The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure this morning to introduce some visitors from Mission. These folks have come a long way on our nice ferries to say hi to their MLA and to ask me a whole bunch of tough questions. And yes, I did tell how much we earn, but I did tell them we work hard. It's a French immersion class, and Ms. Fitch is here with a number of her students. I bid the House to make them welcome. Thank you for coming.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present a number of annual reports to the House: the 1995 annual reports for the teachers' pension plan and the municipal pension plan; the 1996 annual reports for the public service pension plan and the Members of the Legislative Assembly pension plan; the report of payments under the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996; the employee benefit plan report for the year ended March 31, 1996.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996. And to facilitate the passage of those accounts to the committee, I am requesting leave of the House to move a motion without notice.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I therefore move that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I seek leave for the Special Committee of Selection to meet at 11 o'clock today.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: It is with great pleasure that I rise for the first private member's statement of this session and, I believe, an important one. It is one we have talked about in this House many times before -- all members in this House -- and it involves marine safety and, in particular, the destaffing of lighthouses.

Over the many, many years we have spoken about this issue, there have been wrecks, more accidents, deaths, distraught families, and children, wives, mothers and fathers left at home alone. Marine traffic, whether it's aviation or ship traffic along this coast, is a way of life. The coast is a highway for many residents in British Columbia, and there has been a legacy and a history from Ottawa of neglecting their responsibility to British Columbians. Whether it is Tories or Liberals, hon. Speaker, they have conducted a systematic destruction of our life and of the safety of British Columbians.

I just want to briefly go over a history. In March, Ray Skelly, the Member of Parliament for North Island-Powell River, decried the destaffing of lighthouses along the coast. He spoke in the House, and I think it's one of the best speeches on the issue:

"One of the key elements of it is a definition of a job description of lightkeeper. A lightkeeper does not simply turn on a foghorn and a light. They are involved in aid to mariners. They have rescued people, saved their lives, prevented property damage and have done basically a tremendous job as the ears and eyes of the safety system along the coast of British Columbia. They are available where they have provided their own radio equipment to talk to people in aircraft and in vessels in the area, giving them advice about weather. . . ."

There was a reprieve later on that month by the then Hon. Jean Corbeil in March of 1992. And, like now, I think there was an election looming, so they thought it best to not go ahead with the destaffing of lighthouses. But sure enough, the election didn't happen, and months later, in August of '92, the then minister and now leader of the Conservative Party, Jean Charest, attempted again to raise the issue of destaffing lighthouses along our coast.

Jim Abram, a British Columbia lighthouse keeper and "Keeper of the Light" author, pointed out that the success of the campaign to stop the destaffing is attributed to the energetic teamwork and lobbying efforts conducted by a group of staunch supporters, which included commercial fishers, pilots, charter-boat operators, native leaders and provincial and federal politicians from the west coast. In June of 1994, this time under yet another minister, Doug Young, destaffing was considered again. A letter from British Columbia NDP MLAs, 13 of them, called for the saving of B.C.'s lighthouses.

This has been a long battle, hon. Speaker and members of this House. Again we find an election looming. Even the member for Parksville-Qualicum, as late as November of 1996, when Herb Dhaliwal, I believe, was visiting his riding and he met with him over the destaffing issue. . . . " 'It makes no sense talking to a person like [Dhaliwal],' said [the MLA], who has been speaking out against the closure of lighthouse stations. . . . 'He's just window dressing. Nothing will change. . . .' "

And nothing did change. What I want to do in this private member's statement is call on all members of this House to become involved in the federal election and to ask every single Member of Parliament who is running for re-election on B.C.'s coast what their position will be. This is an issue that goes far beyond party politics. This is an issue that drives to the heart of how we live in British Columbia, how we travel on this coast and how we navigate these waters -- not just for fishers but for commercial traffic and the economic well-being of British Columbia.

[10:15]

M. de Jong: Thank you to the member for Alberni for giving his thoughts to this House and the people of British Columbia on an issue that -- he's correct -- has been addressed earlier on several occasions. He does correctly point out that nautical life in this province is something that touches many, many people, and when the safety of employees and recreational boaters is put at risk because government -- in this case, federal -- isn't prepared to devote the resources necessary to ensure that safety, then all of us lose.

