the reasons those two things have been highlighted so much is because they are the two areas where our government, any government, in the next decades is going to be dealing with the most massive, uncontrollable transformation that we've ever seen. It's the kind of train coming down the tracks that will wipe everything out if you don't avoid it. There are two very significant things: one in health and one in education.

           In health care — we're all pretty familiar with this — it has to do with the age of the population. One in four will be seniors by the year — what was it? — 2030. That's going to cause absolutely huge change.

           In education we have another one that's coming down the tracks, and that's the ratio of students with special needs, atypical kids, who will be in a classroom. When we look at the trends and see the ratio of atypical kids versus typical students in a classroom in the next decade, in the next 20 years, how will you address that if the system remains the same? If your ratio gets high enough, you can't do it by bringing in specialist teachers, unless you want to have ten specialist teachers in one classroom with a group of kids.

           You have to think of different models. You have to at least ask the question. You have to say: "In a classroom with 85 percent of the kids ESL, isn't that different than the classroom up the street that maybe has two ESL kids? Shouldn't it be different? Or should all those classes look exactly the same, and should they be churned out by a collective agreement?"

           You see, we're open to having the discussion. If the answer comes back that it should all be in a collective agreement and that's the best way you should do it…. We're interested in what's best. We'll do what's best — right?

           That side…. No. It all needs to be there. Boy, you need to bargain class size; you need to bargain composition. "We're willing to have the discussion as long as that's where the answer sits, as long as the answer comes down to fit with that kind of NDP socialist dogma that should sit around education and health care and all that. Really, as long as we're all equally badly off, that's okay, because we're equal." Well, then they'll have the discussion.

           They'll have the discussion, but don't answer the questions the wrong way. You can't be open. Maybe that's the challenge. I mean, if I was to stand here and think…. Well, if I wanted to be really catty and put out a dare — what did we use to say in school? You double-dog dare somebody? — I guess that would be the dare. You don't meet challenges like this without a lot of courage, without being a stand-up kind of guy, as they used to say.

           If we're going to meet these challenges, we all have to be that way. We all have to be willing to stand up and say: "Yeah, okay. I'll take it. I'll stand and listen to the public when they tell me the kind of things we need to do. I'll stand, and I'll listen, even when the answers may not be what I personally like. I'll listen. I'll hear."

           Maybe it is a double-dog dare. I'd be fascinated to see the opposition stand up and say: "Okay, you know what? You're on. We'll do the same thing. We're going to stand up here now, and we're going to say that we want what works. When it comes to health care — whether it's public, private, mixed, pink, green, purple, polka-dotted — if it works and if that's the answer to the question, we're with you. We'll do it."

           I bet you they won't. I'd be happily surprised if they did, but I bet that you won't see a member of the opposition stand up and say: "Yup, we're there. If private was what worked, darn it, we'll do it." We can. We can say: "If it's public, if it's private…. Whatever it is, if it works, we're ready to do it."

           In education, if it means curriculum change; if it means staying the same; if it means more testing, less testing, more teachers, fewer teachers; if it means different kinds of teachers, different kinds of schools, we're open to it. We want to hear it. We want to try things.

           I want to hear that from the opposition. That's my dare. That's my challenge. I want to hear it. I want to hear them say: "You know what? The important part here isn't that all teachers follow the BCTF line. The important thing isn't whether or not class sizes are in collective agreements. We're interested in what works, and if we're shown those things aren't the essential elements, that we don't need that to make it work, we have the guts to do it."

           On this side we're willing to say that. We're willing to say: "Let's answer the questions with the right answer. Show us it works, and we'll do it." That's the challenge we throw down. That's the challenge that every day gets met in the Tim Hortons coffee shop. I mean, you don't walk in there like we do in the House, and everybody is quiet. I stand up and talk now, or the member for Port Moody–Westwood stood up and spoke for a half-hour, and everybody's for the most part fairly quiet and they listen.

           It doesn't happen in Tim Hortons. If you're in Tim Hortons and you put forward your idea and Joe Smith across from you doesn't like it, he'll put down his double-double, and he will tell you, and you'd better be ready to defend it. That's the kind of debate that we're all afraid to have.

           Tell me what you think. Tell me what works. Let's honestly answer it. Why should we be afraid? And for

God's sake, let's stop throwing out empty attacks like: "Oh, they don't care. Oh, he doesn't like the Canada Health Act." Come on. That's the answer to that: oh, come on. The public doesn't buy that. It's a bunch of nonsense. You walk out, take ten people at random, and ask them if they think that health care is a challenge only in British Columbia and that it's only a challenge since the B.C. Liberals came to power, and you know what? You won't find one that agrees with you. Everybody in B.C. knows that health care is a challenge across Canada. Everybody in B.C. knows that health care has been in a challenging position for decades.

           Everybody knows it, so you know what? Let's cut to the chase and call a spade a spade. This is the time when government wants to ask the questions, and we want to hear from the public. The public are ready to rise to the challenge. They're ahead of us. They're already having those conversations.

           Do we have the guts to get in there? Do we have the guts to open the door and say: "If it works, we'll do it"? We do. So far I haven't heard that anybody else does, but then that's probably because they're busy arranging their trips to Cuba and North Korea. We'll look forward to what they find out when they get back.

           That ending, I guess…. There, I get into the joke — right? — the little political rhetoric. I suppose a part of that is what we do here. It's a little bit of the jiving back and forth — the theatre. But there is a part that's really serious about this, and that is that at some point you have to say, "This is it; this is real" — right? This is real. This isn't a dress rehearsal.

           The year 2050, the year 2030 are going to be here whether we do something about all these issues or not. So I suppose we can waste our time claiming that one person loves health care more than the other.

           I'm reminded of a recurring character on The Simpsons cartoon who runs in at this point in every debate and says, "Oh, won't somebody think of the children!" and people laugh. Why? Because it's a throwaway line. We all care about the children; we all care about seniors; we all care about health care; we all care about what's happening with the pine beetle; we all care about employment programs. We all care about all these things. For God's sake, that's why we all ran for election.

           Instead of getting down to complaining or attacking people based on whether the Premier likes the Canada Health Act or not or whether the Premier is secretly plotting to implement user fees or, oh my goodness, using code words like "sustainability" to couch privatization plans…. Let's get out of that. That's the: "Oh, come on; get real." Nobody buys that stuff anymore, guys. Instead, let's get on with solving the problems. Let's debate the ideas.

           If we're proposing an idea about health care — here is something we're going to do about health care; here's a new act; here's a change we're going to make; here it is, guys — let's debate it on principle. Let's argue the points. Let's have the opposition say: "You know, I've looked at it, and here are the reasons why this won't work." Governments say, "Well, we've looked at it, and here are the reasons we think it will work," and the public votes, and people discuss, and they debate. Let's not have that go back to, "Oh well, I'd love to support it, but you guys are secretly privatizing. It's a code word," or "I'd love to support you, but you really don't like the Canada Health Act, and by the way, you're mean-spirited, and you really don't speak to average British Columbians because you're out of touch." I mean, you want to cut rhetoric with a knife? That's pretty thick. Let's be open about it.

           To finish, Madam Speaker, that's the challenge I lay out. I don't know if there has ever been a double-dog dare in the House, but that's mine. Come out, be stand-up about it, and say: "We are as ready as you are as government to move forward on whatever answers we get, whether they fit with our political dogma or not." That's leadership, that's inspiration, and that's the only way we're going to solve these challenges for our province, and we are going to move forward. That's what we're ready to do. We're ready for you to come along with us. Let's see if you have the guts to do it.