[ Page 7245 ]

Prayers.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure to welcome into the gallery this morning 28 grade 4 and 5 students from Rogers Elementary School in my constituency, a school which, happily, will be getting some new additions because of recent announcements made by the Minister of Education. They are accompanied by a number of adults, including two teachers: Mrs. Val Bruce and Mrs. Donna Sparrow. I might say my only regret is that, because it appears I'll be appearing in debate shortly, I may not have a chance to greet them personally afterwards. But I do want the House, along with me, to welcome them all here, and I hope they enjoy the proceedings and come back often.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I rose earlier to reserve my right to respond to a motion of privilege raised by the member for Matsqui. After having taken the opportunity to review the case made by the member for Matsqui on April 24, and having reviewed the facts put forward by the Government House Leader and indeed my own statements in the House as they relate to the matter, I have determined that there is no further need for comment.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. The Speaker's office will get on with the job of replying, then.

Orders of the Day

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT
(second reading)

What this legislation does is extend the tuition freeze at public post-secondary institutions for a third consecutive year to March 3, 1999. That will benefit some 150,000 students across this province and even more in the future. It will apply not only to tuition fees but to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition, so that institutions will not be able to end-run the freeze through increasing ancillary fees. It also applies to new programs. Where those new programs are introduced, they must not have fees attached to them that are greater than the fees for similar existing programs.

More fundamentally, hon. Speaker, this legislation, which ensures that for the third year in a row students in this province will not have to pay more for tuition for post-secondary education, is about ensuring that our education system serves the needs of British Columbians now and into the future. We retain our commitment to improve post-secondary education and to make that education available to all British Columbians who require it -- through more funding, more spaces and more access.

Indeed, this legislation is part of a larger set of initiatives that have been announced in recent years, and again, in this year's budget to ensure that our post-secondary system is there to serve the needs of our future, the needs of our students and the needs of our province. This year we increased funding for post-secondary institutions by some $26 million. That funding over the past five years has increased $230 million, or 20 percent. Indeed, this province has had the greatest increase in per capita funding in post-secondary education of any province. Most provinces have decreased their funding for post-secondary education, hon. Speaker. We have increased it -- and increased it on a per capita basis, notwithstanding a huge growth in population -- more than any other province in the country.

We've also increased the spaces that are available for students in our colleges and universities and institutes. This year we're increasing those spaces by another 2,900, bringing the total over the past three years to some 13,000 new spaces for students throughout the province to occupy -- for people who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity for a university or college or other post-secondary education. And this year, recognizing that there are huge opportunities in the high-tech and knowledge-based sector, we have targeted 500 of those new spaces for high-tech training within the post-secondary sector. Again, this is an unprecedented growth in our post-secondary education system and sets us apart from other jurisdictions. Not only has tuition been frozen this year and in the past two years, but funding for student financial assistance has been increased -- this year alone by over $13 million.

What's this all about? What it's about is making sure that British Columbians have a chance to gain access to our education system and that once they gain access, the spaces are there to ensure that they can get the kind of education they require in order to gain the skills they need to fill the opportunities that exist in the marketplace. What it's about is making sure the institutions have the resources to provide the high-quality education that they wish to provide to the students there. As a result of these initiatives, not just this year but over the last three years -- indeed, the last six years -- B.C. now has the highest growth in post-secondary participation rates in the country. In fact, the participation rates of people taking part in our post-secondary system have increased over 5 percent since 1993-94, while the rest of Canada's participation rates have declined by 3.7 percent. When we became government, this province had the second-highest tuition rates in the country. Because of this tuition freeze over the last three years and this year, we now have the second-lowest tuition rates in the country.

We have one of the best financial student assistance programs in Canada. Indeed, if you look at the differentials in tuition and student debt, I think the evidence is there of this province's commitment to young people in the future. To go to a post-secondary institution elsewhere in the country, the average annual cost for tuition fee for a student is about $1,000 more than it is here in B.C. -- in Alberta, about $1,200 more; in Ontario, more than $1,200 more. You know, the opposition party often talks about differentials in taxation. But for fam-

[ Page 7246 ]

Perhaps the most telling indicator of all was the report that came out in the past week from Statistics Canada that shows that in the last six years B.C. has become the most educated province in Canada, and that a larger share of the British Columbia population has taken advantage of post-secondary education opportunities and accreditation than is the case in any other jurisdiction in Canada. Some of that is because we have attracted highly qualified and skilled people to this province. But a large portion of it is because we have opened the doors wider to colleges, to universities and to institutes. We have welcomed students in. We have ensured that the costs do not go up and that the resources are there to provide them with the programs they need. And we have done this in the face of huge cuts in federal transfer payments for education.

[10:15]

It's not just a question of philosophy; it's a question of common sense. Today post-secondary education is becoming more and more necessary for the ability of students and people generally in society to succeed in the global economy. Indeed, I would dare say that to have some form of post-secondary accreditation today positions you to enter the job market probably no better than having a high-school diploma would have done some 20 years ago. A post-secondary education is no longer an add-on; it's no longer a privilege. A post-secondary education is essential to enable young people, to enable the population of this province, to have the same kinds of economic opportunities that I had and that members opposite had when we graduated from high school.

We cannot ignore this fact. We cannot succumb to the tendency that other provinces have -- of looking for cuts in this area, of closing doors to education or increasing tuition fees because of budgetary reasons -- because that is short-term thinking with a long-term price. It means that our students will have less opportunity to be productive members of society, to fulfil their dreams and their futures. And who will lose by that? Not just those students, but all British Columbians, because those students, if they are given the tools and the opportunities, will become the productive members of society whose tax dollars will fund programs like health care and education into the future.

Our goal has been not to close the door to post-secondary education but to open it wider and to make sure that the opportunities are there for all to obtain the kinds of skills, training and education that will enable them to fulfil their dreams. I talk to parents all the time in my constituency and throughout the province. They talk to me about their anxiety for their children and the need for their children to get access to education and skills. They know that their children have dreams and they want their children to be able to fulfil those dreams, to fulfil their potential. This government has said that that is its number one commitment in education -- not to use tuition barriers as a barrier to those whose potential would otherwise be realized through education, and not to close the doors but to open them wider.

I invite the members to look at the record of what's happened in other provinces that pass through the federal cuts to their citizens. The lineups for post-secondary institutions are getting longer. I invite members to cast their minds back in this province to 1991, under the previous Social Credit government, when students lined up each fall to get into college and university. Sometimes thousands of students were not able to get in the door. Those lineups do not exist today, because we have taken the steps to create thousands of new positions in the last six years for students in colleges and universities.

In other provinces, as I've already indicated, even if students can get to the head of the line, they can't get through the door, because once they get there, the price of admission is too high. In Alberta, students have to pay $1,200 more annually for an average post-secondary education than they do in B.C., and it's higher still in Ontario. That is short-term thinking. Whatever additional money the government derives from that tuition is a punishment to the future, not only for those students but, as I say, for the future generations who will benefit from the investment in skills and training that comes through ensuring that access is provided. The fact is that making sure that students have access -- by creating spaces, by reducing tuition, by adding resources to the post-secondary education system -- is an investment in our future. It's not just good for the students; it's good for society as a whole.

Really, if you look at what has happened in this province, it's part of a very comprehensive vision and commitment to education that does set us apart from other jurisdictions, and one that more clearly than any other issue defines the differences between this government and the opposition party sitting across the way. Whenever it comes to these issues of education and commitment to education -- be it tuition freezes, be it adding resources, be it the question of federal government commitment -- the Liberal Party has always taken a stand, where you could discern it, against the future and against opportunities in education. It's regrettable, but it's true. It defines the difference.

It's not easy to swim upstream against the tide of federal cuts and the pattern that other provinces have set, but this government has done it. The opposition party has gotten right into that stream. When the federal government said that they were going to cut funding for education in this province, did the opposition party object to that? No. The Leader of the Opposition at the time said the federal cuts weren't deep enough. That was his response. That was the priority he attached to education: that the cuts weren't deep enough. I think that's simply unacceptable. But I think it is reflective of a difference in philosophy, something that clearly separates the vision of this government around education and its role in bettering our society and the lack of vision by the members opposite.

[ Page 7247 ]

Of course, we'll see what they do today, because they tend to say one thing and vote another for reasons that I think are more political than anything. But in the past they have criticized our efforts to freeze tuition or derided those efforts. I recall one member opposite, a critic for Education in the past, referring to the tuition freeze as a cruel hoax. A cruel hoax! Can you believe it, hon. Speaker? To dismiss something that thousands of students have asked for -- I believe a petition we received this year had over 20,000 names -- to be so patronizing and dismissive, to say to those students that protecting them from increases in tuition of the kind that are taking place in other provinces is a hoax, is truly unacceptable. If this party opposite wishes to show that it cares and understands the needs of young people and students, it's time that they realized that the only hoax is the hoax of their own failure in education policy. That's the one hoax that they bring to this debate.

The critic for Advanced Education for the Liberal Party has consistently criticized the tuition freeze. In fact, in debate he's lamented the fact that it limits the freedom of post-secondary institutions. Apparently he places a higher priority on the freedom of post-secondary institutions than on the freedom of British Columbians to get an education. That's simply unacceptable.

This is a defining issue. This is an issue that every member of this House should be concerned about, and this legislation sends a very strong signal. This legislation is about saying to future generations and to young people who are in our education system and hope there'll be a place for them in the future and to students who are there now: "Yes, the government is there with you. Yes, we believe in education as the doorway to the future. Yes, we're going to push that doorway open wider. Yes, we're going to enable you to get through that door so that you have real equality of opportunity, so that you have the skills and talents that we know exist within you unleashed, so that you can provide a benefit to this province -- not just for yourself and your family, but for the future."

That's what this is about. It's not about petty allegations of institutions not having enough freedom to increase tuition, about rhetoric, about hoaxes; it's about our future. This is a chance for the members opposite to stand up for once and rethink their position, to not just save it for the vote at the end so they can inoculate themselves when the time comes, but to admit they've been wrong; to admit that they can't afford to forget about education as they did in their platform; to admit they were wrong to give comfort to the federal government when it cut education; and to admit that this government has taken a leadership role in protecting students in our education system, one that for once -- if they can ever utter a positive word out of their mouths -- is worthy of their support.

With that, Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

J. Weisbeck: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 8, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

Initially I found it very, very curious that this act would be presented, particularly when this is now the third year that this tuition freeze has been in effect. Apart from the typical photo ops they would get from this introduction, initially it wasn't really clear to me why they would do this.

I found the definition of tuition fees within the act misleading. The dictionary defines a tuition fee as a fee for teaching, but in this act the definition of tuition fee "includes a mandatory ancillary fee that has the effect of increasing the cost of tuition." The significance of this didn't mean much until the Premier's statement. I quote from his statement when he introduced this bill: "In addition -- and this is important -- the act will apply to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. This will ensure that students' financial planning is certain from last year to this year and that they will not encounter any additional mandatory costs outside of tuition fees." In that statement the Premier appears to be making some distinction between the tuition fees and the ancillary fees. So the net effect of this bill is not only in freezing tuition fees; it actually freezes ancillary fees. Once again, the glaring fact remains that the ability of the institutions has been hampered by their inability to raise funds.

Ed Lavalle, president of the College-Institute Educators Association, made a report to this government and indicated that the most urgent issue facing the college, university college, institute and agency system was inadequate funding. He said: "While we supported freezing tuition fees. . . ." He noted that government had not replaced the money lost to institutions by the freeze. He stated that next year's level of both service and expansion would depend on addressing the funding crunch.

There are many different aspects to this tuition freeze and the impact it has. I'd like to read a letter that was written in the Capital News by a student at OUC. He wrote:

"As a third-year university student in the province of B.C., I disagree with the tuition freeze policy that has been implemented by the fiscally irresponsible government. The tuition freeze policy is a blatant buying of votes that many youth fall for. Although some youth may be in favour of the tuition freeze, I believe that this letter reflects the opinion of the silent majority of post-secondary students."

J. Weisbeck: Madam Speaker, what I'm intending to do is just give a couple of the different opinions that are out there, and we will state our opinion after this. I want to get the feeling out that this is not supported 100 percent by all students.

