[ Page 7351 ]

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today, hon. Speaker, are some guests, some young people who contribute to the quality of our life in Colwood and the Western Communities. They are the 848 (Royal Roads) Squadron Royal Canadian Air Cadets, and they're here accompanied by Second Lt. Anthony Bone. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

The Speaker: I have something I wish to convey to the members of the Legislature. Last evening, after a day's work in the legislative dining room and after spending some time at home with his family to celebrate his birthday, Norris Pettersson, manager of the legislative dining room passed away peacefully in hospital. He was a long-term employee on contract work in the dining room, with over 17 years of very dedicated service. Norris was diagnosed with cancer approximately two years ago. Since that time, we have all been witness to Norris's dedication to the Legislative Assembly and to his staff in the dining room. He's been arriving at work in his wheelchair by handyDART. Norris met his wife Judy in the dining room. His son Nicholas helped with the preparation of the food in the dining room on many occasions, especially for Family Day. On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I will be pleased to send condolences to the family.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is indeed sad to acknowledge Mr. Pettersson. He's one of the ones that works behind the scenes and makes our life easier -- did make our lives easier -- as we sometimes make each other's lives complicated and ugly amongst ourselves. The dining room staff, led by Mr. Pettersson, always showed us great kindness, fed us wonderfully, and we shall miss him greatly.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, I would like to echo the words of the Government House Leader and yourself and add our sincere condolences to Norris's family. This is a strange life that we lead in Victoria, particularly those of us that don't live in the lower Vancouver Island area. It is the dedication of these public servants that makes our life here a little more easy and comfortable. We truly do appreciate the commitment and dedication they bring to their roles. So we ask that our condolences, too, be added to yours.

Orders of the Day

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Abbott: Could the minister advise whether the Tuition Fee Freeze Act was prompted by an anticipation that there were fee increases about to be imposed by post-secondary institutions in British Columbia? Or were there other reasons for it?

Hon. A. Petter: The Tuition Fee Freeze Act was prompted by a concern on the part of government that institutions not rely upon tuition increases -- which they might otherwise do -- but was then accompanied by substantial increases in funding allocations to institutions, in exchange for that understanding. Certainly, in looking at other provinces, what has happened is that tuition fees have risen substantially. We were determined that that not happen here and in this year's budget made sure that, in addition to freezing tuition to prevent that from happening, institutions then had access to substantial new revenues to enable them to increase their resources and provide new student spaces without the necessity of a tuition increase. So it's part of that larger commitment and larger package of initiatives.

G. Abbott: I have one further question, which flows from the experience of a post-secondary institution where I was an instructor for several years. The experience there was that after tuition freeze periods, there built up a demand or a need for rather larger tuition increases than one might expect in these relatively low inflationary times. What assurance is there that the consequence of a tuition freeze in the short term is not going to lead again to those kind of pent-up needs for a more substantial and less acceptable tuition increase down the line?

[10:15]

As I say, the approach by this government has been to work with the institutions to ensure that they have an adequate level of funding -- not to cut that funding, despite the federal cuts we've had -- and then to work with the institutions to see what additional spaces they could create with what resources. In the previous two years, it was done by asking the institutions to find through efficiencies, those additional spaces which other provinces the institutions were having to find because of cuts. Here, thankfully, they could be converted into new spaces. This year the institutions said that they had gone as far as they thought they could with the efficiencies, and if we were not going to allow them to rely on increases in tuition and still meet the requirements of new spaces and increased quality in their programming, they would require increases in their grants.

Indeed, we announced those increases -- some $26 million. The response from the institutions was, I think, positive and indicative that they saw that as a commensurate commitment that would ensure that the tuition freeze would not produce the kind of undesirable effects the member is referring to.

G. Abbott: I'm not standing to make accusations or to engage in any kind of rhetorical adventures here with the minister. I am stating, as simply and honestly as I can, the

[ Page 7352 ]

This is based on the premise that governments don't always have the resources that they would like to do everything they'd like. As a consequence, they sometimes get into these very difficult situations where they're allocating scarce resources, and they may not be able to satisfy all the demands that exist in the many portfolios. As a consequence -- again, this is the point I'm trying to make here -- if we continue to have tuition freezes for five years, for example, that may be a very desirable thing from a student perspective. However, because it's one of the few variables that the management of the institution can actually manipulate to produce more revenues, it will create within the institution. . . . If that's taken away, if a government suddenly decides at the end of that five-year period that they no longer have the resources to provide it, they are going to be in this difficult situation of effectively forcing perhaps an unacceptably high level of tuition increase on. . . . I'm probing the minister here to see if there's some way to reassure the post-secondary institutions that this won't happen in this case.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the only way I can think of to reassure the institutions is to make sure that there is indeed a government that retains the level of commitment that this government has to post-secondary education -- a commitment which, by any measure of comparators, has been substantial in terms of the highest level of increase in per-capita grants, in participation rates. I won't turn this into a partisan exercise, but I think students in those institutions should be worried. I agree with the member: should a government be elected that is not prepared to make education the priority that this government has and to back that up with resources through grants and other assistance, then there's no doubt that either suffer. . .or the consequence would be that institutions would be driven to make huge increases in tuition, as they have in other provinces. I hope that doesn't happen. You can be sure that I will be encouraging all my constituents to make sure it doesn't happen either.

G. Abbott: I don't want to turn this into a partisan exercise either, but I do want to remind the minister that it was a New Democratic Party government, under former Premier Harcourt, that brought in a tuition freeze in the early 1990s and did not provide accompanying resources to go with that tuition freeze. As a consequence, post-secondary institutions across this province were forced to cut courses. Hon. Chair, he can say, "Well, this will never happen again," and I'm glad to take him at his word that it won't. But it has happened, and it has happened under this government. I want the post-secondary institutions to be assured that it won't happen again. If the minister has assured me of that, perhaps that's sufficient here; but I do want him to appreciate that point.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I have certainly provided the assurance of this government's commitment and direction, but I do want to correct one factual error. There was no tuition freeze in the early nineties under the Harcourt government. The tuition freeze that was introduced was this one, which was introduced some two years ago and is now being extended for a third year. I'm not sure what experience the member is talking about, but it certainly wasn't accompanied by or attached to a tuition freeze under the first term of this government.

G. Abbott: Perhaps we're going to engage in a little semantics here. I know I lived through it. If you want to call it a cap, it was a cap, perhaps, at some low level -- I don't know. But certainly there was a restriction placed on the ability of the institutions to manipulate tuition.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to prolong this, but as I understand it, there was a cap in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, which hardly strikes me as tremendously restrictive.

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Tuition Fee Freeze Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 9.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

On section 1.

F. Gingell: The official opposition supports this bill. We support the principles of it. We believe that many of the three sections, particularly this first section that we're dealing with, which deals with mortgage brokers, are long overdue. The newspapers have been full of horror stories of elderly people who have been seduced by promised and supposedly guaranteed high interest rates and who have suffered dramatic financial consequences and losses at times when they are not able to withstand them.