[ Page 2318 ]

The member, I think, has fairly referred to the remarks of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, which he offered in this House last year when we sat and when he said, quite clearly, that to replace manned lighthouses with mechanical devices wasn't sufficient. Not only was it not sufficient to ensure the safety of those people who make their living and rely on the waterways for modes of transportation up and down the coast, it's not sufficient insofar as the obligations Ottawa has to this province and has had since this province joined Confederation. That's an issue we often forget about: when this province joined Confederation some 100-odd years ago, there were terms attached to that, and one of them was an obligation on the federal government to provide for the safety of our marine waterways.

Hon. Speaker, I hope the member won't be offended if I try to expand upon this notion of marine safety by suggesting that it extends beyond simply oceangoing vessels. I know that the member for Okanagan East, who can't be here today, wanted to respond and turn the attention of this discussion to safety on inland waterways as well.

We're all familiar with the tragedies -- and I have some of the clippings -- of people who have lost their lives, lost their limbs and been seriously injured as a result of operating vessels improperly or negligently on the waterways -- both on the oceans and on the lakes, rivers and streams of this province. I think there's an obligation on all of us, and in particular on members of this House, where we have jurisdiction, to exercise that jurisdiction in a way that will encourage people.

I can only offer this personal anecdote, Mr. Speaker, and that is that when I was elected here, I bought a boat. That's where I generally live -- out in Sidney. When I brought that boat across. . . . I'm not a nautical person, but I did have someone on board with a power squadron certification. You gain a whole new appreciation for the hazards of operating on the waterways. And for those people that do it on a daily basis, we have an obligation.

I think the member can appreciate that on this side of the House we share with him a concern and a desire that the federal government uphold its responsibilities insofar as ensuring that those responsibilities are discharged properly. The issue is an important one. We share the member's concern, and it is an issue that we as members of this Legislative Assembly should be working on together to ensure that all British Columbians benefit.

G. Janssen: I thank the member for Matsqui for his comments. A fact that should be taken into consideration is that automated lighthouses fail 20 percent of the time. Another interesting fact that I found when I was doing the research for this is that the federal government does not pay for binoculars for lighthouse keepers. That's how little regard they have for lighthouse keepers or for the safety of mariners on our coast.

I'd also like to thank the member for Matsqui for bringing the suggestion that it is not just coastal waters, it is also our lakes and rivers where many of these accidents occur. For many years I've had a motion on the order paper calling for the licensing of boat operators in British Columbia, something that is a practice in Ontario and that I think British Columbia could well look at to ensure further safety. Before we hand out licences for people to operate boats, many of them very large, many of them with very high speed capabilities, without any licensing at all. . . . If you have enough money, you can go down and buy the boat, buy the motor of your choice, put it on the boat and go out and do whatever you please, endangering not only your life but the lives of many other recreational boaters along the coast, and the lives of those power squadrons that are many times available to help in rescuing those people that get themselves into trouble.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank the House for the time allotted me.

P. Reitsma: I am very pleased today to talk about the creation and history of Handel's Messiah, an oratorio known throughout the world.

Before I start off, I sang in the Messiah for some 19 years, starting as a bass and then as a tenor. To me, faith is the basis of most cultures, and traditions and religions are foundations and cornerstones of many cultures and countries. I like to encourage those with a different heritage and a different faith to share that in this House, and I hope they will.

Probably the best-known and loved of all oratorios is George Frideric Handel's Messiah. Throughout the English-speaking world, many churches and choral groups have performed it every year for more than a century. Messiah and the word "the" did not appear in the original title. It was composed in 1742. Its text is taken from the Bible, and it was arranged by Charles Jennens Jr., with whom Handel had previously collaborated on Saul. Handel wrote the music to Messiah -- the whole performance fills an entire evening -- in only 24 days. It was first performed on April 13, 1742, in Dublin, Ireland, where Handel was giving a series of concerts. It was an instant success, but when Handel repeated it in London the following year, it was received rather coolly. It was performed again in London in 1745, with minor changes, but fared no better. So Handel withdrew it until 1750, when it was performed in London's Covent Garden.

From then on, at the approach of Easter, Londoners would hear Messiah every year. Handel performed it personally for 14 concert sessions, each time with a few changes. At the first performance in Dublin, his total vocal forces numbered six, including the soloist. Some choirs today consist of 70 to 100 voices. They were supported mainly by organ and some violins, with trumpets and kettledrums joining in for the choruses of parts 2 and 3. Some orchestras today have 20 to 40 performers. Later, at the Foundling Hospital concerts, Handel's favourite place for Messiah, the singers numbered 23 and the orchestral players 33.