"I am truly concerned about the degradation of post-secondary education in this province. This view was also reflected in a recent issue of the OUC student newspaper, the Phoenix: '. . .university administrations across the province say the quality of post-secondary freezes are, I think, not always in the best interest of either students or the university in general.'

"This NDP policy of tuition freezes translates into the freezing of opportunity for post-secondary students in B.C.

"Programs that provide short-term summer employment do not address the long-term career needs of highly qualified graduates. I truly believe that you get what you pay for, and the

[ Page 7248 ]

current destructive policy practised by the NDP is reducing youth's worth and adding to the incredible 16.6 percent. . .youth unemployment in this province."

[10:30]

One of the impacts that I noted was in a conversation I had with an OUC gentleman who was in charge of computers. It was really disconcerting to me, because I thought that. . . . The government says they support high-tech and education. Yet the impact of freezing ancillary fees has a direct impact on OUC and their ability to finance new technology. At OUC there are 40 student computer labs with approximately 700 machines. The continuing education department can charge the fee, which could be applied to equipment upgrades. But non-continuing education, which makes up the bulk of the computers -- approximately 500 or 600 machines -- is affected by this bill. Six or seven of these labs at OUC are still operating on 486 technology. With the current replacement value, they're on a ten-year replacement cycle. We all know that high-tech is moving at an extremely rapid rate, and this is hardly adequate to keep students abreast with what's happening out there. Equipment replacement at OUC requires $1.25 million per year, and they are currently receiving about $800,000. In one sense we talk about supporting education and supporting high-tech. But, Madam Speaker, those words sound fairly hollow when you see that students are working on antiquated equipment.

We are supporting this bill because we think that students in this province need all the help they can get. It's really unfortunate, though, that the economy of this province is in such terrible shape that most businesses aren't able to supply summer employment. I remember that when I went through school it was very, very easy to finance my education, because business was in good enough shape that they could hire summer students. Unfortunately, this is not happening in this case, in this province. We may have the second-lowest tuition in Canada, but we certainly have one of the highest youth unemployment rates.

There are many barriers to education. Certainly tuition fees are one of them, but there are many others too in this province that have a direct impact on students being able to afford to go to school, such as libraries and the high cost of books. The high cost of living for students coming from outside the lower mainland and having to attend the universities in the lower mainland is a direct impact.

I will sit down now and allow our next speaker to speak on this bill.

R. Masi: It's my privilege to make a few comments on Bill 8, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. While I am in general agreement with the intent of the legislation, I can only agree with this legislation if it is honestly designed to help young people. We all understand, of course, that more education means a better life for each student, and we all understand that when you raise the educational level of the people of the province, you in turn raise the level of productivity and provide a better living standard for all. I have no quarrel with the legislation if the intent is genuine. However, if it is just another political manoeuvre to buy votes, I would be very disappointed in this government and very disappointed in this minister for manipulating the young people of British Columbia.

I have some concerns about the section on ancillary fees. The government control of these fees brings to the universities and colleges an unnecessary sense of rigidity. This tight control further reduces the self-governing aspects of the institution and allows very little flexibility and very little motivation for new educational experiences. Post-secondary institutions must be able to develop new experiences for students. There may be startup fees, lab fees, equipment fees or fees for invited expertise. The minister himself may be invited to offer a discourse on a point of law. All these mount up the costs, and these are costs that are unforeseen and costs that are required to start up new programs. How far will these restrictions apply? Do they apply to parking? Do they apply to student housing, cafeteria services, library fees? We don't know; but we do know that all these fees have within them inherent rising costs. I believe that the government is on somewhat unstable ground here. These restrictions could lead to many administrative problems. Sometimes I wonder if it's just another aspect of further control by the provincial government over the educational institutions.

The minister's comments regarding fees lead me to ask this question: what is the government philosophy regarding fees in general? Where is the line? Should students pay 25, 15, 10 or zero percent of the costs? Should there be no post-secondary fees? I think this is a critical question: who should take responsibility for an individual's post-secondary education? It's almost a question of ethics. Should a citizen be able to benefit himself economically at no cost to himself, at the expense of the public? If we get to the position of no fees for post-secondaries, who will qualify to enter, and how will they qualify to enter? These are questions that should be answered by the minister. Will entry be based on marks from government-examinable courses? How high is the bar set? When we are talking about government exams, we all know what happens there; we all know how vital a role socioeconomic factors play in academic achievement. We know about the west side in Vancouver versus the east side; we know about the north side of Surrey versus the south side and who gets the high marks and who doesn't. We know about the northern interior's problems in academic qualifications versus the southern coast. So who gets to go? Do we have teachers teaching just for exams, so that the bar can be met, can be jumped over?

Another question to the minister, hon. Speaker, is: what happens when they are finally in university? What do you do there? Do you get a free master's degree? Toss in a PhD on top of that? Again I ask, and I ask this sincerely: what is the real goal of this government in relation to post-secondary fees? I believe that the New Democratic Party is a socialist party, and if you're talking socialism, I think you're talking about no fees for post-secondary institutions. What have we got here? Have we got just a little bit of socialism? Is that like a little bit of pregnancy? I would like a definitive statement from the minister in terms of where we are going relative to post-secondary fees.

I believe that what we should be talking about today is access. The minister made quite a few comments on access to post-secondary schools. But when we're talking about access, freezing the fees, lowering the fees or even eliminating the

[ Page 7249 ]

The demand for university graduates has risen by 52 percent since 1990. However, in the nineties our universities have supplied only one-third of the demand for graduates needed in this province. Two-thirds are imported from other provinces or other countries. So I don't think we can rave on about where we are as far as the state of our university system in this province.

The real concern here is the inequity between the interior students and the lower mainland students. According to the Allen report, 12.6 percent of 23-year-old women from greater Vancouver and Victoria had university degrees, versus 7.3 percent from the interior and North Island. That's 12.6 percent from greater Vancouver and Victoria -- the people who live there -- versus 7.3 percent from the interior and North Island. For men it was 14.5 percent versus 8.2 percent from the interior. I think we have a problem here. If we're talking about providing access, we should be looking at access for all the students of our province, not just those from the lower mainland and the Victoria region.

Maybe we should take a hard look at the state of Washington. I realize that the University of Washington is located in Seattle, and it's a big draw; it's a fine university. I also realize that the American system of free enterprise and their economic foundation are probably much sounder than ours at the present time. Apart from the University of Washington, I see fine state universities right across the state. I see Western Washington in Bellingham, Central Washington in Ellensburg, Eastern Washington in Cheney and Washington State in Pullman. The students in the central and eastern parts of Washington have access. The students in the southeast part of Washington have access.

But what do our students from Fernie, Cranbrook, Nelson, Creston, Trail, Rossland, Kelowna and Osoyoos -- all those regions, all those areas, all those small cities -- have to do to receive any selection of degrees? We're talking about choice and selection here. They do not have access to a variety of university courses and programs. They must travel to and live in Vancouver or Victoria, and it costs money to live here. Freezing the fees, while it may be noble, won't help them one little bit.

When you run the smallest university system relative to population of any province in Canada -- this is according to the Allen report -- and you have an economic demand to triple the number of graduates, it is obvious to everyone that this government is not providing access for all our students in British Columbia. Freezing fees is a meagre attempt at covering up fundamental inequities in our post-secondary system.

[10:45]

"With an expanding population, students must be highly competitive when entering into post-secondary institutions. Students leaving high school need to be smarter, more focused and more adaptive than ever before. Financing in education also adds to this competition. Lack of it can force students to borrow or even prevent them from attending altogether. An average graduate is approximately $25,000 in debt. And a degree no longer guarantees a good-paying job.

"More so than ever before, our generation needs encouragement, financial support and the knowledge that our country realizes its future depends on educating the young. The most important asset [to B.C.] is its people. And today's educational investment in our youth will determine [our] future."

"My personal experience with the Canadian education is that with my son. I feel the Canadian education system [failed him]. My son came to Canada when he was three years old. With no knowledge of English, he was sent to preschool. Back then there were no ESL programs, yet he excelled in English during his elementary and high school education. With 12 years of elementary and high school, plus six years of post-secondary, my son wanted to continue with his studies in medical research. [B.C.] had nothing more to offer him. With a total of 18 years Canadian education, my son had to leave Canada for the United States to continue his medical research. This saddens me because in the States they offered him a scholarship, and they have nothing to offer him here. . . . It's almost like planting a seed in Canada, and when the fruit is in full bloom, it is taken from the tree to be eaten elsewhere. I feel [B.C.] should offer more to those who want to go further."

What are the tuition fees? Well, if you look at UBC, it's around $3,500. If you look at a community college, it's around $1,900. Student loans finance a large part of our students' costs, and the minister said that we have a very good assistance program in B.C. My comment to the minister is that we'd better have, because the students here do not have the opportunity and the luxury of having their costs defrayed by summer employment. In B.C. we have the highest student unemployment rate west of Quebec. The lion's share of those students' costs have to be borne by their student loan pro-

[ Page 7250 ]

I often see students take many more courses -- an additional course or two -- than what I would normally have seen students take 20 or 30 years ago. This workload increase is because they're trying to accelerate the time required to finish, and it puts additional psychological and health burdens on students who are trying to graduate from university. What we have with a tuition freeze is an attempt by government to fix the problem that government created in the first place by not providing an economy where students can actually work in the summer and then work after their schooling has finished.

What happens at the university? What do universities do when they're put into this box canyon and are trying to get up the sides? Basically, what they do is look at the expensive courses that are offered and decrease the number of times those courses are offered. These courses are in the science and technology areas, the ones that this government touts itself as being interested in. We have these courses being offered less often, thereby keeping operating costs down. We have high-level courses deferred, offered in alternate semesters or maybe not offered at all. This, again, will increase the amount of time that a student has to go to school in order to graduate. There will be decreased options, increased difficulty in scheduling, increased class sizes, frills cut, capital improvements not made -- in other words, an overall decrease in access to education.

If you have a student who is trying to graduate and courses are not being offered as often because of financial constraints on the institution, the saving of somewhere around $35 to $100 through a tuition freeze is not going to offset the $10,000 to $15,000 incurred by a university and the living expenses that a student would take up in student loans for an additional year. I think these are the realities that have to be put into the context of the overall situation. We have working students, and I see them more and more in my area. Certainly they are almost the entire population of the community colleges in our area: part-time students, students with families, working students who go to the colleges and try to upgrade and get their university degree over a number of years instead of on a concentrated four-year blast. With fewer course offerings, these working students and part-time students will have much more difficulty getting the degree that they seek.

These are things about the tuition freeze that are the most important to me. Students right now need a tuition freeze, and they need it because government has created a problem for them. The problem is that they no longer have the opportunity for employment. Students need a tuition freeze because government has strangled the economy in B.C., and there is nowhere for these students to work in the summer. Students need a tuition freeze because student unemployment is at all-time high records. Students need a tuition freeze because this government has made it that way, and therefore I support a tuition freeze for them.

C. Hansen: One of the things that I think this minister has failed to acknowledge in bringing forward second reading debate is what this issue is all about. It's not just specifically about what tuition rates are in British Columbia; it's all about access to post-secondary education. It's about the ability of every child in British Columbia to aspire to higher learning. It's not necessarily just universities or colleges. Sometimes it's technical schools; sometimes it's apprenticeship programs. But every child in this province should have an equal opportunity to access higher education. Where I believe this government fails is that they are only dealing with one aspect of that, and that's the actual tuition rates.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I remember well arriving at the University of Victoria for the first time, when I was 18 years old. Actually, the other day when I was introducing a visitor in the gallery, I made reference to the fact that that was 16 years ago. In fact, I realized afterwards that I had misspoken and that it was in fact 26 years ago. So either I'm in a state of denial as I get older, or the ability to do simple arithmetic is maybe one of the first things to go.

In 1971, when I arrived at the University of Victoria, I remember well going through the registration process in the Memorial gym. We were lined up like cattle, going through. Somebody was handing out computer punch cards for each course that you wanted. If you wanted to get into English 100, you had to go over to a table and see what section you could get into. They'd hand you a computer punch card, and you'd load up your computer punch cards. At the end of the process, which took about three or four hours, you gave all these computer punch cards to somebody who would fire them into the huge mainframe computer that probably filled several buildings in that day. This, of course, would be done on a laptop today. I remember well a student who had been there for a few years longer than I had who was helping with the process. I handed him my computer punch cards, and he looked me in the eye and he said: "Hello, 713637. Welcome to the University of Victoria." At the end of that process, that's exactly how I felt.