We are encouraged and pleased that the government has brought in these sections. All these sections, of course, are just tools. They give the ability to deal with the regulation and the discipline of transactions secured by charges on real estate. They give people known as mortgage brokers, who deal in these instruments, tools for better regulation and better discipline. But I do want to take this opportunity to underline the issue that they are just tools. Government has to bring, through the Financial Institutions Commission, firm hands and lots of energy, and we will all be better off for it. Government clearly has an important role here. We have to do it in the most efficient and effective manner.

I'd be pleased to hear any comments that the minister might have relative to this whole section. In fact, I think we can deal with sections 1 to 18 in this exchange.

[ Page 7353 ]

[10:30]

I must say that the industry itself is welcoming these amendments, because they too know that they are only as good as the confidence on which their industry rests. I can't speak to any specific cases, nor is the member asking me to, because some are actually before the courts and it would be inappropriate. But let me just reassure the member that these amendments are specifically in response to the development of the growing mortgage market. The low interest rate environment has even exacerbated the growth of the industry as people seek other investments to gain higher returns. So we are introducing these not a moment too soon, and it will mean that we will continue to work with the industry itself to ensure the success of it.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

F. Gingell: I appreciate those comments from the minister and will be pleased to pass sections 1 to 18.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

I. Chong: I too at this time would like to state for the record that I had an opportunity to speak to people in the Real Estate Association, and they indicated that this was something that was welcomed by their industry and that they were looking forward to the establishment of the corporation.

However, in speaking with some of the members, I did find that they were not all aware of how this special compensation corporation was going to be established, and I am wondering at this time whether the minister can advise me. In particular, we see that there would be three directors appointed by the B.C. Real Estate Association and four by the Real Estate Council. Are there no government-appointed directors on this new compensation corporation?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

I. Chong: What kind of relationship would the ministry have if there were no government appointee? Usually when corporations are set up, there is some sort of a link by way of one appointee representative. Would that be a duty that the deputy minister has? Is that how this is to work?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think it would be safe to say that the relationship with the government will be established over the next year as we determine the regulations by which the corporation will abide. And then, of course, they have to report on an annual basis to government as well.

I. Chong: In this reporting to the ministry, would that be by way of an annual report or an audited financial statement? Have those things been established in general? I don't want to get into every section. If we don't do that, we can pass the whole thing fairly quickly.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be an audited financial statement to the superintendent of real estate.

I. Chong: Just one last comment, and then we can move on. In this section, it says that the fund's purpose is for paying, in whole or in part, losses sustained by persons dealing with real estate licensees or former licensees. I'm just wondering, when it's a former licensee, how far back that may go in terms of retroactivity. It's a difficult thing when some people in that industry are only there for a year.

Hon. J. MacPhail: A person is allowed to make a claim back to two years, so the licensee would have to exist within that two-year period. So it would be two-year retroactivity.

I. Chong: I think those were the basic questions I had. I think it would be fair to say that we will also be speaking with the industry to find out if there were some concerns. When the regulations come out, there'll be more details, I'm sure, and if this corporation is established, there'll perhaps be more opportunity for amendments or changes, if it's not serving the purpose that it's meant to serve. With that, I'll take my chair.

Sections 19 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

F. Gingell: Actually, this is on sections 24 and 25 -- although it becomes somewhat complex. Could the minister just advise us what the effect of section 24 is? Is it purely and simply to remove segregated funds from an earlier definition so that they can be redefined later on?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me start by just making a general comment. What section 24 does is remove segregated funds from the exclusion part but not from the exemption part. You can think about that as I put this into the record. It amends paragraph (e) of the definition of "security" under this act, to delete the exclusion of contracts issued by an insurer that provide for payment of an amount not less than three-quarters of the premiums paid by the purchaser for a benefit payable at maturity. So they are no longer excluded; it removes the exclusion.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I propose the amendment as tabled. I believe the opposition has a copy as well. It's an amendment to section 25 as tabled:

[SECTION 25 by deleting the proposed section 25 and substituting the following:

25 Section 46 is amended by repealing paragraph (l) and substituting the following:
(l) variable insurance contracts issued by an insurer if the variable insurance contract
(i) is a contract of group insurance,
(ii) is a whole life insurance contract providing for the payment at maturity of an amount not less than 3/4 of the premiums paid up to the age of 75 for a benefit payable at maturity,

[ Page 7354 ]

(iii) is an arrangement for the investment of policy dividends and policy proceeds in a separate and distinct fund to which contributions are made only from policy dividends and policy proceeds,
(iv) is a variable life annuity, or
(v) provides for payment at maturity of an amount not less than 3/4 of the premiums paid by the purchaser for a benefit payable at maturity;]

F. Gingell: The minister is now going to discover that the most difficult job she has had to do since she became Minister of Finance is explain to me what this amendment means.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, we'll be working on this together. It's a House amendment to section 25. It addresses a drafting concern raised by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association after they had seen the bill. They're concerned that section 46, as amended by section 25 of this amendment bill, implies that insurance contracts other than segregated funds are securities and that segregated funds can only rely on the exemption in the circumstances listed in subparagraphs (a) to (d). So this House amendment addresses their drafting concern.

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

F. Gingell: Section 26 gets us into the issues of insider trading and appropriate required reporting of insider trades. I know that the minister and the government have always shared my concerns that in the late 1990s we should be able to report insider trading on a much more current time basis -- an important protection for the market. I appreciate that there are rules in the various bourses around the world, and the British Columbia Securities Commission cannot get too out of line with those rules in other parts of the world. But we should certainly ensure that we maintain a position on the leading edge in trying to speed up the processes.

I would like to suggest to the minister that this is just one step. We encourage the government to ensure that as the ability to speed up the regulations for reporting insider trading is available, we should pull in that slack -- even to the point where you have to report an insider trade before you make it, which would be nice.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

F. Gingell: I understand that the reason for these amendments being brought into the Securities Act through section 27 is to start to implement the recommendations of the Zimmerman report. I must admit that the Zimmerman report is something that I haven't read, but I do have some idea of what it roughly covers. I was wondering if there are any other provisions in that report that deal with all the issues to do with takeover bids that the government have made the decision not to implement at this point but perhaps plan to in the future.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, it's the intent of the government to implement the entire Zimmerman report. Some of it is contained in this act, but a substantial portion of the recommendations will be by rule amendment.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[10:45]

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 9, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 11.

SMALL BUSINESS VENTURE
CAPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Before describing the amendments more fully, I'd like to provide members with a brief overview of the Small Business Venture Capital Act and the investment activity it has produced. This is a very good act. It has worked for small business; it has managed to get capital to small businesses which normally wouldn't get that capital. They couldn't get it from banks and other institutions; they've gotten capital through the Small Business Venture Capital Act, from investors. This has been a way to finance their businesses and to create jobs in British Columbia. As members opposite know, small business creates 96 percent of the jobs in British Columbia.

[ T. Stevenson in the chair.]

The Small Business Venture Capital Act is the governing legislation for my ministry's equity capital program and encourages B.C. residents to invest in small B.C. businesses through special holding companies called venture capital corporations. These companies are owned by investor shareholders and are registered under the act. So you set up a venture capital corporation, if you're an investor, and that invests in a B.C. company that needs the money and wants to

[ Page 7355 ]

Venture capital corporations provide access to much-needed long-term risk capital for small businesses in the many new and dynamic sectors of our economy. Tourism is one area that I'm particularly interested in. Hon. members opposite will have noticed that yesterday I was able to announce that the industry is now an $8.5 billion industry. It created 11,000 new jobs last year, and some of the new jobs are helped by dynamic small businesses that have been created.