Handel was a working musician with an eye to making the best of performance conditions as they happened to be at that particular time. Self-serving monuments for personal posterity were hardly his concern. His original partitus therefore looked rather simple and austere. Significant changes of taste occurred in the eighteenth century. Handel's generation was followed by that of the sons of J.S. Bach, dedicated to rococo sensitivity, and that generally was followed by the early classical generation of Haydn and Mozart.

Ideas about how music should sound changed tremendously, and in 1789, when Mozart was commissioned to re-orchestrate Handel's Messiah, he greatly enriched the orchestral texture by the liberal addition of wind instruments. Mozart's skilful work has been the basis for most later editions of Handel's score, because heavier orchestrations were necessary to support mammoth choruses of a size undreamed of by Handel.

Messiah is divided into three parts. Part 1 represents prophecies of the coming of the Messiah and the realization of the

[ Page 2319 ]

birth and life of Christ the Saviour. After the overture is a tenor recitative: "Comfort ye, my people, saith your God. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." The tenor soloist continues with the very meaningful "Every valley shall be exalted." The alto section will now be singing: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Emmanuel, God with us." The chorus then joins in with the happy "O Thou that tellest good tidings to Zion. . . . Arise, shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee." Well, if that isn't happy news!

"There were shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly Host, praising God and saying 'Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth, goodwill towards men'," continued with: "Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing." Comforting is hearing: "Come unto Him, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and He shall give you rest."

Part 2 concerns the sacrifice of Jesus in the spreading of the gospel, corresponding to the Easter ascension and Whitsun, or Pentecostal portions of the church year: "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." Then the chorus sings: "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; He was wounded for our transgressions." This is followed by: "And with His stripes we are healed." The tenor then sings the sorrowful and painful recitative: "Thy rebuke hath broken His heart. . .He looked for some to have pity on Him, but there was no man; neither found He any to comfort Him." The loneliness is so apparent, to be forsaken so cruelly. It is so unfair that "He was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of Thy people was He stricken."

With the end of part 2 the narrative portion of the Messiah is over. In part 3 the message of the work as a whole is presented: the resurrection of Christ gives mankind hope for his own resurrection, to live again, to life everlasting.

The problem, unfortunately, is that so many people and religions insist that their way of spreading the gospel and the message is the only true way; hence there are so many wars, so much blood is spilled and there is so much misery. If we, all over the world, would only live for "Love your neighbour as yourself," true peace, not war, would reign over mankind.

I will stop now, Mr. Speaker, for the response.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to thank the member for providing me with a copy of his statement yesterday. I appreciate that. It's an unusual subject for this House, but I think all of us would say that it's a welcome respite from what we like to call the sometimes spirited debate in this chamber.

I expect that all of us in this Legislature -- or most of us, at least -- know and love Handel's Messiah. It is truly a magnificent work. I also, as the member opposite did, had the opportunity, at different times of my life, to sing in a choir and to sing different parts of the Messiah. It's just as satisfying and enthralling, actually, to perform the Messiah as it is to listen to it. In particular, the part that's obviously the most exciting and interesting to listen to -- the most well-known part for most people -- is the "Hallelujah" chorus.

Handel, I think all of us could agree, was a great genius. As the member opposite stated, it took him just over three weeks to write the Messiah. But what was interesting to me was that Handel didn't sit down to create a work of great genius. As the music history books tell us, the simple truth is that Handel was broke and he needed some money. So he sat down, with the words that were provided to him, to make some money. I think that's what speaks to Handel's musical genius. He wasn't attempting to create something brilliant, but in fact, in terms of trying to create a source of revenue for himself, his talent simply flowed from him.

[10:30]

A hundred years after Handel, Beethoven -- another German composer -- said of Handel, "He was the greatest of us all," and I think that is clearly true.

The Messiah, as the member points out, is very much considered a religious work today. And it is based on Christian scripture, but it didn't have its roots. . . . It wasn't intended originally as a religious piece; it was written for the concert hall, for what was known as "an entertainment," and first played in a commercial concert hall. But it has since, quite appropriately, become an important piece in the Christian tradition, and it's used very much in Christian churches, especially at Easter and Christmas.