The other thing I remember very well was writing the cheque for my tuition in 1991. It was $728 I paid for tuition that year. In fact, if you look back at the effect that inflation has had over 26 years, the tuition rates today are comparable to the tuition rates we had in 1971 -- in terms of real dollars.

Interjection.

C. Hansen: I meant 1972; my apologies. As I say, it's the first thing to go as we get older -- right?

Tuition is certainly an important factor. In those years we were looking at fairly significant inflation rates. In fact, if the government in the late 1970s or early 1980s had come in and said, "We're going to cap tuition fees at 10 percent in this province," they would have been heroes, because inflation was going up so fast that tuition rates were trying to be kept down at a level that was manageable. Today we have virtually no inflation in this province. So for this government to come in and say, "We're freezing tuition rates," is probably more ingenuous than for a government, say, in 1982 to come in and say that they were going to cap tuition fees at 10 percent. So let's look at this in perspective.

Tuition, as I said, is only one aspect when it comes to accessibility of higher education. In all of the other areas, I think this government has a record of failure. The tuition freeze is the only small thing that they can grab onto to somehow be able to deliver a political message to students that somehow they're standing up for them.

On the other factors, let's look at the cost of housing and the availability of housing that students today are facing in

[ Page 7251 ]

Look at our loans and grants programs. We're at a point today where youth are increasing their debt load significantly every year, because they can't find the jobs that they need to pay the university tuition fees that exist -- whether they're frozen or not. I think that this minister should be addressing the issue of fairness in our loans and grants programs.

I've had two constituents that have come to me very recently to talk about the loan remission program. Two students -- they don't even know each other -- came in quite independently of each other to talk to me. They did their best to save up before they went to university. They put some of their own bank account towards their tuition fees in the first two years. Instead of doing the things that most kids would love to do every summer, they went out and found one of the very few jobs available, and they saved some money during the summer so that they could keep their student loans down. So at the end of the whole process, they wound up with student loans that were in the mid-twenties -- $20,000 of student loans coming out of university. Well, the students that probably didn't have access to the other resources were in the $30,000 - $50,000 range.

[11:00]

I think that this government also has to look at the cost of education for students who come from outside the urban centres. I grew up in various places on Vancouver Island. When I graduated from high school. . . . I graduated from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay, where my parents still live today. For students that I graduated with, to go from Courtenay to university was a major expense. The tuition was a very small part of the cost of having to pack up, move to Victoria, find an apartment and get into residence at the university -- the whole cost of living.

Students that live in my riding today, in Vancouver-Quilchena, probably don't realize how lucky they have it if they've got the opportunity to live at home with their parents while they're going to university or to college. I believe that students from around British Columbia who live outside of urban centres have a real lack of access to higher education and education opportunities in this province. The statistics certainly bear that out. Start looking at the percentage of students who graduate from rural communities, from non-urban communities. The percentage of students that go on to higher education is much lower than the percentage of students who come from urban centres where they grew up and where the family home is within easy commuting distance of the institution that they wish to attend. I believe that that is an area that governments -- not just this government. . . . Governments throughout the last 20 or 30 years have failed to address the inequity of accessibility for students from non-urban centres.

I think the area that this government probably has its biggest failure in when it comes to students is jobs. If students today had the job opportunities that I had in the early 1970s, we would not be having as much of a crisis in terms of accessibility of education as we do today. This is not something that has gone on and eroded over the last 30 or 40 years; this is something that has eroded while this government has been in power. This government has been in office since 1991. Let's look at some of the numbers going back a couple of years. Since this government has been in power, the youth unemployment rate has gone from 15.3 percent in 1991. . . . That's 15.3 percent of youth aged 15 to 24 who went out to seek a job and couldn't find one. That was bad enough in 1991 -- 15.3 percent.

Today, the latest numbers that came out of Statistics Canada for March 1998 show that the youth unemployment rate has jumped to 18.6 percent. Last month the youth unemployment rate was 17.8 percent, so that's a 0.8 percent jump in one month. But it gets worse. If you start to pull apart where they come up with these numbers, they use something called a three-month moving average. They don't take just the numbers for March of '98. They actually take January, February and March. They add those numbers together and divide them by three, and that's how they come up with the youth unemployment rate that StatsCan reports. So let's look at those last three months. The three-month moving average in January was 17.1 percent; in February it jumped to 17.8 percent; and in March it jumped to 18.6 percent. Hon. Speaker, what this means is that if you take one-third of the increase in one month, it shows that we have a crisis. If you start to realize that -- that one month from February to March resulted in that big an increase in the three-month moving average. . . . We have a major problem on our hands, and this government is simply failing to deal with it.

I remember when we were listening last year to the opening of the 1997 session of this Legislature. We had a promise from this government that they were going to create 12,000 jobs for students last year under something called A Guarantee for Youth. As we pointed out, the guarantee wasn't worth the paper it was written on, and now, of course, the government has decided that the guarantee wasn't worth anything. So they've done away with the word "guarantee"; they're now calling it Youth Options.

Let's look back at what happened last year with the 12,000 jobs for students. Do you know what the numbers show? From March of 1997 to March of 1998 there are 17,000 fewer jobs. That's 17,000 fewer jobs in one year. And that was in the year that this government promised us that they were going to create 12,000 new jobs for students. This year we have a government that's come in. . . . In this year's budget, they're promising us 17,000 new jobs. God help us, hon. Speaker. What does that mean in terms of the future decline of job opportunities for students in British Columbia? In fact, this is something that I think should shock members of the House from the NDP benches. Do you know how far back you have to go to find a time when there were fewer youth jobs in British Columbia? You have to go back to June of 1984. You have to go back 14 years to find a time in this province when there were fewer youth jobs than there are today. That is an indictment of the economic policies of this government.

The other thing that I find quite distressing. . . . This comes out of a report that the Premier's Office actually put out last year. These aren't even StatsCan numbers. I know the NDP would love to discredit StatsCan, which they can't, because it's solid. This is out of the Premier's Office, the office of the Minister Responsible for Youth. This actually came out last March when they were announcing the targets of 12,000 new jobs -- which we know resulted in 17,000 fewer jobs. This

[ Page 7252 ]

What this government is doing is robbing our youth of their future opportunities. This piece of legislation to freeze tuition is obviously a wonderful political tool for this government to use for things that they can stand up and brag about. They can put ads on the radio as part of their great advertising campaign to try to pretend that they are doing something to help the youth of this province. But if this government want to help youth in terms of accessibility to higher education -- accessibility to opportunity -- they have to address not just the tuition rates that youth have to pay but those other fundamental issues: they have to address housing for students, they have to address the issue of loans and grants, and they have to address the issue of the cost of higher education for students from non-urban centres. And probably the most important thing is that they have to address the state of our economy so that youth will no longer be the bottom end of the food chain when it comes to getting jobs in this province, but they will be able to get student jobs, summer jobs, weekend jobs, so that they can earn the funding they need to pay for the rest of their education -- which is significantly higher than the small amount that their tuition cost pays towards the total cost of their education.

R. Masi: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Masi: It is my pleasure today to introduce 25 grade 11 students from North Delta Senior Secondary -- home of the Huskies. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Barcket. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Bowbrick: I am very pleased to speak today on this bill, which I'm disappointed to see dismissed so casually by opposition members as simply a political stunt. Actually, I know that the member who just spoke attended high school up in Courtenay, and he referred to his connection there. Well, last weekend I was up in that area. In fact, I was in Campbell River at the Premier's Youth Forum, and I was speaking with about 50 young people, including people from Vanier high school in Courtenay. We talked about the tuition fee freeze and the Youth Options program -- what we're trying to do to help students get employment this summer. I can say that not one of those students dismissed any of these things as a political stunt. I have to add, as well, that in my experience speaking with students, they're probably the toughest crowd that a politician will ever meet. They won't hold back. They're not inclined to avoid asking tough questions, so none of them did that. I'll certainly take my cue from the students of this province and not the official opposition, which will always find a way to criticize anything that government does. The people of this province know when something is just politics, and that kind of a position is just politics. The people know when there is good public policy, and that's what this bill is about.

This is the third year in a row that tuition fees have been frozen. Of course, that's unprecedented in the entire country. We've seen other provinces see tuition fees increase by as much as 20 percent last year, in the case of the college system in Ontario. In the case of the university system in Ontario, tuition fees went up 15 percent. Those are happening year after year after year. What's happening is that there's an increasing gap between provinces and between affordability of post-secondary education from one province to the next.

Whereas a number of years ago -- perhaps five or six years ago -- British Columbia had the second-highest tuition fees in Canada, B.C. now has the second-lowest fees in the country. Only Quebec has lower tuition fees than this province. If we compare ourselves to our neighbours in Alberta, as many on the other side are inclined to do these days -- but selectively, I might add -- and look at post-secondary education and, in particular, at tuition fees, what we see is that the average student now pays $1,400 more per year to attend university or college in Alberta than they do in British Columbia. Now, $1,400 a year may not sound like a lot to people who are working and making $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 a year, like the privileged members of this House. But it's an awful lot to a student who is working, most often at minimum wage, especially in their first few years of post-secondary education.

I heard some quip from a member opposite about how long it has been since somebody on this side went to university. I'll say this with some confidence: of all the members of this House, I finished post-secondary education most recently. The member opposite who spoke prior to me referred to June 1984 as a measuring point. Well, it happens that June 1984 was the year I graduated from high school, so I know what it's like for students out there. I know what it's like when it's tough to find employment; I know what it's like to work for minimum wage. I remember in June 1984 when the minimum wage in this province was $3.65 an hour. That's what I worked for to try and afford tuition.

Under the previous government there was no ceiling at all; there was no freeze on tuition fees. It was apparent to me that it was my generation that was being hit with rather large consecutive increases in tuition, compared to students in this province who went to school in the sixties and the seventies. Finally we have a government that is willing to say that that has to stop. So for the last couple of years there have been no tuition fee increases, and there isn't this year as well.

[11:15]

" 'Tuition fee' means a fee charged by a post secondary institution for a graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational or developmental program and includes a mandatory ancillary fee that has the effect of increasing the cost of tuition, but does not include a student association fee or a fee charged to an international student or a fee charged for a contract service or a continuing education program."

At the same time, it's important that as a government, we be fair about this. What we did in the last several years is put a

[ Page 7253 ]

To their great credit, they did that for two years. They said to us, as government, that it was too much; that they wouldn't be able to do that for another year. That's why this year we have in fact funded increased spaces -- there will be another 3,000 spaces this year in our post-secondary system -- as well as offered the funding required to offset the impact of the tuition fee freeze.

A few minutes ago I was comparing provinces, and I think it's worth noting, as well, that the amount we spend on post-secondary institutions and education in this province every year has been increasing, unlike in other provinces that have different priorities. That isn't a partisan statement. There are other provinces that have had governments during that time with a similar political stripe to the government in British Columbia and that have made quite a different choice from this one.

Between 1991 and the 1996-97 fiscal year, the per-capita spending on post-secondary education in British Columbia has increased by 6 percent. Once again, to do the comparison with Alberta, during that same period of time, per-capita spending on post-secondary education decreased by 5 percent. That's quite a gap, and that helps to explain why students in Alberta will pay $1,400 more per year, on average, than British Columbia students. Over the course of a four-year degree program, that means that they will end up paying almost an additional $6,000. For many students that will mean some debt, but it certainly will reduce their overall costs.

I had one student -- these were high school students that I was speaking with -- ask me last weekend: "How much difference does that make? Because we have other costs; we have costs like housing." The member for Vancouver-Quilchena referred to housing costs prior to me getting up and speaking here, and that's a legitimate concern for students to raise. I'm not sure what free-enterprisers would suggest we do about that in an economy like British Columbia's, with the demand there is for housing and the consequent higher cost of housing that we have. I'm not sure what the suggestion was, and I'd be curious to hear more suggestions about that from the members opposite.