The Small Business Venture Capital Act provides a 30 percent tax credit to investors to provide an incentive for them to make a high-risk investment in someone else's business. So if you have a small business and you need capital, you look to some investors who will come in, form a joint venture company, and they will get a 30 percent tax credit. Since the program was launched in late 1985, more than 400 venture capital corporations have been registered. These have raised in excess of $300 million in new risk capital from over 10,000 British Columbia investors. So this is a good program. Over $250 million of these funds have been invested in 294 small businesses, the majority of which were new businesses.

We commissioned a recent independent review of this act and this investment scheme. That review found that over the five years, the average or typical small business in the program receives $1.3 million from venture capital corporations, generates sales revenue of $6.9 million, generates export sales of $3.8 million and provides 98 person-years of employment.

Some members in the House may be familiar with the following small businesses that have received risk capital from investors under the program. I'm just naming a few, but you can see the scope: the Wickaninnish Inn in Tofino -- I don't know if you know that area, Mr. Speaker; I'm sure you've been over to the Wickaninnish beach and the Wickaninnish Inn in Tofino. There's Sumac Ridge Estate Winery Ltd. in Summerland. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Great wines, the member opposite says. Pardon me?

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Great riding. Oh, it's his riding. Well, it shows how non-partisan we are in this program. There's lots of investment, even in the hon. member's riding.

Pearl Seaproducts on the Sunshine Coast; Cumberland Wood Industries in Cumberland; AYOTTE Drums Only in Vancouver; Springfield Ginseng Farms in Vernon; ALI Technologies of Burnaby; MVP Movie Vista Productions in Vancouver; the Wells Hotel in Wells, in the great town of Wells on the way to Barkerville. Given the economic significance of the Small Business Venture Capital Act, we want to ensure that the legislation operates in a cost-effective and efficient manner and in the best interests of British Columbians. It is within this context that we have brought forward these amendments to the act. The amendments will reduce the maximum investment limits for each small business, which will lead to more small businesses receiving financing under the act.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, it's not bad. We're trying to encourage more small businesses to get financing under the act. This is what these amendments are about. The amendments will clarify and fine-tune several sections of the act to allow the public to more readily understand the act's requirements and to make it easier to administer.

I must admit, when I first read the act and read this, it was a little bit of a puzzle to me; in fact, it's quite simple the way the corporations work.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Oh, well, it takes a little while to sink through my little Scottish head sometimes, you know. But now I understand how the act works in the sense of the venture capital corporation's setup of lending money to small businesses.

There are various amendments to the act. Some of the amendments are housekeeping; some are anti-abuse provisions. One deals with lowering the limit that's put in from $5 million to $3 million, and that spreads the pot among more small businesses. Probably the most important amendment restricts the venture capital corporation to 49 percent investment in a company -- not 50 percent, as it is in the present act before amendment -- so that the investors don't control the company. We believe the company should still be controlled by the people who make it go and whose idea the company was. We think that will work better, and that's why we're bringing in these amendments.

To summarize, passage of these amendments will improve the program, improve access to risk capital for small businesses in British Columbia, enhance economic benefits for all British Columbians and make a good act work better.

R. Thorpe: The government has announced that Bill 11 will create jobs. This is simply political rhetoric -- more smoke and mirrors by the NDP. I challenge this minister to demonstrate how these housekeeping changes will create additional jobs.

This government continues to show that it is in fact not committed to supporting small business. The small venture capital pool currently stands with a tax cap of $6.5 million, based on the 30 percent tax credit. This equates to a maximum of $21.5 million for investment purposes.

The cry of small business operators -- and I hope the minister is listening -- is access to capital at reasonable rates. His own ministry's report of February 1998 on small business consultation confirms that No. 5 on the list of concerns from the ministry's consultations was access to capital. That being the case, one must ask oneself and ask the minister and this ministry why they have in fact cut access to capital through the small business venture capital fund by 46 percent. Why have they cut it if they are committed to small business? Your government's actions have reduced the capital pool of this program from $40 million to $21.5 million -- a reduction of $18.5 million. Yet this minister says that he and his ministry are committed to small business. That's simply not the fact.

But at the same time. . . . It's very nice to have the Minister of Finance in the House today, one of the strong advocates against helping big banks. Yet in her budget they gave a tax credit to the big banks while taking funds away from small business in this venture capital. . . . It just doesn't make sense.

[ Page 7356 ]

Based on the actions of this NDP government, they are not working for small business. They are actually hurting small business.

If the government had left the capital pool intact and were sincere about their commitment to small business, they would have been able to assist an average of 23 additional new small businesses per year here in British Columbia and create 655 desperately needed jobs for our youth and for the rest of the unemployed throughout the province.

The facts are clear: this bill is simply housekeeping. It has nothing to do with creating jobs or supporting small business. In fact, the NDP government continues to penalize small business with excessive taxation. Currently it is 50 percent higher than Alberta, with inflexible labour standards and excessive red tape. If this government were sincere about working with small business, they would be addressing the access to capital. They wouldn't be cutting it by 46 percent. They would be addressing, now, excessive taxation. They would be addressing, now, inflexible labour standards. They would be addressing, now, excessive red tape. The NDP would not have slashed this capital pool from $40 million to $21.5 million. I cannot go without saying that that $7 million break to the big banks is unbelievable.

[11:00]

The minister says we're on the right track. Well, you know, the cut in the capital pool has potentially resulted in a loss of 650 jobs per year, at a cost of around $8,461 per job. I wonder how that equates to the cost of the jobs for the Skeena Cellulose bailout. Unemployment is now at 9.9 percent and youth unemployment at 18.7 percent. We have excessive tax and inflexible labour standards, and this bill does nothing to maintain the capital pool for small business throughout British Columbia.

F. Gingell: I advise people on every possible occasion to support the government with respect to the programs that came forward with both the employee share ownership investment provisions and the venture capital corporations. Before I got involved in provincial politics, I was one of the founding members of the organization to give the government support for the employee share ownership program. This was a very important part of our corporate philosophy at Mohawk Oil.

It is a disappointment that I have to stand this morning, because I really. . . . I just want to focus on one issue, and it really is the hypocrisy that is coming forward with these amendments to the bill. They are not being truthful, not telling the true story.

The true story is this, I believe. The manner in which these credits are created is what we call a tax expenditure. The government has little control over many tax expenditures because they are an entitlement. In each year the amount of money that the government is committed to depends upon the number of applications that are made, the speed at which they're processed and the way in which they go through. Yes, they can slow the process down, which will reduce the cost.

The member for Okanagan-Penticton has referred to the gross value of the investment and the effects that this bill will have by the reduction of $5 million to $3 million. I'd like to deal with the tax expenditure amount. The purpose of this bill is to reduce the tax expenditure by the government to $6.5 million. Now, British Columbia is the last province that still has legislation that encourages this type of investment. I'm not exactly sure what the status is in all the provinces, but at one point we followed the lead of Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. They were vibrant and a big part of the economic development programs and were encouraging of each province. They have gradually died; they have gradually been reduced. British Columbia is an exception in that it still does have this type of program.