The Messiah is clearly the work of a musical genius. Interestingly, Handel was the son of a barber and surgeon who had absolutely no interest in music and really didn't want his son to have an interest in music, either. He wanted him to be a lawyer so that he could, in his father's words, make something of himself. His mother, Dorothea, evidently was a little more sympathetic, and she smuggled a clavichord -- which is a small, quiet keyboard instrument -- into the attic, and Handel got to play while his father was asleep. Unfortunately -- or probably fortunately -- Handel blew his own cover at the age of nine, when he went with his father, who was going to cut the duke's hair. Being a little bored at nine years old, Handel wandered into the chapel, found an organ and sat down to play. The duke was most impressed and subsequently persuaded Handel's father to provide him with music lessons.

Nevertheless, Handel went on and went to school to become a lawyer. On the side he became an organist at the cathedral and ultimately dropped out of school and became a music teacher. The rest, to use a well-worn phrase, is history, and I think we're all a great deal richer for it.

That concludes my response to the member's statement. I would like to thank him for this brief musical interlude. It's very welcome on this day.

The Speaker: We're back now to the member for Parksville-Qualicum to conclude the statement.

P. Reitsma: Thank you to my hon. colleague on the other side. The majestic "Hallelujah" chorus is everyone's favourite, and I meant to mention it. Don't be afraid; I will not be singing in the House today. It is not permitted, anyway, for that matter.

[ Page 2320 ]

When the hallelujah is sung, the British tradition is carried out. King George II was said to be so impressed with this jubilant chorus that he rose from his seat during the performance -- a gesture followed by everyone in the audience, as no one sat when the King was standing. There was a second, somewhat nasty explanation, no doubt by those who were jealous of Handel. It was said that the King was so bored that he stood up to stretch himself just as the "Hallelujah" chorus was starting. It goes without saying, of course, that most people adhere to the first reason.

The final portion of Handel's Messiah is sheer comfort, happiness and, above all, the power of hope. "I know that my Redeemer liveth" is one of the most beautiful and meaningful soprano recitatives. There is comfort in: "Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep; but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." The last part before the amen is the happiness and hope we derive from "Worthy is the lamb that was slain." His sacrifice was not in vain, but for each and every one of us.

I dedicate this particular member's statement to my late conductor, Dr. John Lewis, hon. Speaker -- whom you or my colleagues across the floor might know -- who conducted our choir. He was a musician extraordinaire, and his PhD in music was just one of the many high notes in his life.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his statement. Before recognizing our next speaker, I want to take the unusual step of making an introduction. As members know, the Chair does not normally do that. There is one exception, however; namely, when it is a colleague under the robe, if I might coin a phrase. Please join me in welcoming today the Rt. Hon. Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, Gilbert Parent -- or Gib Parent, as he also calls himself in western Canada. Mr. Speaker, welcome. [Applause.]

I am pleased now to recognize the member for Westminster.

G. Bowbrick: Hon. Speaker, that's the second time you've said that I represent Westminster, which of course is the Mother of Parliaments. In fact, I represent New Westminster, which used to be the capital and no longer has a parliament.

I am pleased to rise today to speak about what I consider to be an absolutely critical issue, and that is investment in our young people. I have to say that I use the term "investment" advisedly, because it often makes it sound like we're investing in a stock market, and this is far more fundamental than that.

We have a generation of young people who, I think we all know, approach their adult life with a certain sense of trepidation, a certain sense of concern, about what their future is going to be. Today I want to speak specifically about those who graduate from high school and what they do after high school. I want to make it very clear that I think government does have a role to play in assisting young people in our society. In particular, I want to discuss the government's role in two important areas: our post-secondary education system as well as job training, skills training and what have you.

First, I'd like to discuss post-secondary education. Education is something that I think we all look upon as the great equalizer. It's a truly civilized society that makes sure that education is available to all of its citizens in order to ensure that they can advance themselves and to provide opportunities for all of those people.

There are two things we have to talk about these days in post-secondary education, and they are spaces and affordability. Is there a space for young people to get into our post-secondary system, and is it affordable for them? On the issue of spaces, I'm proud to live in a province where last year we created 7,000 new spaces in our post-secondary institutions, and this year we expect to create another 2,900. In the last six years there have been 27,000 new spaces opened up in our post-secondary education system. That's a 22 percent increase in spaces.