But the point the student was making to me was: $1,400 per year -- what does that mean? They came around to the point that at $1,400 per year, it means that it gives them some more room to afford housing, for example. If they have to move from a community like Campbell River or Courtenay to Victoria or Vancouver -- that is, if they choose not to attend one of the colleges in their area. . . . If they do that, they are going to have increased costs associated with living in a place like Vancouver. But because of the differences between B.C. and Alberta, they're going to have another $1,400 in their pockets to help them offset the costs of rent and what have you.

There is something else I want to touch on: the issue of employment for students. The members opposite have been raising it, and clearly it is a significant challenge that students face. I faced similar challenges when I graduated from high school and every year I was in university. But the question is: what can we as a government do to try to address that? The simple answer from the other side is: well, more jobs have to be created. Certainly the ultimate goal is that more jobs are created. The question is: what do you do for students now? What do you do for students today?

Knowing that most students, particularly in their first years of post-secondary education, are going to be taking jobs at the low end of the pay scale, shall we say -- typically minimum-wage or close-to-minimum-wage jobs -- one of the things we've done, and one of the things I'm very proud of, is make sure that particularly in areas like Vancouver and Victoria, with relatively high costs, they have a high minimum wage to match that. We have the highest minimum wage in the country. We hear a line from the official opposition that says that the minimum wage kills jobs, and therefore there aren't jobs available for young people. The only question I have is: why don't I hear that line of argument coming from the young people I speak with? When I stand up and speak with students in my constituency in New Westminster -- or with the students I spoke with in Campbell River last weekend -- why aren't they saying that the minimum wage should be cut to create more jobs for them? I don't think it's because they are unintelligent. They are very intelligent people. I think they don't argue that because it just doesn't ring true with them. They know that when they get a job, an extra $2 an hour -- B.C.'s minimum wage adds up to not quite $2 an hour more, compared to Alberta -- will make a difference. When they have tuition fees that are already $1,400 a year less than in Alberta, and they've got a minimum wage which is almost $2 an hour more, that's quite a premium over going to Alberta if you're going to be a student. You're going to be paid less, and you're going to pay higher tuition.

I know that members opposite have taken some strong positions on the minimum wage. They're certainly opposed to increasing the minimum wage. I was actually rather surprised when I read this. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, on August 8, 1996, in this House -- I think he was speaking with the minister responsible for post-secondary education at the time -- said: "I would like this minister to consider some form of job-entry provision that will veto a minimum wage, so that people in high school and early university who are scratching to get their tuition together or put food on the table -- many of them -- would still have employment opportunities. . . ." That's quite surprising. I'm actually quite stunned by that, hon. Speaker. A member of the official opposition was advocating that students should be exempted from minimum-wage. . . .

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: The member opposite asks me to tell the truth. That's a direct quote from Hansard and the date is August 8, 1996. Hansard is right behind the hon. member. He can pick it up and check it out for himself. Maybe he's embarrassed. That wasn't the most politically astute comment I've ever heard. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Bowbrick: The fact remains that that was the position taken by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, a member of the official opposition: that students in this province should be exempted from minimum-wage provisions. Once again, I haven't had any students come to me and say: "We shouldn't be paid the minimum wage; we're not worth the

[ Page 7254 ]

We have here, as I said earlier, the third year in a row of tuition fee freezes. That's plenty of time for the official opposition to formulate a position on this. I'll be listening intently to what the members opposite have to say. I'm not entirely clear what their position is. They speak of how we should be helping with housing. I assume that means more spending, that they're asking for some more spending. Should we be building more student housing? I don't know. I'll be glad to hear from the members opposite. However, I don't believe the member for Okanagan East is still the critic on this area -- post-secondary education. Is he?

Interjection.

G. Bowbrick: He is. Good, because there were a few things that I was surprised at when I reviewed Hansard. The member for Okanagan East, the Liberal post-secondary education critic, discussed this last year, on March 27, 1997.

"The freeze in tuition fees was, no doubt, a political decision made to obtain photo opportunities during an election, rather than a decision based on sound economic principles. We'd all love to give free post-secondary education, but colleges and institutes rely on an average of 15 percent of their budgets being collected from tuition fees. This freeze affects a very small percentage of the student population, and by removing the institute's ability to adjust these fees" -- there's a good word, "adjust"; read "increase fees"; I don't think the member opposite was referring to decreasing the fees; I think "adjust" is code for increasing fees -- "other areas of the system are affected, ultimately, with the closure of programs."

I'll be curious to hear an even greater defence now from the members opposite of the autonomy of post-secondary education institutions, a whole-hearted defence of their desire to see post-secondary institutions have that ability. I mean, we wouldn't want to interfere with the ability of post-secondary institutions to actually increase tuition fees, would we? I assume that's the position of the members opposite. Maybe the position of the members opposite has changed in the last year. I'd particularly like to hear from the member for Okanagan East, since that was his position in black and white, on the record, a year ago. I don't know if it's changed now. This opposition has a habit of getting up and saying they support these things when it comes time for a vote, but they're highly critical during the debate. I'd like them to address that quite specifically.

In conclusion, I'm very, very pleased with what we're doing here. This bill puts into law, it enshrines into law, the tuition fee freeze. It also takes away that autonomy, which the members opposite were so worried about, of post-secondary institutions to try and get around the tuition fee freeze. That's the right thing to do. I have yet to have a student in this province tell me otherwise.

[11:30]

I don't want to one-up the member for New Westminster. He says he finished his post-secondary education a few years ago. Well, you know what? I actually have the background, and I'm proud of it. I finished my first post-secondary degree years and years ago, back in the late seventies and early eighties, and because I couldn't find a job in this province for what I was trained for, I actually had to go back and retrain. So I finished my second post-secondary in the mid-nineties. I think I speak from experience, from the past and the very recent present. I hope I can speak from the future, because I do plan to go back and get another one.

In comparison, when I finished my first degree years ago, I had the benefit of low tuition fees, a cost of living that was fairly reasonable -- and low -- and a summer job. A summer job -- wow! We could actually look forward to getting out of school, applying for a job and actually getting one, then getting enough money to pay for some of our education and costs of living in the fall when we went back to school. These days, students do not have that choice. In the nineties, students are hit with higher tuition fees, a cost of living that's way up and -- you know what? -- absolutely no chance under this government of getting a student job. We've heard, from speakers before me on this side, that the unemployment rate for youth in this province is the highest it has been in 14 years. That is unbelievable. That is incredible.

Those members opposite have to take responsibility for that. Like, who else does? It's been higher in the last seven years as well -- or they've made it high today because of their administration in the last seven years -- and they should really be ashamed of that. When I went to school in the late seventies and early eighties, I didn't necessarily have to take a

[ Page 7255 ]

It is simplistic to freeze tuition and not look at the quality of education. I think the member for Okanagan East, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Okanagan-Vernon were making that point, too. The minister says that education programs have widened. I don't know who he's talking to. Maybe he's talking to himself and trying to convince himself. When I meet with students and talk to them -- I have a college in my riding -- they tell me that their choices are limited, their class sizes are larger, and they are actually having to go into programs and not get the classes they want in one year, so they're having to go through a summer and into fall the next year. That increases their cost of education.

Now, it's fine to freeze tuition over here, but the universities have to do something to make up for that at the other end. What they're doing is cutting courses and limiting choices, and that's extending a student's year.

It's absolutely incredible to find out what's going on in the real world, and I wonder if the Minister of Advanced Education has talked to students who are actually in the programs, or if he's just thinking this is a great idea and he's talking to himself and trying to convince himself that it's a great idea.

The member for New Westminster says that he's been talking to high school students in his riding. Well, you know what? High school students aren't in college yet. It is a great political stunt, isn't it? The students don't realize it's a political stunt, because they're not in the system and they don't realize what they are going to be facing in their first, second or third year of university. It's fine to try and buy their votes at that age. Once they get in. . . . The students I'm talking to are students at Okanagan University College, and they're telling me that tuition fees actually freeze education opportunities.

The member for Okanagan East read a letter, and I would like to quote from the same letter. This is a student in third year at Okanagan University College, Neena Davies of Kelowna, and she says. . . .

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: Pay attention now, because you said you're hearing from students. I want to give you a student's perspective here:

"As a third-year university student in the province of B.C., I disagree with the tuition freeze policy that has been implemented by the fiscally irresponsible government. The tuition freeze policy is a blatant buying of votes that many youth fall for. Although some youth may be in favour of the tuition freeze, I believe that this letter reflects the opinion of the silent majority of post-secondary students.

"I am truly concerned about the degradation of post-secondary education in this province. This view was also reflected in a recent issue of the OUC student newspaper, the Phoenix: '. . .university administrations across the province say the quality of post-secondary freezes are, I think, not always in the best interest of either students or the university in general.'

"This NDP policy of tuition freezes translates into the freezing of opportunity for post-secondary students in B.C."

I mentioned before that I think it's shameful that universities and colleges have to cut corners, cut courses and reduce choices for students. Students tell me -- and I've said it before -- that they have to wait at least a term or another year to get into the course they need to finish their program. How is that helping students? It's not helping students. What this government has done is extend their school year, extend their loans and decrease their choices, so that education really hasn't been protected for students in universities and colleges. What's really evident is that these quick fixes and not looking at the whole picture really show that the government has no vision and no commitment to quality education. They've certainly left students feeling like they have no choices in their education and no hope for employment in summer jobs -- absolutely no hope.

We heard the member for Vancouver-Quilchena talk about this wonderful youth program that the Premier announced last year and how there were going to be many thousands of jobs. I had so many students come up to me last summer and say that they had absolutely no faith left in those members, that Premier and that government, because they couldn't find a job if they tried. Apparently that program financed people to set up to help students, but there was no money for jobs at the end of the day. Again, that is just self-serving advertising propaganda on the government side -- absolutely no help to students whatsoever.

It's the job situation that concerns me. Certainly we can help students through post-secondary, even if it means extending their program. They are desperate; they're looking for hope. We keep telling them that there are jobs in high-tech, that there are jobs out there. We need an educated population. Of course we do, but we have to make sure that the plan is all in place. We can't just pick away at it here and there and say: "Freeze here. Prop up a $36 million program there, and hope it flies. We'll advertise it; we'll make it look really good." Well, you know what? Kids aren't falling for that any more these days. They're looking for real opportunity; they're looking for a real education. They're looking for some kind of honesty, I guess, in announcements from this government, and they're really not finding it.

We heard about the crisis in youth unemployment. It's overwhelming. We've got the highest youth unemployment west of Quebec. That is just overwhelming. The government has failed. That is a clear, clear indicator that this government has failed students. It has failed to help them, and has consistently failed them in the last seven years, because that number hasn't gone down. It doesn't matter how many announcements; it doesn't matter how much this Premier wants to advertise and spend money on it. It has not created those employment opportunities for youth. The NDP's education policy -- do you know what it is? It's decreased access to education for students; it's no improvement in curriculum; it's no upgrade of capital equipment. And I think they have failed. That seems to be the hallmark of this administration:

[ Page 7256 ]

Tuition fee's are only one factor in access to higher education for students. Students and youth deserve better. They deserve better from this government. They deserve a plan for quality education, and they deserve a plan for job creation that is real and honest. And you know what? They don't deserve quick fixes -- just a quick fix in one area and no help in the other, in the way of job creation. Those are my comments.

H. Giesbrecht: I'd like to make a few comments in support of Bill 8, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. But I'd like to start by responding a little bit to what the former speaker, the member for Okanagan West, had to say. She said that they had a policy. I want to remind members of the House that back in 1996, under the Liberal economic plan. . . . This plan, incidentally, was well discussed in the local media. The economic plan claimed -- and this was claimed by the Leader of the Opposition in the leaders' debate -- that it would increase funding for post-secondary education by 14 percent. Time and time again, he insisted on that. We all know that the facts suggested that in the area supposedly protected from the Liberal plan, there was an across-the-board 5 percent cut. The plan set aside $3.99 billion for education, a figure that everybody recognized clearly excluded post-secondary education. So they didn't have a policy then. The information, also from the provincial media, was that the plan actually called for the existing $1.4 billion post-secondary budget to be cut by 5 percent, or $72 million in year one. And in the following years after that, the situation didn't get any better.