But let's not fool ourselves. Let's be truthful; let's be straightforward. The main purpose of this bill -- other than cleaning up some issues, which needed to be done -- is to reduce the exposure of this government in the tax expenditure area, the benefits of which can be received by investors to $6.5 million. It's about time the government stand up when they bring in these bills and tell us what they are really all about, rather than blowing all this smoke, which we have to work our way through to find out the truth.

When you look at the various programs that government brings in to create jobs, in the general scheme of things they're not very successful. Governments don't create jobs; businesses do. This is a program which has a record of success -- it really does -- as does the employee share ownership program. Sure, there's going to be failures; that always happens. There are always startups, and startups have an even greater mortality rate. It's a shame that the government didn't deal with this in an upfront manner and talk about what it really means.

I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to point that out and record it in Hansard.

W. Hartley: I ask members for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: I have just been informed that we have a number of young students from Fairview Elementary visiting us today. That's an elementary school in my riding. Here with their teacher Mrs. Jennie Cole are 39 students and some parents. Please make them welcome.

I. Chong: I, too, rise to speak at second reading of Bill 11. I don't want to reiterate the comments made by the members for Delta South and Okanagan-Penticton. The points they have raised are indeed valid. What we are discussing is a piece of legislation that is supposedly designed to encourage investment for small business.

What I hear time and time again is the fact that small businesses are comprised of various kinds of entities. If the government truly wanted to encourage investment for all small businesses, they would be looking at those organizations which are not necessarily incorporated as small businesses. I know there could be some difficulty in terms of legislation and regulation in that area. But surely, when we talk about small businesses, we should not always be excluding those small businesses which have chosen not to incorporate for reasons of their own. There are many of those people. Some of them start out very small, with mom and pop and children involved in their small business venture. It could be as small as just a little corner grocery store, and that can, of

[ Page 7357 ]

The other point I would like to raise, which the member for Delta South alluded to, is the investment opportunity in the tax expenditure side and the fact that it has been reduced to $6.5 million. Had we left the limit at some $40 million, we would have been looking at tax credit-granting of some $12 million. That could have encouraged more investment in British Columbia and certainly would have encouraged more jobs.

But I have to ask, then, whether the minister has spoken to the investment community and whether or not they have read the report that was issued by the Investment Dealers Association. I believe it was released in February of this year. It gave an economic outlook for this province that was not particularly good -- something that we have saying for quite some time. What the Investment Dealers Association was saying at the time was that it was difficult to attract national and international investors to British Columbia. The opportunity that this piece of legislation is meant to offer will not necessarily be the tool that will attract investment to this province. If this government and this minister were truly keen on looking at investment, then they should be working with those kinds of organizations, speaking to those bodies, to find out what it is that will attract investment.

Thirty percent tax credits sound great for those who will have those kinds of funds to invest in our province. Even though there is a 30 percent tax credit, there is the 70 percent risk that the investors have. That's what they do when they measure where they're going to be putting their investment. That 70 percent loss is not something that an investor truly looks at, in terms of wanting to have to forgo that in the future. They know there is a risk, but they are hopeful that it won't be. When they're looking at those risks, they are looking at things like the labour climate that we have here. They are taking a look at the government policies that are in place to encourage investment. Albeit the 30 percent is a great incentive, it will lose its flavour very soon if the 70 percent risk is actually virtually assured. Certainly you expect a risk to be there, but if it's definite because we have poor policies in other areas, people are not going to be running up to the front of the line and putting their funds here in British Columbia.

So I would ask the minister to consider those things, those thoughts that I have, and I would encourage him to speak to members on this side of the House so that we can work towards having small businesses relocate back to British Columbia and encouraging more small businesses to expand or to start up. As well, it remains to be seen whether there will be increased applications and increased accessibility to this program. I have not heard that there was a problem in the past, because I don't believe people have been banging on the doors to have access. If the minister will advise of that during committee stage, then I will be looking forward to hearing his comments at that time. With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat.

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps I could wind up the debate on second reading -- after some interesting speeches. I've just got a couple of things I'd like to say.

First, to the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head about speaking to members of the opposite side of the House -- certainly, I'd be pleased to do that. I'd like to conduct myself that way as a minister so that they know everything that's going on.

With respect to working with business organizations to attract investment to British Columbia, I think that's certainly a good idea. I will endeavour to do that, and it's a good suggestion. I think B.C. is a great place to invest; I think there are great opportunities here. It's a good suggestion.

With respect to looking at unincorporated small business, that's something to consider. It's an interesting suggestion, and I took note of that. The hon. member mentioned that the bill does include co-ops, and that's a step in the right direction.

With respect, the hon. member did mention the labour climate and investment. You know, we do have labour peace in British Columbia. We have pretty good labour relations. I think we should calm down and recognize that before scaring away investors with bogeymen, quite frankly. Other than that, I take the hon. member's suggestions very seriously and thank her for them.

With respect to the member for Delta South, I'm pleased he noticed that the program has a record of success. He acknowledged that, and I think we agree on that. It's true that the total pot is down. There's a reduction of the tax credit -- the global amount, the big pot. I might say I'm sorry that that's there. These are times of economic difficulties. I would like to see it increased in the future. But I say this to the hon. members opposite, who get up day after day and say: "Balance the budget; balance the budget; balance the budget." We have to cut certain things in order to try to move towards a balanced budget and especially to keep funds going to education and health in this province, which is the priority of the government. And I think it's the priority of the public; you can see it by the reaction to the great announcements that the Premier and the Minister of Education have been making about education. There are more facilities for young people in this province. One has to keep that in mind.

[11:15]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I point out to the hon. member who said, "Well, what are you doing to help small business?" that we consulted with them right across the province. We actually talked to small business people in great detail. We brought in a budget in which 40,000 small businesses got a tax break. We brought in a budget in which another 10,000 small businesses got another tax break with respect to the ceiling on the corporate capital tax. Just the other day I announced $2.5 million for tourism, which goes to help small businesses in tourism and to help marketing. We made a change just the other day on a little thing: not paying for signs on the highway. That's a big thing for small business people. It seems to me that we're listening. We've announced that we're working on cutting red tape. So if you cut taxes, you cut red tape, you cut regulations, you cut some of the fees -- these are things that help small business.

I just want to wind up the debate by saying that I thank the members opposite for their suggestions. I've made note of

[ Page 7358 ]

I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 10.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(second reading)

Today I'm introducing amendments to the Correction Act and the Parole Act to give the provincial Parole Board and its community representatives a broader role in decisions regarding the conditional release of inmates and their successful transition into the community

Amendments to the Parole Act will remove the current requirement that there be a public servant who acts as vice-chair and executor director of the Parole Board. This change is supported by an amendment to remove the legislative restriction on reappointment of the chair of the board. The amendments support a streamlined board structure and will achieve efficiencies while maintaining the required expertise. An amendment to the Correction Act will enable the minister to delegate to the Parole Board the authority to make a broader range of conditional-release decisions, thereby allowing more community input into the conditional release of inmates. A final amendment to the Correction Act will bring provisions governing the length of temporary absences for provisional offenders in line with federal statute provisions governing those offenders held in provincial institutions.