It isn't good enough to simply open up those spaces; it's absolutely vital to make sure that those spaces are affordable. Accessability is the key. Last year we committed to freeze tuition fees, and I'm proud to say that we delivered on that commitment. I know that young people around this province appreciate that commitment and the fact that we delivered on it. This year we confirmed. . . . Just recently, in my own riding of New Westminster, the Premier and the Minister of Education were there to say that tuition fees would be frozen again this year. Now, this is something that has to be looked at in relative terms -- relative to the fact that in other provinces in this country there are tuition fee increases that are as high as 20 percent. That simply is not affordable. It simply is not sustainable. It simply does not create more access to education; it restricts access.

These things can't be done without dollars. As much as it's important to have a philosophical debate about the importance of education in our society, the bottom line is that the financial commitment has to be there. So I want to discuss for a moment the issue of funding.

In the past four years the operating budget for post-secondary education in this province has increased by almost $200 million. That's an 18.5 percent increase. This is a record that is unmatched in any other part of the country.

An Hon. Member: The world, perhaps.

G. Bowbrick: Probably. "The world, perhaps," one member says. I mean, let's compare it. In Alberta, in the same period, there has been a reduction in funding for post-secondary education of over 17 percent. In Saskatchewan there has been a reduction of one-half of 1 percent -- admittedly not as bad, but still it doesn't come close to an 18.5 percent increase. And in Ontario in the last four years there has been a 14.6 percent reduction in post-secondary education funding. Hon. Speaker, that isn't acceptable. The point to be made here, I think, is that in British Columbia we have done this in spite of the fact that since 1991 we have faced federal off-loading to the tune of $1.7 billion.

If last year we had simply passed that federal cut on, we would have seen a 10 percent reduction in post-secondary education funding. We said no, that wasn't acceptable; we would step in and fill the vacuum. In fact, we increased the budget by 1 percent. We did that to make sure that young people in this province could have access to education, could have greater opportunities for themselves. They have a right to expect that. They have a right to expect that we will deliver on that, and we will continue to deliver on that.

Hon. Speaker, I see that I'm just about out of time, so I will. . . .

An Hon. Member: Take my time.

G. Bowbrick: I'll take your time. I would be pleased to carry on after I hear from one of the hon. members on the other side.

[ Page 2321 ]

B. Penner: It's indeed a privilege for me, as the opposition Youth critic, to get a chance to respond to the hon. member's comments. I do that noting that his comments were perhaps more partisan than is usually the case for private members' statements.

For the House's benefit, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just provide some background in terms of the youth situation in British Columbia. I think it's clearly important for us to define just who it is we're speaking about when we speak about youth in British Columbia. Generally speaking, people are thinking of youth as individuals between the ages of 15 and 24.

In British Columbia we're rather unique in Canada in that we're just about the only province where our youth population is increasing. The rest of Canada is seeing a significant decrease in the youth population. In fact, since 1989 the youth population in British Columbia has increased by 12.6 percent. We now have almost 500,000 youth in our province.

This presents us with a unique opportunity compared to the rest of Canada. In the rest of Canada we're seeing what's called the aging or the greying of the population. That poses an obvious strain on the health programs around the country, and as well it raises questions about the future sustainability of the pension plan operated by the federal government. Obviously, with a younger population, if those people are able to find employment, there will be more people paying taxes to support important programs that all of us have come to rely upon.

Youth are also more able to compete in cutting-edge technologies. Clearly, we in British Columbia need to embrace and pursue new technologies, such as computer software development and high-tech manufacturing, in order to diversify our economic base and to provide the funding we need in the future for all of the programs that we have come to rightly depend upon. Youth are typically more willing to be flexible and to adapt to changing circumstances. It's been my experience that today's youth, particularly in British Columbia, have a more global outlook than their parents did. This is important in an age of growing international trade and competitiveness.

However, all is not well in British Columbia. Youth unemployment is double the rate of those over the age of 25. Youth have a particularly high rate of unemployment. In 1995, youth unemployment was 14.9 percent, compared to 7.8 percent for those over the age of 25. By June of 1996 the unemployment rate for those between the ages of 15 and 19 years was 17.8 percent. Clearly it's very high.