[11:45]

We have heard all kinds of comments here about the economy and how that affects students. I'm one of the lucky ones; I went to university back in the days when you could get a summer job working for, not minimum wage, but at one of the union places. You could work for one of the sawmills, for example, where you could get in on the basic wage rate, and you could actually earn enough money in the five months of a summer for a university student and pay your way. But, hon. Speaker, what these people have failed to realize is that the economy has been changing for the last two decades, and you don't have those resource jobs anymore. All these large companies have been downsizing and introducing high technology. So what's happened now. . . . There were a whole series of restraints under the previous administration, those that have now become Liberals, that destroyed most of those jobs. You can't even get a job now with some of the ministries that you used to. In the old days you could get a job with the Ministry of Highways, for example, and you could make enough money during a summer to pay for your entire education. Now students have to go back and work for K Mart, some for McDonald's, and work for a minimum wage.

And guess what: they are opposed to the minimum wage. You can work for an entire summer and not earn enough to pay for the $10,000 it requires for a post-secondary education. So maybe they ought to get some of their policies straight before they set up this smokescreen. And they might want to remember their last economic plan.

I would be pleased if at some point the federal government and the provincial government got together and said: "You know, tuition freezes are great; they help every student a little bit. It means that your debt load won't be as high. It benefits everybody." But clearly, for those of us who come from the north it's not quite enough, because we have costs of travel, accommodation, and all those kinds of things which add to the cost that people who live in Vancouver don't necessarily have, because a lot of them might be able to live at home and go to university. It's different for us up north. So it would be interesting, for example, if we extended some of the benefits to that.

Now I take you back to 1995. That was when the federal government was off-loading and cutting transfer payments to education. Do you want to know what the Leader of the Opposition said when Paul Martin slashed education funding to the provinces? Here's a quote from the Vancouver Sun, February 28, 1995. It says the name here. I won't repeat it, but it's the Leader of the Opposition: ". . .Finance Minister Paul Martin did not go far enough in his cuts." That was the reaction. Hon. Speaker, how do you address those other concerns when they sit there and tell their federal cousins that they're not cutting enough and that they're not off-loading enough on transfer payments? Then they want to lecture us in terms of what we should do for education. There are no other options. If you continue to tell the feds that they should cut more, what choice have you got? Maybe those people listening, particularly students, might remember that, and understand some of the difficulties.

Here's another one, from the Province back on January 26, 1995. The headline is: "Students' Message a Hard Sell: Students got little sympathy from some politicians after their one-day strike yesterday." And here's a little note: "B.C. Liberal leader. . .said that while students are right to protest, 'we are not doing them any favours in avoiding the cash crunch this country faces.' " Well, great! There was a day when every student could understand that the federal budget was going to be balanced on their backs. What a great symbol that was!

I have a quote here from Thursday, March 27, 1997, when the member for Okanagan East said: "We'd all love to give free post-secondary education, but colleges and institutes rely on an average of 15 percent of their budgets being collected from tuition fees. This freeze affects a very small percentage of the student population. . . ." Have I got that right? A freeze on tuition that presumably everybody pays when they go to an institution only affects a very small percentage of the student population? Now, sure, those of us up north have other con-

[ Page 7257 ]

The minister already remarked on the member who said that the tuition freeze is a cruel hoax for post-secondary students. Well, there's a follow-up quote to that. The member for Okanagan-Vernon says: "This is a cheap shot on his part to say by freezing a certain amount of money that he's helping students, when in fact, in the long run, he's only helping them temporarily." Well, most help is temporary. Had I had a tuition freeze when I was going to college, I would have been grateful for that, instead of arguing that somehow there is a devious motive in all of this. Obviously, if you pay less in tuition, you'll owe less, and you'll have to come up with less in terms of the payments that you make during the time that you're there.

As I said, I find the position of the opposition somewhat strange, because it's really hard to pin down exactly where they are. I predict they're going to vote in favour of this bill, but they have to make some noise because it suits their purpose. I certainly will support Bill 8.

G. Wilson: I am pleased to rise in my place to speak to Bill 8. I note the time, and I have much to say on this bill, so I would move adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

E. Walsh moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM,
HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMMIGRATION
(continued)

B. Penner: Just to pick up where we left off yesterday when we were talking about the interesting topic of photo radar. Since participating in debate yesterday, I've been contacted again by someone who has spent some time on the Internet observing our remarks in Hansard. I've been encouraged to pursue the Attorney General's statement that the decline in traffic accidents over the past year or year and a half can be attributed to the presence of photo radar.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- yesterday, I think -- was trying to get at the point that there may be a difference between correlation and causation. I wonder if the Attorney General can enlighten me and members of the public as to what evidence he has that it is the existence of photo radar units on the highways of British Columbia that has resulted in a decrease in motor vehicle accidents and not, for example, factors such as the warmest winter in 50 years or the prevalence of anti-lock braking systems on newer motor vehicles.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think this is a game that we can play, and we can do quite well on many different sides of the issue. But the important fact is -- and I think it's significant that people remember -- that for the first time in a long, long time, accidents are down in British Columbia, speeding overall is down, the incidence of speeding is down, crashes are down, injuries are down and deaths are down. That may simply be sheer coincidence, or it may be the weather -- or it may be the moon. Maybe we suddenly found that all the stars were in a particular constellation. But the fact is that photo radar didn't exist. That's the only new element that's been added to all of the other factors.

I think it's an interesting question, and we can pursue it. But the evidence is irrefutable that there has been that drop coincidental with the implementation of photo radar. We can now carry out that debate elsewhere -- perhaps looking at scientific journals and the like -- but those facts are there.

B. Penner: I agree with the Attorney General that it may be just a coincidence -- or coincidental, to use his term.

Moving on, when we concluded yesterday, we were talking about the number of photo radar tickets that are being disputed. We were estimating between ourselves that there were perhaps 16,000 photo radar trials in a given year. I am wondering if the Attorney General can inform us as to whether or not night courts are being utilized to handle some of the extra cases coming through the courts resulting from photo radar tickets being disputed.

[10:15]

B. Penner: To clarify, the Attorney General ministry is considering the introduction of night courts, and discussions are actually ongoing towards that goal. I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate when he sees night courts actually starting in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At the earliest possible date, and I don't know when that might be. I'm hoping that we can do them before the end of the year.

[ Page 7258 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Attorney General is always responsible for the costs. We may get some assistance from ICBC. No matter where the money comes from, the Attorney General is responsible for the costs of the courts so that we can maintain the integrity of the court system.

B. Penner: It's my understanding that there already is legislation in British Columbia that would enable the law enforcement agencies to impose penalty points in addition to the large fines that already exist for photo radar infractions. Does the government intend to start adding penalty points to the fines already levied for photo radar infractions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a question that's appropriately addressed to ICBC and the motor vehicle branch people. I'm not aware of that discussion ever having taken place.

Since I'm on my feet, I want to add. . . . I would stand corrected. There are three pilot night courts already underway -- in Richmond, Burnaby and Victoria -- that are dealing with these issues, and we will certainly look at expanding that.

B. Penner: Yesterday the Attorney General touched on one topic very briefly when describing some of the responsibilities ICBC has for the photo radar program. He mentioned process servers in conjunction with the responsibilities of ICBC. I'm wondering if the minister is in a position to confirm whether registered mail is an approved method for serving photo radar tickets or whether the accepted practice is still the hiring of process servers to deliver photo radar tickets.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not familiar with the details of the approved method of service. If registered mail were at this time an approved way of serving, they would not need process servers. I understand that ICBC is currently using process servers, so obviously registered mail isn't the approved method of service at this time. Whether or not that should be considered is an issue that we may have to consider at some point. Having thousands of these tickets served personally is an expensive proposition, and I think that the hon. member makes a good point.

B. Penner: I anticipate that there would be a significant cost savings if the government were able to go to the process of process serving by registered mail.

In addition, I've had some inquiries about whether or not people from out of province might be able to be pursued for photo radar tickets if we relied on registered mail as opposed to process serving. I'm wondering if the government has any plans at this point to pursue out-of-province drivers who are found to be in violation of our speed limits, according to photo radar units.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member raises an important question. There probably aren't that many individuals from out of province travelling in British Columbia who are Canadians and who are being given those tickets. They might be Americans, and it would be much more difficult to pursue them. Other Canadians might be easier to pursue. I think that at the end of the day one has to take a look at whether or not it's good public policy to pursue other Canadians, who might be 3,000 miles away, for a traffic ticket, which is essentially what this is -- not to diminish the importance of what we're trying to do in British Columbia, but I think we may have to look at that. I don't think that's being done at all currently. It would be impossible to do, with the need for personal service.

B. Penner: I anticipate that there would be some members of the public who would be interested in knowing what percentage of photo radar violators are from out of province or out of country. I wouldn't expect that the Attorney General's staff here today would have that statistic, but it might be an interesting figure for the general public. I would assume that they would be interested in receiving that information.

It's my understanding that justices of the peace, when hearing disputes relating to speeding or photo radar tickets -- even when they find the person guilty of an offence -- often exercise discretion in reducing the actual amount of the indicated penalty. It's also my understanding, although I stand to be corrected, that there's currently some legislation pending -- or perhaps already passed -- that would prevent a justice of the peace or a provincial court judge from varying the amount of the indicated penalty according to the individual circumstances of a photo radar or other speeding ticket violator. I wonder if the Attorney General could bring us up to date on where we stand with that proposed legislation, or if in fact that legislation is pending.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that that discretion has been exercised in some cases. They are rare, but that's a discretion that is available to the JPs or the judges. Once the fine is reduced, so is the victim fine surcharge.

B. Penner: Just to clarify, then, are there any plans to change that allowance for JPs and judges to vary the amount of the indicated penalty?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Always fearing to tread into future policy, I'm not aware of any.

B. Penner: For the record, I would just state my belief that it's a good thing to allow judges and justices of the peace to exercise discretion and to take into account the individual circumstances of the violators, whether they be photo radar violators or other provincial ticketing offence violators. We all know the circumstances involving single mothers, who are unemployed, students and other people facing financial hardship -- who may have more difficulty paying, let's say, a $125 fine than a person who is a member of the Legislature, for example.

When reviewing the Hansard from the debates last year involving this ministry, the Attorney General indicated that he was hoping to take the fully trained police officers out of the photo radar van units by the end of the year and have them replaced by trained technicians. I wonder if we could have a status report on how that project is coming -- replacing the trained police officers with technicians to operate the photo radar units.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that issue was raised and answered yesterday. We're hoping to have the evaluation done by the end of June and make the transition, if at all possible. That is the intent. Whether or not we'll be able to successfully do that depends on whether or not we can successfully substitute trained technicians for police officers.

B. Penner: It's my suspicion that there must be some difficulty being encountered, because again, just looking at the

[ Page 7259 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the number 83 remains about that. As I said yesterday, these were additional police officers injected into photo radar. They weren't taken from elsewhere to put into photo radar; these were additionally funded police officers.

The major hurdle in the transition is the evidentiary issue; trained technicians are going to be required for evidentiary purposes. It's important that we do it right so that the whole system doesn't collapse in terms of the evidence when it needs to be produced and adduced in court.

B. Penner: I've had the question posed to me: "Where exactly are the police officers in the vans?" When you drive by the vans, you never see them -- at least I haven't, and people who talk to me say they have never actually seen a police officer sitting in the front seat of the van. It leads some people to suspect that perhaps there is nobody actually present in the van at any time. I'm just looking for some clarification around that.

Another question that I'm occasionally asked in relation to photo radar van units is: "Why is it that they had to go out and purchase brand-new vans to operate these units? Wouldn't used vehicles have sufficed?" And how many vans are there for the program? I think that's three questions there.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the equipment that has been purchased -- whether these are vans or cameras -- those are ICBC issues. I wouldn't know why (A) was done and why (B) wasn't done. In terms of whether or not police officers are present in the vans, yes, they are. Sometimes they might be sitting away from the front trying to do some work on a computer that they carry with them.

B. Penner: What is the exact number of photo radar vans in the system today? I know that there are some plans to expand the fleet. I'm wondering what the current fleet is at now and what the future plans are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are 30 vans and cameras currently in use. There is a plan to expand; I don't have the details of that. I think that's been in the news. I think we're going to be adding about ten more over time.