This bill also makes minor amendments to the Infants Act, in the spirit of justice reform, to allow administrative efficiencies for the public trustee and the courts and to reduce the financial burden to infant claimants, primarily in personal injury cases. The amendment increases the limit on the value of a settlement offer which the public trustee can approve for an infant claim. The previous limit of $10,000 was last increased 20 years ago. The new limit of $50,000 will simplify the settlement of more minor claims, leaving the serious injuries in the hands of the courts.

In this bill, amendments are made to the Milk Industry Act, as well, to authorize government to charge fees for dairy farm inspections. They also authorize government to enable an industry organization delivering dairy farm inspection services to charge fees. The changes will give industry, acting through industry organizations, the flexibility to create extended inspection programs to support industry-set development programs. Such inspections would be in addition to those already needed to ensure compliance with government-set safety standards. Examples of extended inspections could include milk-quality programs or livestock identification for the purposes of monitoring disease.

In order to improve air quality and protect public health, amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are being introduced, which establish a roadside emissions-testing program for the commercial heavy truck and bus fleet operating in the lower Fraser Valley. The roadside emissions-testing program for heavy-duty vehicles will target vehicles with visible excess emissions and will reduce the number of visibly smoking commercial vehicles operating in the province. A voluntary emissions-testing program for commercial vehicles has been in place in the province since February 1996, and approximately 20 percent of the 2,800 vehicles have failed the recommended test limits.

The amendments will allow mandatory testing requirements for all heavy-duty commercial vehicles travelling in the lower Fraser Valley, including those licensed in other Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions, and will also establish penalties for non-compliance. The program will improve the quality of emissions-testing in British Columbia and will promote awareness in the trucking industry of the environmental impact of heavy-duty vehicles and of the benefits of proper maintenance.

Section 11 of the bill corrects a cross-reference error within the Municipal Act. Section 963(2) of the Municipal Act allows local governments to provide temporary protection to a property under consideration for heritage designation status. Correcting this error will protect sites which are being considered for heritage designation status. The amendments maintain the spirit of the law, which is to allow properties with heritage value to be preserved for the enjoyment and education of British Columbians.

In this bill, the Mutual Fire Insurance Companies Act is amended to remove restrictions and increase the competitive ability of those companies incorporated under the act. At this time the Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of British Columbia is the only company incorporated under the act. This small insurer has been providing insurance services to residents of rural British Columbia since the early 1900s. The amendments expand the definition of mutual insurance to enable mutual insurers to offer the same type of insurance coverage as other insurers and to also allow them to continue to offer coverage in areas which were previously rural but now fall within incorporated cities. The amendments also remove the restriction on the number of cash insurance policies which a mutual fire insurance company can issue.

Two changes to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are contained in Bill 10. The first allows the Minister of Energy and Mines, instead of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to enter into a royalty agreement. The Lieutenant-Governor agrees that the royalty agreements are more appropriately executed by the minister, and recently delegated authority to sign such agreements to the minister under provisions of the Constitution Act. The amendment will also improve administrative efficiency. The second change clarifies that the provisions of a royalty agreement will prevail over the royalty regulation. With the granting of authority to the minister, this clarification is essential. There are presently 27 royalty agreements in effect.

The final amendment in this bill extends two statutory deadlines under the Provincial Court Act relating to the Judicial Compensation Committee, but for 1998 only. Because the committee was not fully appointed until after the deadline of January 1, 1998, the deadline is extended by one month. The date by which the committee must submit its report to the Attorney General is also extended by one month, to give the committee the full four months normally provided to com-

[ Page 7359 ]

G. Plant: In my still very brief tenure as a Member of this Legislative Assembly, I have had occasion to examine a number of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts brought forward by the government. This one, perhaps more than any others of the ones I have seen, is appropriately called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I do not think that it contains anything which will become sharply controversial, but because most of the matters raised by it are pretty technical and specific in nature, I think that the more appropriate place to deal with a discussion and a debate about them will be the committee stage debate of this bill.

I am assisted by the Attorney General's explanation of the broad outlines of the bill in the course of his remarks a few minutes ago, and they will provide the starting-off point for some of the issues that will arise when we deal with this bill in committee stage debate.

Those are all the remarks that I think need to be made on behalf of the official opposition in respect of Bill 10 at this point.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. To close debate, I recognize the Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Streifel: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the House, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: Ah, you know, I'm up here for two seconds and already I get heckled by the whistler from Whistler.

[11:30]

My new ministry reflects the changing dynamics and challenges affecting B.C.'s fish resources, including the need to protect fish habitat, the impacts of federal restructuring in the commercial fishing industry on the lives of thousands of people and their communities, the growing economic importance of recreational fishing, the growth of aquaculture, the need to develop new value-added fishery-related industries, and greater public involvement and accountability in fisheries management.

The care of our fisheries and the people who depend on them is a priority for British Columbians. A new ministry dedicated to our fisheries will help focus our efforts. We will serve as a focal point for a range of fisheries priorities. That's including -- well, I just got a new speech, but I think I'll just continue on with the old one -- fish conservation and protection, a diverse and dynamic seafood industry, B.C.'s growing recreational fishery, efforts to achieve a fair Pacific Salmon Treaty, coordination of B.C.'s investments in protecting fish and creating jobs, and our made-in-B.C. approach to fisheries management by implementing important agreements -- the Canada-B.C. agreement on the management of Pacific salmon fisheries issues, the Groundfish Development Authority agreement, the memorandum of understanding on fisheries and seafood diversification, and reaching a reasonable and fair solution to the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

Taking care of our resource is a top priority. The Fish Protection Act is in place. In the last year we have targeted $150 million towards fish habitat restoration and enhancement. That represents an increase in commitment from the range of twenties of millions of dollars a few years ago to somewhat over $150 million last year. We're giving the resource a boost with projects such as a coho living-gene bank on Vancouver Island and a facility for endangered white sturgeon in the Kootenays.

We are changing the way we are doing business. We want to move fish from the paternalistic and often parochial approach of the federal government to one of full partnership. We want to insert provincial policy and action where the federal approach has not worked, to ensure that there is equitable access to the resource for British Columbians -- a management approach that focuses on British Columbia's needs, not on Ottawa's needs.

As we move toward renewal of our fisheries, diversification is the key. Diversification means vibrant communities, new economic opportunities and the creation of jobs. We want British Columbia to be seen as a symbol of excellence and diversity. That means new ways of doing business as we meet new challenges.

As we move on all these fronts, we must listen and respond to British Columbians and their communities. I believe that if we are to make any difference in how fisheries are managed on the Pacific coast, we must work with people who depend on fisheries. I've learned a lot from them since I became Minister of Fisheries. I aim to spend as much time in streams and fishing communities as I do in the office. What I have learned is that people in every community that depend on fishing want to be heard. Hon. Chair, I've been up and down the coast; I've been over about two-thirds of the province in the last two and a half months since being appointed Minister of Fisheries. I've walked on the streets of communities that were once vibrant fishing communities and now are relegated to unemployment rates of 85 percent. That kind of abandonment by the central government in Ottawa is not acceptable to British Columbia. It's not acceptable to this minister.