Since 1989 the youth participation rate in the B.C. workforce has declined 12.7 percent -- more than any other province in Canada. This can be attributed to a number of factors: discouraged workers' syndrome, where people just give up looking for work; more young people going to school -- and clearly that's happening; but also structural changes in the economy -- that is, it's harder and harder for youth to get into the workforce today in British Columbia.

[10:45]

During the election the NDP did promise to create 11,500 new jobs last summer. Unfortunately, there were in fact 8,000 fewer jobs available to students last summer, as reported in the local media in Vancouver. In fact, there were not only 8,000 fewer jobs available, but at the same time, there were 18,000 more young people looking for work.

I think there's a number of solutions we need to pursue, hon. Speaker, and I'll try to be brief. Clearly a quality education is important. Over 50 percent of youth who are receiving welfare in this province have not graduated from high school. A clear indicator of your likelihood of being forced to rely on social assistance is if you have not been able to graduate from high school. In 1980, there were 15,000 youth on welfare in B.C. By 1993 that number was 43,500 -- a dramatic increase.

We need a more focused education, not just a better education. I believe we need to focus on practical job experience, expand our co-op programs, and complete that with skills training and private sector partnerships and apprenticeship programs.

I think the following is a very important point: when we think of post-secondary education, many of us think about a university degree. I believe the member opposite and I share a similar academic background in that regard. That's not to dismiss the importance of a university education; however, while it's true that 70 percent of employment opportunities in the future in British Columbia are forecast to require some form of post-secondary education, only 17 percent actually require a university degree. The vast majority of those other jobs require training that is different than a university degree. Something more along the lines of a technical or trades-oriented education is required.

B.C. businesses -- the vast majority of the people that hire young people -- say that what they're looking for in youth are basic analytical skills, communication skills, more flexibility, and better business skills and economic literacy, which is something this government could use as well, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Will the member please wrap up. I've given him considerable extension time already.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I will. Again, I would just say that youth training is one side of the equation, and that's essential. But the other side of the equation is creating an economy and helping to foster an economy that can create jobs for the young people to go to.

G. Bowbrick: I want to thank the member opposite for his entirely non-partisan comments. The member opposite does raise some important points about youth unemployment, so I would like to take my remaining time to address that, among other things.

This government committed $20 million last year to youth employment. We created 10,000 new positions last year; in many cases it was in partnership with the private sector, which is as it should be.

As I said at the outset, I believe fundamentally that government has an important role to play. Government, in many cases, is an important employer -- to take an example, Crown corporations. We believe the right thing to do for young people is to order our Crown corporations to employ young people, particularly in the summer, to make sure they can get enough money. Granted, they're not going to have to make that much, because tuition is so affordable in British Columbia. But the point is that they need to make money for tuition and to be able to afford to sustain themselves as they go through the school year. Last year there were 10,000 new positions. Five out the six programs we put together exceeded their employment targets by as much as 63 percent.

We also know that there are programs in partnership with the private sector. I'd like to mention very briefly that the Sanctuary Foundation in New Westminster has put together a

[ Page 2322 ]

bicycle repair program. Now, I had certain members of this House ridicule that program at one point, but I have to say that the wonderful success of the program is that it's got youth who otherwise didn't have employment prospects off the streets, into entry-level jobs, and they've got some prospects for the future.

I know this, as well: not one of them told me that the minimum wage should be reduced; not one of them told me that the route to helping young people is to cut corporate taxes. They agree entirely: make education affordable and accessible. This is the way, this is the path, to a civilized society that provides opportunities for all of its people.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise this morning as the official opposition critic for science, technology and research. I want to spend some time this morning on what science is in this province but also to give some examples of what it isn't.

I wish to enter the official definitions into the record. Science: the branch of knowledge involving systemized observation and experiment, especially when dealing with substances or animal or vegetable life and natural law; systematic and formulated knowledge; the pursuit or principles of this; an organized body of knowledge on a subject; a skilful technique. That is indeed the definition of science.

The definition of technology in the province of British Columbia is: the study or use of a mechanical art or applied science. I will end with the definition of research: systematic investigation and study in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.