B. Penner: Obviously, from what the minister has said previously, the responsibility for acquiring those vans and the operational costs would rest with ICBC. However, the police that operate the vans would be the responsibility of the Attorney General -- if I'm clear on that. I wonder if there's a cost estimate available as to what the staffing implications would be for the Attorney General's ministry in operating ten additional photo radar units.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There would be no deployment costs to the Attorney General. We believe that we can manage, within the existing contingent of personnel that's available, to staff ten additional vans.

[10:30]

If we in British Columbia are successful in replacing the police officers with trained technicians, would the Attorney General's ministry still be responsible for paying the salaries of the trained technicians? Or would that responsibility then fall to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Attorney General will still be responsible.

B. Penner: Of course, when photo radar tickets are successfully challenged, those people opposed to photo radar units point out the implication -- or the stated fact -- that the ticket was defeated because of unreliability in the photo radar unit. I'm wondering if the B.C. government has obtained any independent engineering analysis pertaining to the accuracy of this type of photo radar unit being used in British Columbia and whether or not that analysis is in addition to any reports prepared by or on behalf of the manufacturer.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the answer to that very exhaustive question, but if the hon. member wants to obtain that information, ICBC might be a better source. They have an ongoing repair and maintenance contract with ATS -- not AT&T -- if I remember correctly. If my ministry is aware of any studies that have been done -- studies are generally public property -- I would make them available to the hon. member.

B. Penner: I'd like to move now from the issue of photo radar cameras to the stated intersection safety cameras, which this government's now pursuing. I was reviewing a press release issued by the Attorney General's ministry dated November 12, 1997. The statement contained in that press release was that the minister was hoping to have these intersection red-light or safety cameras operational sometime in 1998. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can provide us with an update as to where we are with that. I believe we had started with a pilot project in four different municipalities. I wonder if you can tell us where we're at today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The pilots that we had. . . . There were six cameras, if I remember from the press release some months ago, in various parts of the province. The pilots are now complete. All of the results are being assessed, and we are consulting with the UBCM. This matter is with the justice committee of the UBCM and the ministry. One of the things that we need to remember is that many of the intersections are owned and controlled by the municipalities, and we need their consent to install these cameras. There is a hurdle: at least some of the UBCM members are saying that we should have a traffic revenue-sharing formula in place before they would consent to us putting photo radar or the red-light intersection cameras at their intersections.

I have made it very clear to them that it is my desire to proceed. I don't believe that red-light intersection cameras should be conditional on any revenue-sharing -- although revenue-sharing is important. The Premier has committed that there will be revenue-sharing. Those discussions may take some time, and they will continue. I have directed my ministry to actively pursue this matter in the justice committee, and

[ Page 7260 ]

As Attorney General, I don't want to be consumed in a matter of revenue-sharing discussions. That belongs elsewhere, with other ministers. For me, law enforcement is a priority, and if it's a proven device that works to save lives. . . . I understand that there were, in one year, 13,000 accidents at intersections in British Columbia. We want to have 120 dangerous intersections identified across the province, and we would have 30 cameras rotating among those 120 intersections.

There is a very high approval rating from the population. People want us to do this. I have asked the municipal leaders to put aside their revenue considerations and have those discussions elsewhere. At the end of the day, if those discussions succeed, wonderful; if they don't succeed, we shouldn't be slowing down on the issue of red-light intersection cameras.

B. Penner: I believe the figure of 13,000 intersection accidents was for the year 1995. The statistics indicated that 21 fatalities were attributed to motor vehicle accidents at those intersections. The minister refers to 120 sites. I didn't catch the number of camera units, though.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thirty.

B. Penner: Presumably these 30 camera units would be moved to different locations from time to time. Have the 120 sites in British Columbia already been identified?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That identification is in the process of being completed.

B. Penner: There was going to be a technology review conducted prior to the province determining which particular intersection camera would be purchased, according to the press release. Has that review taken place? Has a particular vendor been selected to supply intersection cameras? And if so, what is the name of that supplier?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No vendor selection has taken place. We are preparing the request for proposals as part of the assessment of the pilots. Once the request for proposals goes out, we'll then select a vendor.

B. Penner: I'm curious about how many potential bidders there are for this project. Are there many manufacturers of intersection red-light cameras? How many different cameras are being tested from how many different manufacturers?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there are at least four possible known potential bidders with respect to the provision of cameras.

B. Penner: Presumably, then, because we haven't actually gone to a tendering stage officially, we don't yet know what the cost per camera unit will be for the intersection cameras. Is there an estimate that we can look forward to?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer is no.

B. Penner: I'm getting close to concluding my canvassing of this issue, but I would like to end with some comments. I did speak recently with one of the mayors who met with the Attorney General, the mayor from Chilliwack, John Les. His concern to me about the government's position of dealing with the revenue-sharing later is that once the approval is given by the municipalities for the operation of these cameras, it will be pretty tough to exercise the same kind of leverage later to reach an agreement that's acceptable to the municipalities. So I can understand their bargaining position. They would like to see this issue resolved up front rather than coming back to the table in a somewhat weakened bargaining position later.

I will make one other final comment before letting the Attorney General respond. I would concur that the public acceptance is greater for intersection cameras than it is for photo radar in general. This is particularly true in light of the government's decision to abandon the so-called fairness code, which restricted the placement of photo radar units to certain locations. For example, it imposed a certain minimum distance requirement between speed changes on sections of highways before you could place a camera. So I would agree with the Attorney General that the public is more willing to accept this type of enforcement in intersections than the general photo radar that we now see in British Columbia.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just deal with the last question first, with respect to the fairness code. These were guidelines given by cabinet for use by police. Police, in terms of their experience on the roads, have amended those guidelines. The government has not amended those guidelines. Police have amended those guidelines as they saw fit. As we know, police are absolutely independent in this province. I don't believe anyone should ever think there was any political direction to police in amending the guidelines. The initial guidelines were provided by cabinet. Beyond that, it is now up the police to amend those guidelines as they see appropriate and justified. Yes, they have amended some. Obviously those guidelines are public.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, all right. If the hon. members have some issue with the police, then perhaps they should take that up with the police. They wouldn't want me to direct the police to amend their guidelines, which are borne out of their experience. There's no question that red-light cameras save lives.

I'm sympathetic to Mayor Les and other mayors that have expressed the sentiment that the hon. member is echoing. But here is a proposal that I had made to the mayors in the recent meeting, and it may or may not be acceptable to Treasury Board either. Here is the proposal. The proposal was that they should allow this device, which enhances public safety, avoids injuries and crashes. . . . They should allow the deployment of this device. And we will try and keep track of whatever revenue comes in as a result of this device from the moment the device is deployed across the province. Then at the end of it, they can have discussions with various other ministers.

Then it's up to Treasury Board to determine what revenue, if any, municipalities should get. If Treasury Board decides at the end of the day that revenue, or a portion of it, from photo radar and from this particular device is to go to the municipalities, we can calculate it retroactively, provide that amount and distribute it among the municipalities. I think

[ Page 7261 ]

B. Penner: I wasn't planning to get up again on the subject of photo radar, but I can't let the minister get away that easily with this comment about the fairness code. The Attorney General says now it's the responsibility of the police: "Deal with the police if you don't like the fairness code."

But it seems to me that the government's been trying to have it both ways, because in 1996 during debate on photo radar, the then Minister of Transportation and Highways -- I think it was the member for Prince George-Mount Robson -- was using the guidelines kind of as the government's assurance to the public that photo radar would be acceptable. She went on to state: ". . .it's not to be done where there's a change of speed. . .there will not be any photo radar established where it goes from 80 kilometres to 70 kilometres per hour. . .they'll be in high-speed and crash areas. They will have to be both; it can't just be a high-speed area, but it has to be an area that has had crash-related incidents." She went on to state, "Sites will not be established within a community where there's clearly no public support for photo radar," and then later: "Selected sites should be on relatively straight and flat sections of road, where drivers do not typically accelerate or decelerate but travel at a constant speed."

[10:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to disabuse anyone and everyone of the notion that those guidelines have been abandoned. Yes, those guidelines have been modified, exercising the discretion of the police. That minister. . . . I don't know who that was. My hon. colleague wasn't the Attorney General. All ministers aren't necessarily lawyers. They don't, at the end of the day, think of or know the issue of the absolute independence and discretion of police. The Attorney General does. I'm telling you and everyone else in British Columbia that the police have -- based on their experience, using their discretion -- amended the guidelines. The guidelines were as the previous minister stated. But the police are absolutely independent. No cabinet can, by mere guidelines, limit the discretion of the police. It is important for people to know that, yes, those guidelines are in place. Some of those principles are still in place: history of crashes, history of speeding, consultations with the communities -- quite often many. But the exercise of police discretion is an important element that is injected into whatever is done on the roads by police.

G. Plant: Well, the question that arises is: at one point was the public sold a bill of goods? Were they sold the bill of goods when the government introduced photo radar and said it would only be applied when there was a fairness code? That was wrong for the public to be told that. The minister who made the statement, the press releases that were filled with the statement and the newspapers that were filled with the speeches were wrong, because they weren't being made by the Attorney General, who is careful to preserve the independence of the police. Or is the public being sold a bill of goods now, after the initial political sales job? "Don't worry, this won't be done arbitrarily; it won't be done in a way that makes it look like a cash cow. It's all about public safety." Then what happens is that the fairness code is amended -- gutted would be a better word -- and now we hear an explanation along the lines of: "Well, you know, you can't really attack the process because you're attacking the independence of the police."

Sooner or later. . . . In fact, from the beginning this was about politics; it is still about politics. It's difficult to have an argument with the Attorney General about the independence of the police, because no one wishes for a moment to suggest that the police should not be independent. No one for a moment wants to suggest that the fairness code was ever legally binding. It did, however, create a culture of political expectation, and I suggest that it did so deliberately. The government did that deliberately. For the government to have walked away from the fairness code, notwithstanding the legal niceties of the thing, undermines -- I suggest with respect -- the credibility of the initiative from the outset.

I want to give the Attorney General one more opportunity to explain what has happened without reminding us about the important issues around the independence of the police, which I'm sure most members of the public don't need to be reminded of. I think there is, in the minds of most members of the public, a sense that they were betrayed by political promises that were made in order to induce their acceptance of a program. Those promises have now been broken. I invite the Attorney General to try again to at least persuade me why the public should not feel betrayed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, my learned friend is somewhat exercised over the issue of the independence of the police, which he and I both acknowledge. It is the appropriate consideration in this case. I understand that the police, based on their experience and on the fact that they were being limited in the way they felt they could enhance public safety, developed some refinements to the existing guidelines. This is absolutely not a political process. I know that hon. members want to make it a political football. The fact that the Attorney General ministry is now responsible for photo radar is indicative of the fact that it is not a political football.

The police indicated to the Attorney General that for them to be able to continue to participate in photo radar enforcement, they wanted to be housed in the Ministry of Attorney General. I acceded to their request -- their demand -- because they said: "It is a matter of law enforcement. We do not want to be housed elsewhere. We want to maintain the independent integrity of policing." We listened; hence I'm responsible for the enforcement aspect of it. I'm not going to persuade the hon. members today or tomorrow. Obviously others weren't able to do that yesterday, nor am I going to try.

G. Plant: I'm sure the Attorney General is right about one aspect of the answer: he's unlikely to persuade me. Let me give one specific instance of what I think is the unfairness, from the public perspective, of this issue around the site selection criteria and the guidelines.

The original text said that a speed camera site would not be established within a community where there was no public support for the speed camera project. There was an intention that there would be community consultation around photo radar sites and the location of photo radar sites. That is, I

[ Page 7262 ]

What is it: was it wrong for the government to promise consultation, or was it wrong for the government to cancel public consultation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is still public consultation; however, it is no longer up to the municipal councils to say that photo radar will or will not go into a particular municipality. I've made that very clear. Communities are consulted. Councillors can be consulted too -- so can the mayors -- but not in determining whether or not photo radar will operate within their boundaries. Yes, they would be consulted as to where it would operate within their boundaries -- but not whether or not it will.

I think that's pretty clear. I made that very clear from the moment I took on photo radar. I said that it's a matter of law enforcement. I'm not going to allow checkerboard enforcement across this province. If we're going to do checkerboard enforcement on laws across this province, we might as well pack our bags, sit at home and not be in politics.