We heard several of those voices in the last couple of weeks, after I appointed fisheries economist Dr. Parzival

[ Page 7360 ]

Without downplaying the significant nature of the problems we face, we can find much hope in what Dr. Copes has recommended. He says that if we work effectively with the federal government -- which I very much want to do -- we should be able to dramatically increase our protection and production of salmon. I couldn't agree more. He has called for a new direction in the management of the west coast fishery. Dr. Copes talks about the need for coastal communities that live side by side with rich marine resources to have access to those resources.

I've spoken in this House before of the circumstances in the community of Ucluelet with regards to the hake fishery. The community invested significant funds in the rebuilding and the tooling-up of their fish processing facility only to realize that the federal government has given the profit in their businesses to Polish factory ships.

We need a different way of doing business in British Columbia, and this Fisheries ministry will provide the impetus and the catalyst for that new way of doing business.

Dr. Copes has also suggested that a number of stocks can sustain a strong fishery this coming summer, provided management measures are taken to minimize the effects on coho. No one has ever challenged the federal government; no one has intervened in a proactive way to have an effective federal fishing plan for this province -- that is, not until now. The remarkable thing, and I think the new thing, about the Copes report is that it's proactive, it's advisory and it's out ahead of the announced federal fishing plans. It gives the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal minister the opportunity to work in a new way with the coast, to rebuild a relationship with coastal British Columbia that's been lost. I offer that advice and that opportunity. I want to participate in that rebuilding of the respect towards the folks on the ground at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Fisheries officers who were once held in high respect and esteem in those coastal communities. That's been lost. It's been lost through political and bureaucratic bungling in downtown Ottawa and in Hull, and that's got to stop.

Decisions in the past have been made without taking into account the devastating impacts that federal decisions have had on communities and people. I set out to listen to what the people of British Columbia had to say about the fishery, and I have heard. I expect to meet with Minister Anderson at a meeting of the Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers in early May to discuss Dr. Copes's report and ensure that British Columbia has a say in the framing of any fisheries management policies that affect our fish and our fishing communities.

In the ten short weeks I have been minister of a brand-new ministry, there's been a tremendous amount accomplished. We have established a coho living-gene bank on the east coast of Vancouver Island. We have six river systems on the east coast of Vancouver Island where coho runs are in extreme peril, almost on the verge of extinction. We have taken that opportunity to practice some on-the-ground science and community activity with our Duncan hatchery. We're catching smolts that were spawned two and three years ago -- steelhead smolts that will run out over the whole course of their exodus to the sea. The season is about eight weeks in extent. These smolts will be caught, raised to adulthood and spawned in case we need to restock those rivers from the gene pool that existed in there. We will be able to do that.

Just the other day -- I think it was Monday night or Tuesday night. . . . I feel kind of like Hank Snow -- I've been everywhere these last couple of months. In Castlegar I announced a joint project with the Kootenai Indian tribe of Idaho to re-establish a healthy, growing population of white sturgeon in the Kootenay River system.

This project will be carried out at a new facility that's being constructed in our Kootenay hatchery, located between Fort Steele and Wardner in the East Kootenays. It's being constructed there, with full costs being borne by the Kootenai tribe of Idaho. British Columbia's contribution is our years of expertise in the development of freshwater fisheries, our hatchery program and the expert work that is being carried out in that hatchery by the folks who run it.

We are in the process of developing a provincial fishing sector sport fishing strategy. We now have Fisheries Renewal up and running, and it has put a call out for project proposals. We are participating with the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, where we have engaged in expenditures of funds from there. Part of it was spent to help with funding the live gene bank proposal for steelhead on the east coast of Vancouver Island, and there have been other initiatives under the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund.

All of these speak to my priorities: fish conservation and protection. We need to find new ways of conducting business in the province in the move toward renewal in our fisheries. This track record speaks for itself. It is an indication of where I intend to take this ministry and where I intend to take the province on the management of the west coast fisheries.

Before I sit down and wait for the response from the hon. member for Abbotsford, I'd just like to expand a bit on this ministry, on who we are and what we've been in the past. We've come together from a couple of other ministries -- particularly MELP, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, which sent us over their freshwater hatchery program. It's probably one of the best-kept secrets in the province. British Columbia has stewarded that program since the 1930s -- for over 60 years -- when we took it over from the federal government.

We have developed a world-class freshwater hatchery program based on preservation of wild stocks. That program has been a tremendous success, and the folks who work in that program can't be complimented enough on the work they've done on behalf of the province. Our freshwater sport fishery, as I understand it, returns to the province close to half a billion dollars in revenues a year. They aid greatly our tourism ventures and endeavours.

They also help to preserve and protect some very valuable fish species from total destruction, as in the case of the white sturgeon in the Kootenay River system in the state of Idaho, as well as in British Columbia and Kootenay Lake. Our hatcheries program stocks the recreational lakes in my community -- not in the hon. Chair's community; I don't think there are any recreational lakes in the concrete jungle -- but certainly the member opposite would understand the value of this, with the hatchery that's in Abbotsford and the work they do in stocking recreational fisheries in our own areas, in our own back yards.

Our freshwater hatchery program has such a proud history that we're a model for the world. There's none like it in

[ Page 7361 ]

Our ministry is broad and diverse. Our top priority is conservation of our fish species, along with the conservation of the fish species when we deal with the marine fisheries, the salmon fisheries. We have a high level of concern and activity on behalf of our coastal communities to ensure that the folks on the coast have a place to live and can survive this downturn in the salmon fisheries.

We are involved in our freshwater program, and as I said, it's a model program that's envied around the world. We've offered up help and advice again. . . . It seems like we do a lot of work with the state of Idaho. Maybe it just happens to be that they're very close to the Kootenay Trout Hatchery and to Kootenay Lake, where there's a unique species of trout -- the Gerrard rainbow. These critters grow up to about 25 or 30 pounds. In a program involved with the sports clubs in Pend Oreille Lake in Idaho, the stocking of the Gerrard rainbows there has enabled that community to have a very proud fishing club called the 20-pounder club. If you catch one over 20 pounds, you're a member of the club.

As well, our hatchery program works with the fertilization of Kootenay Lake, to bring back the once large numbers of kokanee salmon that were present in that lake and took a hit after the Libby Dam was built in Montana. Now, with the fertilization program and some structured advice around why we shouldn't put some shrimp in some lakes, we are now rebuilding those Kootenay Lake kokanee stocks and looking at other lakes in the interior and in the Okanagan to perform other such works.

So, hon. Chair, with that, I'll take my seat and wait for the response from the member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to have this opportunity today on behalf of the official opposition to engage in these estimates debates of, I assume, the first Ministry of Fisheries in British Columbia. That is certainly something that the opposition supports -- having an individual ministry for fisheries -- because we think that it'll result in getting a better job done of looking after the resource and the people in the sector.