As the critic for science, I think it's vitally important that any time policy emanates from government, there is some scientific basis for it -- that it indeed makes sense. Certainly, where we are in the province of British Columbia -- and again I will enter this into the record. . . . This is from B.C. statistics dated March 14, 1997. It gives a little chronology of where we've been over the last couple of years, but then it ends with where we are today:

"In 1994, R and D spending in British Columbia was $888 million -- 0.9 percent of GDP, or $240 per capita. This was well below the national average of $409 per capita, or 1.6 percent of GDP. In other provinces, per capita spending on R and D ranged from $119 -- 0.7 percent of GDP -- in Prince Edward Island to $497, 1.8 percent of GDP, in Ontario. The provincial government's total spending on science and technology" -- here in British Columbia -- "R and D, plus related scientific activities, in 1994-95 was $199 million, or 0.4 percent of British Columbia's budget."

So are we keeping pace with what's happening in the rest of Canada? The answer to that is no. Do we have every opportunity to do some very fine things in science and technology? Absolutely, we do. Certainly if Prince Edward Island can provide greater dollars for the pursuit of science, technology and research, British Columbia is well positioned. With new investment coming into this province, with new scientists seeking employment in this province, we are well positioned to do some very fine things.

My goal today is to ensure that when government policy comes forward, it is in fact based on decent, principled research. That, to me, is what governments across this land are calling for, what governments around the world are calling for. The hon. member for Delta South, the Finance critic for our party, speaks repeatedly of benchmarks, of measurement, of how important that is.

It's not an issue that is British Columbia's alone. It's an issue that every single parliament in the world is grappling with: how best to provide some kind of cost-benefit analysis to the individuals in this province who pay the taxes. That's a significant issue, hon. Speaker, and it's one that's very, very important. We need to define what, indeed, are reasonable measurement tools within the province of British Columbia and within the country of Canada so that we can convince the taxpayer, or at least allow the taxpayer to draw their own conclusions based on reasonable information provided to them. Individuals must be able to trust the information that is provided.

The policy I wish to address this morning -- and again I wish to provide some definitions, because there's lots of confusion about what is indeed the definition and what is not. . . . The policy I wish to reference is reference-based pricing. It's different than generic substitution, substituting chemically identical products. The difference between that and reference-based pricing is that it links chemically different products by category. What I'm calling for this morning is the research that supports that that's a reasonable initiative. If it's available, I think it's a prudent time to provide it to the public at large and to provide it to the members of the opposition.

So this is a call for information, if you will, hon. Speaker, and certainly a necessity, a call, for the very real interest that British Columbians have in this topic. I come back to my earlier point that this is about ensuring, from the opposition benches, that government policy is based on sound research, that someone has done their homework, that someone has come forward with a significant benchmark, a significant measurement tool, a vehicle that makes sense and, frankly, a vehicle that's easily understood. This government has spent many months telling me that the study does exist. I have certainly requested that study, if indeed it does exist, and have yet to see it. That, to me, is vitally important.

This is not a new policy direction for this government; in fact, they've been on this road since October 1, 1995. If it is indeed a policy that can be defended, I would encourage the responder to stand up today and defend it from a research base, because British Columbians are interested in the science and technology aspects of any government policy that comes before us.

I believe that we will see, in the next number of months, significant community groups, patients in this province and individuals come forward who desperately need to know whether or not this government has done their homework on this particular policy. I, too, having served as Health critic for many years in this province, need the assurance that this government has done their homework. Again, this is a new age when it comes to accountability within government, when it comes to government accountability. It's time that that was brought forward before us today, and I welcome the comments of the hon. member.

M. Sihota: I can assure the hon. member that this government doesn't move without doing its research in all areas of

[ Page 2323 ]

public policy, and that includes reference-based pricing. In fact, this government has a record second to none of any provincial government in Canada with regard to attracting research and development and high-technology industries here to this province.

Revenues in this sector are up by about 33 percent over the last couple of years. In 1995, the last year that we have numbers for, 404 new high-tech businesses were formed here -- more than one a day -- because of the kind of investment climate, the positive one, that we've created here in British Columbia.

We in this province are now world leaders in terms of some of the companies that have rooted themselves here. Coming to mind, of course, are industries like Ballard Technologies -- the Ballard fuel cell technology -- which is now a worldwide power fuel solution to deal with air pollution problems in British Columbia. Our government supported that -- with a little help from the previous administration; I'll grant them that.