G. Plant: On another issue unrelated to photo radar, we canvassed the subject of auxiliaries and the disarming of auxiliaries fairly thoroughly. The one aspect of that issue that I did not cover, which I wanted to raise now, was the simple budgetary issue. What was the amount budgeted for the auxiliary program -- that is, the provincial expenses -- for the fiscal year just ended? What has the Attorney General budgeted for his contribution to that program next year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is around $480,000 a year, and it was booked the same for '98-99.

G. Plant: Does the minister know what the RCMP contribution is -- how much they spend on the program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: We're now going to ask some questions about residential tenancy issues. My colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove will begin.

R. Coleman: Just before we start on residential tenancy, being an ex-policeman, I want to pass a comment to the Attorney General. I don't know who made the decision on auxiliaries and why, but from my standpoint of having been in the harness and on the street, it was an abjectly bad decision. The people who I have spoken to at the senior level of the RCMP running detachments -- at the officer and the senior NCO ranks. . . . Not one of them has supported this decision. I don't know what the names are of the people who made this decision or made the recommendation to the Attorney General, but I think you should revisit it and revisit it fast. Frankly, what has been done to these people in the field is something that I have found to be absolutely distasteful.

I'd like to go to residential tenancy now, simply because today's a bit of an anniversary. On April 29, 1997, we canvassed the Residential Tenancy Act for a few hours in this House. It's now April 28, 1998, and we're going to do it again. I don't want to spend as much time on it this year, because for two years we have discussed the same issues. For two years we have had basically the same answers, and for two years we have not had the responses to the answers followed through on in the ensuing 12 months after the answers were given.

Last year we talked about a number of things. First of all, we talked about a plain-language rewrite with regard to the Residential Tenancy Act. Subsequent to the estimates, I met with the Attorney General's staff and was advised that the author hadn't even been hired yet relative to doing a rewrite of the legislation -- let alone the fact that it was in process, as we discussed last year in estimates.

We talked about the retroactivity of rent review relative to manufactured home sites back to 1992. I will canvass that because of the fact that this has gotten to be an even worse problem than it was a year ago, and we still haven't dealt with it. I want to talk about the crowding of the legislative agenda, because that was the excuse last year for us not dealing with residential tenancy issues in this House, relative to changes to legislation.

I was also offered a briefing and a sit-down with the minister, which never took place -- although I did sit down with his staff.

I want to start off, first of all, with the act itself. I want to quote the minister to start with. He said: "I understand. I can confirm that my ministry has been attempting to do this for some time and is working on a rewrite of this law in simple language that even the Attorney General would be able to understand." When I met with the Attorney General's staff after estimates last year, the author hadn't been hired. I wonder if he could give me the status of the rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act.

[11:00]

On the retroactivity of the mobile homes issue, let me just answer that very briefly. We expect to introduce legislation in this sitting to do that. Part of the reason the rewrite is so complex is that we're trying to take into account all of the issues that have arisen over time and include them in the rewrite -- so basically, amending the legislation, as we then introduce it, in '99, possibly. The retroactivity issue is a serious issue, and we're hoping that we'll be able to introduce some legislation in this sitting to rectify that.

R. Coleman: Forgive me if I feel like I'm in déjà vu here. Again, this is from April 29, 1997, in response to: "Do we have any idea when this process may be completed?" "I'm advised by my staff that at the pace we're going, we're hoping to have it ready for the next sitting of the Legislature." That's the rewrite. So now at this sitting of the Legislature -- which is the next sitting of the Legislature -- it's like déjà vu. We hopefully now will be having it ready for the next sitting of the Legislature.

I really have a problem with that. When you've identified a problem that has existed for almost two and a half years now -- and going back in Hansards, long before that -- as far

[ Page 7263 ]

[J. Smallwood in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the resources, the answer is yes.

R. Coleman: I wonder if the minister could tell me what. . . . I just want to touch on the retroactivity of rent review. I'm not going to canvass something that we beat to death and then we make a promise, and the next year it doesn't happen. I'll just wait to see if the promise actually happens next year.

The retroactivity of rent review. . . . Just so the minister understands, today the process in manufactured home parts is quite simple for the owners. They've got to the point where the system is frustrating to them. What they simply do is say: "Well, if you want to sell your manufactured home, that's fine; but we're not transferring the tenancy to a new owner" -- simply because of the retroactivity issue.

So now a person has an asset that they can't sell because they have no place to put it. The reason it's there is because the retroactivity has frustrated the system. The levels of arbitration that are taking place within that system are frustrated to the point that we have this difficulty. Can the minister tell me what changes he's planning to make to the retroactivity of rent review in this session?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I've indicated, the legislation that the ministry is developing would take care of the retroactivity issue both in specific terms as well as the withholding of consent with respect to sales. I think it's important for the member to know that. It is legislation that's coming. I can't talk about all of the details, but I can assure the hon. member that some of those concerns will be taken care of.

R. Coleman: Hopefully, if we've read my Hansards from last year, there won't be any need for amendments to the legislation. I've made recommendations on how you can have security of tenure and safety of the asset for both the owner and the park owner in the future, so that we can deal with that. If we don't have those securities of tenure for both sides, obviously there would be a requirement for amendments to the legislation. There's no sense in bringing in a piece of legislation that's just going to continue to frustrate a problem even further.

It is such a human-damaging thing that. . . . In the public today we have the issue of the leaky condos, where people are talking about the human factor of losing your asset and the availability of your asset to do certain things with it. You already have this. We've had this marketplace frustrated for so long that we've ignored one group of people. I don't know whether it's just because we think of it as being lower income or a lower standard of housing or whatever the case may be. I'm looking forward to seeing that legislation. Hopefully, we'll see it soon -- the sooner the better -- so that we can deal with that issue.

What I would like to do, then, is basically turn it over to my colleague, because of my disappointment in spending a bunch of time on questions to the minister, when we have answers that are déjà vu year to year. Basically, I think we're just wasting the Legislature's time and the time of the people who are being affected by legislation to do that. Estimates debate should be so that we can set costs and direction and know where we're going with some of this stuff. If we're going to see legislation, I hope that we're all here a year from now to hold your feet to the fire and actually see the legislation come forward.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The retroactivity.

R. Coleman: The retroactivity we're going to see this year, but the legislation with regards to the residential tenancy. . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If we're both here.

R. Coleman: We're hoping to see it next year. Hopefully, we won't be sitting here with a déjà vu answer similar to what we have this year versus last, and we can move forward with regards to it. I know my colleague has a number of questions relative to the arbitration system and what have you. I will turn it over to her for some questions relative to the residential tenancy side of things. I hope that we're back here a year from now with a plain-language rewrite and a Residential Tenancy Act that actually works for people and that we can fix this retroactivity of rent review, so that we're not having people losing their assets and homes because of our inactivity as legislators.

I. Chong: Before I start, I would also like to echo some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove about the retroactivity issue. I have received a number of calls, and I've spoken with people in my constituency who, as you probably are aware, don't have mobile home parks -- my constituency being fairly urban -- but are involved in other areas or have family members who own mobile home parks and that sort of structure. I just want to reiterate what my colleague said and remind the minister -- although I'm sure he's aware. . . . At the risk of being repetitive, I note that he had in fact written to a constituent in Nanaimo on September 10, 1996, and had essentially said that. . . . I guess he was referring to the mobile home park dispute resolution and the Residential Tenancy Act: "It will be considered for introduction when the next opportunity arises." That's what the Attorney General wrote. On November 18, 1997, he wrote to one of my constituents and again stated: "I'm hoping that the demands on legislative time permit us to introduce changes to the Residential Tenancy Act during the 1998 sitting of the Legislature."

Obviously there are people throughout the province who have received letters from the Attorney General and who are very much waiting for this amendment to come forward. I would like to say on the record that we are concerned. We will continue to receive those letters, and I'm sure the Attorney General will as well.

What I would like to speak on at this moment and ask the ministry about -- in particular the residential tenancy branch -- is the issue of arbitration hearings and arbitrators. I would like to start by asking the Attorney General whether he could advise. . . . I don't have in front of me the 1997-98 and 1998-99 expenditures.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the year 1997-98, it's $672,000; for 1998-99, it's $671,000. That's to do with the arbitration review panel.

[ Page 7264 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In 1997-98 it was close to $7.15 million, and in 1998-99 it is rounded off to approximately $7.2 million.

I. Chong: Can the Attorney General also advise us of the number of staff and the number of arbitrators which that expenditure funds for those two years?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Residential tenancy is 93.3 FTEs, and I believe the arbitration review panels would be another 43 FTEs.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Okay, I think I've got it. There are 93 FTEs in the residential tenancy branch. There are 41 contracted arbitrators in the arbitration review panels -- who are independent, of course -- five staff and 12 panellists.

I. Chong: The reason I ask those questions is to give the Attorney General a very quick update on who's in the residential tenancy branch.

What I'm asking those questions for is to establish the cost of processing some of these claims. As I understand it, when you take a look at the number of people coming forward, applications to have hearings and the $7 million or so that is used to fund the residential tenancy branch, we're looking at a substantial cost. I'm concerned that the cost. . . . I wouldn't say it doesn't justify its existence, but the cost somehow. . . . We've got no accountability measurements to determine whether or not we're doing anything to bring that down. Back in 1994-95, I understand the expenditure was about $7.4 million. At that time there were only 67 staff, and there were actually 58 arbitrators. As we can see, the funding for that office is fairly consistent; we're still in the $7 million range -- within $200,000. I'm pleased that there have perhaps been some administrative savings found there.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

But the number of staff has actually increased some 30 percent, and I'm wondering if the Attorney General can explain the necessity for those increases. If the reason why the residential tenancy branch is in existence is primarily to deal with arbitration, why would there not be an increase in the number of contracted arbitrators? We've gone down from what there was in '94-95 -- 58, I believe -- to 41. I'm wondering if it's because staff is handling more of this, and there's less of a need to go to arbitration. Can the Attorney General advise what's happened in the context of that change of staff?

[11:15]

I. Chong: I asked those questions because I have the '94-95 figures, when it was $7.4 million; the '93-94 figure was about $3.2 million. I understand that from '93-94 to '94-95, there was a substantial increase -- actually, a 129 percent increase. At that time the staff had gone from 38 to 67 and arbitrators from 22 to 58, based on the '94-95 figures, which were the latest I had received. We're now hearing that the staff has gone up from 67 in '94-95 to 93 now, and the number of arbitrators, which was listed in '94-95 as 58, has dropped down to 41.

What I'm hearing from my constituents is that there appear to be more and more arbitration cases being heard. I'm curious as to how you can reduce the number of arbitrators when you have that many more cases. Is there an undue delay being caused in some cases? Or are some cases being referred to staff to deal with, and is that the appropriate manner?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member looks at the staff, staff has gone up from 67 to 93, which is less than 50 percent. You had five full-time arbitrators out of the 58; you now have 41 full-time arbitrators.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I misspoke. That's what happens when you. . . . Well, that's life. You have had a 50 percent increase in the number of staff. It may be that because of the way staff deals with the issues, that decreases the number of arbitrations. Otherwise, the number of arbitrations could have been larger. Arbitrations are for matters that can't be dealt with by staff at the end of the day, where people obviously aren't satisfied. You had 58 members, prior to this, who didn't work as much; you now have 41 members who work quite a lot, although most of them are still part-time. The number of hours and days worked is much more than before, and the number of arbitrations is being dealt with in that way.

I. Chong: I won't belabour the point. It's just that when there are changes to permanent staff, and it's because the staff are able to deal with these issues more efficiently and more quickly than having them go to arbitration, fair enough. That makes sense. If there is a correlating reduction in the number of arbitrators, that also makes sense. However, when the minister advises me that the arbitrators, in terms of their full-time status, have increased, that leads me to conclude that we actually have more people going to arbitration or perhaps going to arbitration more often in terms of having their cases heard more than just once.

This leads me into the area that I really would like to address. In the case of the arbitration process, I've received a number of calls to my office about the fact that the arbitration process, in the minds of some of the landlords and tenants, is flawed. There seem to be no rules of procedure when it comes to arbitration; there seem to be no guidelines. I'm not hearing this from just one or two people; it's several people on different issues. I've heard this from both landlords and tenants. They're concerned that there are inconsistencies in the process and perhaps also in the application of the legislation. In cases like that, that's what is causing people to go back for arbitration, sometimes more than three times. I've had an instance where someone has gone back as many as six times. Therein lies part of the reason why there are perhaps more costs than there should be and more arbitrators hired for full-time work.