[11:45]

Again, looking at the sector, there is no question: there's a lot of stress on the resource. Whether we're talking about the steelhead in the Thompson River, or coho in small urban streams, or herring, or a whole lot of other situations, there is tremendous amount of pressure on the stock. We look at things like ocean survival and issues such as that which are difficult to understand and assess, even from a scientific basis, where scientists are struggling with the explanation for those phenomena. I liken it to some of the experience that I've personally had in agriculture where there are natural factors that you cannot necessarily control. We look at activities dealing with habitat -- trying to improve habitat in the face of tremendous competition from other users. I think about the people involved in this sector. . . .

I certainly commend the minister for the amount of travelling that he has done. I've certainly done a fair bit of it myself in the past year, trying to meet the people in their own home area, in their own sector, trying to understand the impact on the people involved. I'm thinking about places like Ladner and Steveston, which over the years have been longstanding major fishing communities and have seen tremendous change over time; and places like Port Hardy and Campbell River, both of which I have visited -- and I certainly enjoyed getting a sense of those different communities; and the Sunshine Coast and Prince Rupert. Again, each community has its own characteristics, its own issues and its own concerns.

Like the minister, I think it's important to recognize the freshwater fishery in British Columbia, and I'm certainly hopeful that that sector will sees maybe a stronger representation and interest from the new ministry. I think that there's opportunity there and there's interest there for people that are positive.

Similarly, in the sport fishing sector, the initiative that's been started to look for opportunities there and to look for what is the rightful place for that sector is very important. There are a lot of small businesses, which we just talked about earlier in this House, that rely on the resource and rely on activity in those sectors. They are very, very positive for communities and for individuals.

Overall, I see the sector grappling with change -- tremendous change. We've already seen major changes in the commercial sector, and it's very, very difficult for the people involved. One of the biggest roles of government and of the new ministry is to help facilitate that change, to help people understand what's happening to them, to help them grapple with those issues and to provide assistance. One thing that is critical is that government do its level best to foster the right expectations -- not only to look for job opportunities and training programs but to foster the right expectations for people who are faced with change. Government doesn't always do that. We like to think that we can do it all. We like to think, as government, that we can have our cake and eat it too. We like to think that we don't have to tell people the bad news -- that their industry is changing. Again, the parallels for me are in agriculture. There has been tremendous change, painful change. The new ministry can have a great role in helping people to understand and to cope with that change.

There are tremendous opportunities within this sector, particularly in the value-added area within the commercial sector and in the increased emphasis on quality and value. I know that there has been a lot of work done on that already, but we need to keep focusing on that and working on it. Areas in aquaculture, both shellfish and finfish, have tremendous opportunities that have not been fully explored up until now. As I said, both the saltwater and the freshwater fisheries provide enhanced future opportunities.

[ Page 7362 ]

It's an opportunity, with this new ministry, to focus on enhanced accountability within government. Certainly there's been a lot of activity within government for the last few years focusing toward this initiative, focusing on what the objectives are. What are the objectives for the ministry? What are we trying to achieve? What are the financial aspects of those objectives? Are we meeting those targets? Are we meeting compliance requirements, regulatory requirements, all of those sorts of things? It's an opportunity to build a ministry from the ground up in such a way that measuring accountability, measuring performance, will be easier to do at the year-end than if we were dealing with an existing ministry. It's interesting that one of the Crown corporations or agencies that the ministry is responsible for, Fisheries Renewal B.C., is also brand-new. It also lends itself to these new accountability initiatives.

I want to make a few comments about the recent interim report, which was tabled yesterday, by Parzival Copes. I want to refer in particular to page 5 of his introduction. He talked about being very deeply affected by the experiences of people at various community meetings, the sincerity with which the presentations were made and the eloquent testimony regarding impacts on the lives of fishing families. He talked about their strong fears that the current management approaches were insensitive to their needs and interests, and their concern that their communities were being destroyed.

He also talked about the civil servants in the various agencies involved in this industry. He talked about their professional standards, the competence and dedication among so many personnel. In this case, he was referring to DFO personnel, because people were blaming DFO for their problems. He talked about declining morale in DFO and the struggle of meeting a balanced budget. Finally, he talked about budget restraints -- the deficit crisis, as he calls it -- which put civil servants in a position of having to deliver things that may not be possible to deliver.

I want to comment on those three issues a little bit -- the people involved in the industry, the civil servants involved and this deficit crisis -- because I think they're at the heart of what we need to do in all of our government operations. It relates to my earlier comment about being realistic ourselves and being realistic and upfront with the people we serve. I think it's our responsibility at the political level to ensure that we are being realistic and frank with the people we serve and that we are putting realistic expectations on our agencies and particularly our civil servants. I say this because I think it's critical in this ministry and in this sector, and it's critical in government generally. I put the responsibility at our level -- at the minister's and my level, as elected representatives. I thought that those three paragraphs of Parzival Copes's report were particularly relevant to that concern.

I note the hour, hon. Chair. I'm going to just sum up, and then I will give you the motion. I look forward to discussing the Fisheries estimates with the minister, both in terms of the government's plans for the future and the performance of the government in the past year. I know that the minister shares my concern for the people in the industry and the critical need for the government to provide leadership. I look forward to those discussions.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. D. Streifel moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:16 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
WOMEN'S EQUALITY
(continued)

L. Stephens: We've been working through the estimates in an orderly manner. We have committee members here this morning who want to participate in the debate on a particular area of the ministry. So we're going to be talking about health care -- starting about health issues right off the bat this morning. Part of the ministry's mandate or priorities is women's health care. In the ministry's business plan, the ministry talks about a health care system that responds to all women. It talks about the public education aspects of it, the services, programs, research and systemic advocacy. I'd like the minister to talk about what the priorities of her ministry are in regards to health care for women this coming year.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'll just do a bit of an overview before we begin specifically. When we have talked to women throughout the province, they often talked to us about the fact that there's a wide diversity of women and their needs within the health system and that there are unique needs for women as it relates to health. In a recent poll by the Vancouver Sun --

[ Page 7363 ]

Our health work is largely done in tandem with the Ministry of Health and the Minister's Advisory Committee on Women's Health. An example of that is the renewed emphasis on violence against women, through the women's health advisory committee. We see that a place where women land after violence is in the health system, often at the emergency ward. There are some hospitals that are responding in particular to that, and we are looking at how the health system can be more responsive in that area in general. That advisory committee has violence against women as their number one priority in terms of the health care system. We sit on that advisory board, and we participate and share. . . . Some of our resources are directed towards that committee.

We also support the work of the women's health bureau and contribute to the discussion at the policy level. Examples are the mammography policies, the bone mineral density screening policies and the triple-screening policies. We also participated with the Health ministry around the midwives, moving the midwives through the system and establishing the college. Originally, when Andrew Petter announced the formation of the midwives' college, we participated in that announcement. We participated also in the first advisory council's meeting outside of the lower mainland, when they met in Prince Rupert. We have worked with various regional boards to ensure that there are seats at the regional health council level to ensure that women's voices are heard.

In the past year, we raised awareness around the drug Rohypnol, the date rape pill or whatever it is, which is not only used against women but has had some very serious consequences for young men.