We are world leaders in the biotechnology field, the fastest-growing high-technology component of our industry. We have developed solutions in aerospace industries, pulp, and water waste systems in this province that are second to none. I know that because of the pulp mill regulations that this administration implemented in the years 1991 to 1996, in order to drive up the development of technologies in that sector. We've done well, no matter what sector it is that you define.

Why is it that this government has done so well in terms of research and development and developing the high-technologies sector of our economy? It's for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. colleague from New Westminster indicated, we as a government have made it a part of our economic strategy to invest in education. By investing, in particular, in higher learning and our university and colleges sector, we have developed the kind of intellectual prowess that one needs in order to ensure that we have provided our young people with the skills necessary to be able to tap this market niche. By investing in education, we have laid the foundation for, I think, a future that will result in our continuing to be the leaders in high-technology developments.

Second, we've developed an investment climate in British Columbia that is second to none. We have the best job creation record of any jurisdiction in this country, in part because we have recognized that the way in which we can compete with other jurisdictions is not by some perverted race to the bottom in terms of low-wage or low-taxation havens, but by attracting these kinds of industries built around our education sector.

[11:00]

Every day, in the work that I do as a member of government, I meet with people who want to invest in British Columbia. We can't compete with people and don't want to compete with people on the basis of low wages or lower taxation rates. They want to invest in British Columbia because when they come here, they see the quality of life that we have offered. We have invested in our environmental infrastructure, we have invested in our education infrastructure, and we can provide people with a health care system that is second to none.

When they're making investment decisions and comparing us to Los Angeles or Seattle, and they look at the quality of life that we have to offer here -- the lower levels of crime, the free health care system and the advanced education systems -- they make a very conscious decision to invest in British Columbia. That ensures that we will have not only a future that is solid but an economy that is secure, because we've done a remarkable job of identifying those niches that the world marketplace requires and that can be met by this jurisdiction.

I want to assure the hon. member opposite that we are doing our job; we're doing it very well in British Columbia. I want to assure the Speaker from our senior Parliament that the impression he is getting today about this chamber being not particularly raucous is indeed a correct one.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks. However, I take no comfort in his assurances and, frankly, neither does Shirley Burton of Greenwood, B.C. She talks about her experience with this government's policy, which to date has not been well researched.

This is an article that was printed in the February 8 issue of the Vancouver Sun under the authorship of Stephen Hume. He quotes directly from her letter. She says:

"So the doctor gives me a prescription for. . .my stomach problems, and I take it to the druggist. He tells me that the government will no longer pay. . .and I will have to pay for it myself or use a [different] drug.

"I go back to my doctor, who prescribes a generic drug. The generic drug has serious side-effects. I go back to my doctor, who has to fill out a form so that I can get the [original prescription]. She has to fill out this form every [year].

"The doctor gives me a prescription for [a different product], a coated anti-inflammatory for my arthritis, and I take it to the druggist. He tells me that the government will no longer pay. . .and I will have to pay for it myself or use an uncoated [product].

"I go back to my doctor, who prescribes an uncoated anti-inflammatory. This drug literally burns my stomach. I go back to my doctor, and she prescribes another uncoated anti-inflammatory, which requires massive amounts of antacid. . . . The doctor gives me a prescription. . . ."

This goes on many, many times. In conclusion,

". . .the government has paid for five extra trips to the doctor, two medications which I couldn't use, one medication which doesn't work, two form letters from the doctor, and then for two of the three medications originally prescribed."

So if these kinds of instances are unfolding in this province, I would submit to the record that indeed this policy has not been well researched, and again I would invite this government to provide that information. I can assure you that reference-based pricing is not a science question today. It's not a technology question; it's certainly not a research question. Because the work has simply not been done.

If this government is interested at all in accountability around those questions, they will provide it. It needs to be something that's open and honest and fully debated in this chamber. I can tell this minister that, indeed, that privilege has not been granted to British Columbians; it's not been granted to the opposition. And we would like that opportunity to participate fully in debate when it dramatically impacts on our constituents and on anyone in this province who must avail themselves of the services provided by the Medical Services Plan.

[ Page 2324 ]

Again, this is a call for the research to back up the decision taken by this government, but it's also a call for an opportunity to participate fully in debate when these are issues that impact dramatically on individuals who live in our ridings. I would ask the minister to kindly consider my request.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member and all members. That concludes private members' statements.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's been a short week, but we had a very long week last week, so I think that I should move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:04 a.m.

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