In the Residential Tenancy Act -- section 50(1), I believe -- there is a requirement, for lack of a better word, that rules of procedure for the conduct of arbitrations be prepared or proposed. I've not yet seen, heard or been able to obtain a copy of those rules of procedure, and I'm wondering whether

[ Page 7265 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the rules of procedure, the registrar will consult in May with landlord and tenant groups to deal with the issue. In terms of the precedents for arbitrators, which is another issue the hon. member raised, I can tell her that I have imposed a deadline on them to develop their own precedents and guidelines so that decisions are uniform. If they don't do that within six months, I will impose them. I know they're independent, but they're not the courts, and I want them to work appropriately.

G. Plant: I want to intervene in respect to this particular issue, because I want to make sure the Attorney General realizes that this is not just a matter of individual MLAs receiving concerns or complaints from their constituents, although that is important enough. In this particular case, we have the unusual surprise of the major tenants' advocacy group, the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, agreeing with the major landlords' advocacy group, the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia, that the arbitration system doesn't work. The process is dysfunctional in all the ways that my colleague has just said and a whole bunch more ways.

I've got a copy of the letter of November 14, 1997, which both of these groups signed collectively and sent to the Attorney General. It needs to be said that these are issues that touch real people in their lives. We can talk in abstract terms about the need for legislative reform. At the end of the day, the fact is that a statute like the Residential Tenancy Act touches more people and more lives than most of what we do in this House. That's why I think it's pretty important stuff. When you've got two groups that ordinarily fight with each other agreeing with each other, trying to get the minister's attention and -- based at least on what I heard the last time I met with them, which was just a bit more than a month ago -- not having a very good sense that they were getting the minister's attention, I think there is a problem.

I suppose the Attorney can tell me that he intends to resolve some of these problems with the new act, in which case we're put off until next year, waiting for the new act. It seems to me that the opportunity for fixing these problems goes hand in hand with the fact that the legislation is about to be changed. But in terms of rules of procedure for the tribunal officers --the kinds of things that my colleague and the minister were talking about a minute ago -- the problem is bigger and more widespread. It's recognized by the stakeholder groups as being a problem for both of them and for all people who are landlords or tenants in British Columbia.

The kinds of statistics that my colleague and the minister were grappling with a few minutes ago are actually symptomatic of a problem and really do cry out for some change. I wonder if the Attorney General can perhaps shed more light on what he is planning to do in the next few months to deal with these very serious problems.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I said, there is some work being done on these issues. In fact, the assistant deputy minister for community justice met with two weeks ago the groups that the hon. member is referring to. I'm concerned, and we are working with respect to policy guidelines and rules of procedure. A registrar, obviously, is consulting or will consult, and we also monitor the performance of the complaints process.

We're looking at all those issues and seeing what changes we can make. I don't think they are asking for any legislative amendments; they're asking for better guidelines and better procedures. With respect to the arbitrators, in fact, that issue was raised in the media some weeks ago, and I looked at it. I said, through the media, that I will give them six months to deal with that; and if they don't, I'll do it.

I. Chong: I appreciate the Attorney General giving us that time line. Up until this point, I don't think it had been widely known that there was in fact going to be that time line imposed. As we've heard in so many other cases, oftentimes we do get a promise and then have to follow up on it the following year. In the meantime, 12 months will have passed, and as my colleague said, more people will have been put through more hardship than they need to be. I'm hopeful, though, that when the rules of procedures are developed and approved, the minister will in fact consider some very important issues.

I would just like to raise those for the record so that the minister is aware of the kinds of issues that have been brought to my attention. Not only are people concerned about the arbitration hearing process as a whole, but there are also concerns regarding the presenting of evidence and of witnesses. That has caused some concern, because without the proper presentation of evidence and without proper recording of information and transcripts, it makes it difficult for those who have missed a hearing to be able to provide information that is relevant at a subsequent appeal.

[11:30]

It is important that if a hearing is concluded when an arbitrator declares that it is concluded, some consideration be given to the time frame -- whether there's a minimum time or a maximum time -- to the extent that we certainly don't want to have the arbitrator deciding that something is concluded without full input from all those concerned.

With that, I did have some specific questions regarding arbitrators. Rather than take up the time now, if I'm able to speak to the residency tenancy branch directly, then perhaps I can conclude the answers to my questions at that time. But I am hopeful that we will get resolution on this fairly soon and that those people who have had their lives disrupted -- some people for up to a year and a half -- can move on.

G. Plant: There is one other issue I want to raise in the context of residential tenancy. Earlier in the estimates, we had a discussion about an analysis which you could do to determine the extent to which the civil side of our court system in British Columbia operates on a cost-recovery basis. My colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head had a discussion with the minister about some of the costs associated with operating the residential tenancy branch and so on. Is the minister able to say whether or not there is a similar cost-recovery figure for residential tenancy -- the work that the government does in presiding over the adjudication of residential tenancy disputes -- in relation to whatever fees may be recovered in respect of providing that service?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The total recovery is approximately three-quarters of a million dollars every year.

[ Page 7266 ]

Interjection.

G. Plant: That's the $7.2 million for the residential tenancy branch that the minister referred to earlier?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it would be about a 10 percent recovery, I think.

G. Abbott: I have a couple of questions for the Attorney General -- or a couple of observations, at any rate -- on behalf of my constituent, Kathy Fabiche of Enderby. She has spoken to me on a few occasions about the issue of retroactivity, particularly in relation to manufactured home park owners. The issue has been one of considerable frustration to her. She has been working, I gather, for a few years now to have the province revisit the provisions around retroactivity. I know my colleague spoke of this earlier, and I don't want to belabour the point. But in the interest of seeing some movement on this, I do want to put a human face on this for the Attorney General. I'll just quote briefly from a note that Ms. Fabiche recently sent to me:

"Even though all parties concerned are in agreement with this amendment, until it is brought before the Legislature, landlords of manufactured home parks will still have to endure the stress of justifying six years of rent increases through the rent review process. I'm sure you can understand our anger and frustration at this."

"I also understand the importance of the amendment to manufactured home park owners, who welcome the certainty the limitation period would bring to the financial operation of these manufactured home parks. Unfortunately, it is not possible to include the limitation period amendments on this summer's legislative agenda. It will therefore be considered for introduction when the next opportunity arises."

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, but with the caution that it's not done until it's done. There are always many hurdles to bringing some piece of legislation into the House, and it doesn't depend on the Attorney General alone. But the intention is to do it.

G. Abbott: Just a quick follow-up. Is there, to the Attorney General's knowledge, any party that is in disagreement with this that might bring it to a grinding halt?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I wasn't alluding to any disagreements.

G. Abbott: I have a couple of region-specific questions for the Attorney General. These are related to issues, first of all, around marine enforcement on Shuswap Lake in the summer. I don't know whether the. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: It is a federal force, but the RCMP are on the lake, as you might expect, enforcing provincial statutes as well as federal statutes. My understanding is that in 1997 the Ministry of Attorney General in fact funded the marine patrol on Shuswap Lake to the tune of $50,000. I don't know whether you can confirm that or not. Are you planning to assist in that regard in the coming summer?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can't confirm at this point that we did assist in the past, but I'll certainly look at the issue. The hon. member can speak to me, and I'll provide him with the answer.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that this is an area-specific one, but undoubtedly the Attorney General will be lobbied by the many people around the Shuswap who are interested in good policing as well as good government during the summer months. The population around the lake expands remarkably. Unless there's adequate policing, there are always the difficulties of additional accidents, additional infractions of the Criminal Code and so on.

Further to that, one of the questions that has been posed to me is the issue of the proclamation of the Contraventions Act in British Columbia. The Contraventions Act, as I understand it -- mercifully, I'm not a lawyer -- would permit the RCMP to ticket for relatively minor offences, rather than having to go through prosecution via Crown counsel. Further, it's my understanding that the Contraventions Act has been proclaimed by the federal Parliament and by a number of provincial parliaments, but it has not yet been proclaimed in the province of British Columbia. The RCMP, among others, are curious as to why that seemingly practical tool has not yet been extended to them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the province is in discussions with the federal government on this very issue. Once those discussions are concluded and cost-sharing arrangements are in place, I'm hoping that we'd be enforcing that act in British Columbia as well.

G. Abbott: Would the Attorney General have any notion about what time line would be involved there? Is it a possibility that the provision will be in place for the summer?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have any time lines at this point. I wouldn't want to sort of bind anyone in the ministry to a particular time line without getting full details on the issue. But I understand that discussions are ongoing.

B. Penner: I want to also address the issue of the federal Contraventions Act in relation to Cultus Lake, which is just south of my riding of Chilliwack. Much like the member for Shuswap, I receive numerous complaints every year about boating accidents and close calls occurring on Cultus Lake. In any given summer, there are more than two million visitors that make use of Cultus Lake in the period from June to

[ Page 7267 ]

Meeting with local members of the RCMP, as well as members of the federal Coast Guard, they indicate to me that their job would be made more simple if British Columbia did become a partner with the federal government in enforcing the Contraventions Act in British Columbia. It's my understanding that it would require a proclamation from the federal government that the act applies in British Columbia.

It's my understanding that the act does currently apply in Ontario. I received some statistics -- from the Coast Guard, I think -- about how quickly they can move a case through the court system in Ontario, compared to British Columbia. It's a matter of weeks in Ontario, compared to many months in British Columbia.

If a person wants to prosecute a person here under a Coast Guard offence, you have to lay the traditional information and have him come and make a first appearance in court, even if they wish to plead guilty and pay the fine. By adopting the Contraventions Act in British Columbia, the offender would have the opportunity to simply pay the fine, as they would a speeding ticket. That would negate the requirement of going to court and using up valuable court time. The minister has heard all too much, I'm sure, about court delays and backlogs in British Columbia. This might be one way that we can constructively reduce some of the court delay.

On behalf of the residents and the people who use Cultus Lake -- again, more than two million people over the course of a summer -- I would like to add my voice, encouraging the ministry to do what is necessary, hopefully, to bring that act into force in British Columbia. I did write to the minister about this. I believe it was in September or October, following one of those community meetings at Cultus Lake. I remain interested in this issue.

[11:45]

G. Abbott: I'm delighted to hear of the Attorney General's concurrence.

I just want to briefly raise one final point on behalf of my constituents in the north Shuswap. The background here is that, again, this is an area of probably a couple of thousand people through most of the year. And again, the population mushrooms. I'm sure it's somewhere between 5,000 to 10,000 in the summer months. It's a very popular resort area -- Shuswap Lake Provincial Park and so on.

There are a lot of people there in the summer, and many of them are there to have a good time. The policing on the north Shuswap is provided from the community of Chase. Normally, the RCMP in Chase have a complement, I believe, of five regular officers and five auxiliaries. This summer, with the recent turn of events, the complement may be only five. I want the Attorney General to know that even with the ten -- the five regular and five auxiliaries -- there are numerous concerns expressed every year in the local press about the adequacy of policing on the north Shuswap, because there are so many people there in relation to the amount of policing that can be provided in the summer months.

I'd be delighted if the Attorney General responded to this, but most importantly, I want him to take note that in these very popular vacation areas -- I guess my colleague's Cultus Lake would be another example -- it's difficult to provide adequate policing in the summer with the resources that are adequate in the winter months. I'd appreciate any comment that the Attorney General may have on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Really, I think that that kind of local issue has to be dealt with by the RCMP in that particular area. I'm sure that the council, the mayor and others would be speaking to the police and the RCMP headquarters.

G. Abbott: That's correct. They do. Almost invariably, the term "Attorney General" somehow leaps into the equation: "We would love to provide you with more policing for the north Shuswap, but regrettably the province and/or the federal government are not providing sufficient resources for us to do that."

A Voice: Passing the buck, are we?

G. Abbott: Yes, it seems so. I do want you to be aware that, invariably, your position, if not your name, creeps into the discussions of that particular problem.

The Chair: I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston -- noting the time.

G. Plant: Well, noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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