Also, I need to just mention quickly that within our prevention-of-violence grants there is some work done around body-imaging, respect and self-esteem for young people. The focus of the work goes through participation in the women's health advisory committee, and there is other policy work done at the side.

L. Stephens: The responsibilities of the ministry are quite far-ranging as far as women's issues are concerned. As a freestanding ministry, I would assume that the minister has quite a bit of leeway about advocacy work on behalf of women through interministry committees. I understand that the ministry sits on a number of those interministry meeting groups. Public education is important, I think, for women to be aware of what services are available for them out there.

I see that the ministry works in collaboration with the women's health bureau at the Ministry of Health and also works to develop awareness and build strategies and consensus on the priorities for these interministerial policies and programs to improve women's health. I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of advocacy she has done on behalf of women around the current difficulties with women accessing health care, particularly in the northern regions of the province. I've been up there in the last two years. Every time I and members of our caucus go, we hear time after time that access to women's health issues in the north is getting less and less. So I'd like to hear what the minister has been doing for health care on behalf of rural women.

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the question. I did do a tour of the northeast section of the province -- through Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd -- in the fall. As well as the other issues around violence and economic equality, a continual theme of that tour was health care issues -- not only health care issues for women specifically but for families in general.

For example, from Tumbler Ridge I heard about the fact that in the evening they had to take people from Tumbler Ridge into Dawson Creek to get service -- that they did not have a freestanding hospital. So the whole issue of isolation was very apparent as we talked. I talked throughout that area. There was also some discussion around the ability to get testing if you have or suspect a lump and some issues around how difficult it is. I also heard from a woman whose son had broken his leg and how difficult that was over time, because they not only had to have the son hospitalized but then she, who. . . . She lived in Tumbler Ridge, and she was caught between looking after the family at home and staying with her young son who was in the hospital.

So clearly those of us who have hospital services closer to us often may not appreciate the additional stress and strain that having fewer immediate services in the north places on people. I reported back to the Health minister at that time, talked with her about some of the issues that had been raised in the north and, you know, have placed. . . . It has given me a greater understanding and a better ability to react to the issues when they come up at the cabinet table and in general discussions with the government.

The tour was extremely important. Although it did focus largely on economic equality and violence, there was that piece of health care that women constantly raised, not only for themselves but in the context of their families.

S. Hawkins: The minister must know that things have actually got worse for women -- significantly worse in several communities up north -- since she toured last fall. Certainly the minister speaks about women's health issues in the north and how significantly different they are for women in urban areas. She talked about isolation being a critical factor. We also know that there are fewer social and health supports for women up north and that the harsher climates make it difficult to access health care.

Since January 31 particularly, women in the north are facing critical shortages in health care services in their communities. I don't know if the minister has been up to tour those communities since. I know that members of her cabinet and her government have been invited to go up there and see how pregnant women, grandmas and children are facing these health care shortages. Frankly, it's one thing for the minister to stand up and say that she's toured and she's seen it. I want to know: what is the minister doing today and what has she done in the last few months to bring to cabinet's attention that women are facing a critical shortage of health care services in the north? They need help. What has this minister done at the cabinet table to help these women?

Hon. S. Hammell: Let me acknowledge that any withdrawal of services has an impact on the people the service is withdrawn from. It must be very, very difficult for the people in the north to have the services of physicians withdrawn from them for this long period of time. My wish for the north is that those services be returned, that there is some kind of resolution to the impasse, and that their communities and their health and doctors' services get back into a regular routine.

The Health minister has this file and has worked very hard on it over the past number of years. I have supported

[ Page 7364 ]

[10:30]

What is this minister doing to speak up for those women and make sure that their needs are addressed? What is she doing to help solve this problem -- right now?

Hon. S. Hammell: One of the solutions to the problem that we are working on -- the specific issue that you raised. . . . We have established midwives. In particular, the north is the target so women do not have to rely on the doctors and their services; there is another set of services that are available to them in the north. This ministry has supported the establishment of the College of Midwives. We've worked with the ministry in ensuring that this college is up and running, and we see that as part of the solution to those kinds of issues in the north.

S. Hawkins: I don't think the minister is quite understanding what I'm asking her, so I'm going to ask her again. There is a crisis for women in the north right now. A midwife in the future -- in five months, six months or a year -- is not going to help the women who need help right now. Prince George hospital, which services these women, has a nursing staff that's made up of. . . . Guess what: a majority of them are women. They are stressed; they're burned out. They're working hard. I understand that the maternity ward there can usually handle about 15 maternities. They are handling 22 or 23. There's a high burn-out rate, a high stress rate and high sick rate.

Let me just read from the Grannies. You know, they wrote a song over this. They are absolutely frustrated that nobody is helping them. This ministry and this minister purport to help women. Women, by and large, are being affected more by this, because they're usually the caregivers in the family. So if someone gets ill and can't go to the hospital, guess who stays home and looks after the kid or the grandfather or the grandmother. Guess who's driving the kid to the hospital because the person who has to make a living, which is usually the man or the husband in the family, can't leave work. Women are driving those treacherous roads; women are staying home to look after the kids or the sick ones. And nurses, in particular those in the Prince George hospital -- and the minister knows that the majority of the nursing workforce is women -- are saying that they are suffering too.

Here's a little verse from a song the Grannies wrote at the rally:

Yes, we are grandmas from the north and we are mad.
We are getting sick and tired of being had.
'Cause we live north of Hope, we are treated second rate.
But if this keeps up, then we'll just separate.

This minister purports to stand up for women, speak for women and make policy to make women's lives better. There is a crisis going on right now. It has been going on for the last three months in the north. Women are suffering. I want to know what this minister has done in the last three months to help women in the north -- not six months down the road, not a year down the road, not what she saw last fall. Has she been up there at all in the last three months to listen to these women? Has she addressed any of their concerns? I get letters from women. Has the Minister of Health forwarded any of these letters to her so she can read them? What has she done? She has a policy-making division in her ministry that I think was funded to a tune of over a million dollars last year. What are you doing right now for women who are in crisis situations in the north and seeking your help because you are the Women's Equality minister?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to reiterate a number of things to the member opposite. Any withdrawal of services causes hardship. None of us, either on your side of the House or on our side of the House, look forward to seeing the impact of that withdrawal on the communities in the north. Also, when there is a withdrawal of service, those people who are providing the service at some other end often have to carry the load, be they in management or some other area, such as the nurses in the Prince George hospital.

I think what you need to understand in terms of this ministry is that this ministry does not do the work of other ministries. The Ministry of Health is responsible for the delivery of a broad range of services in the north. What this ministry does is focus on particular pieces of the health system where we can assist, through the Ministry of Health, and provide a little bit of impetus with the very small resources this ministry has in terms of a central agency. This ministry does not have programs that are particular to the function of health. Nor does it have programs that are particular to the function of economic equality. Our program area is largely around the area of violence against women. Our priorities in terms of using our limited resources are around violence against women, in the health system and health delivery, identifying gaps in the health system for women experiencing violence, looking at the emerging health plans as they reflect women's needs, and ensuring that B.C. women have access to reproductive care services and that this whole area around threats to doctors who are performing these services is looked at. We also deal with body imagery, through our Safer Future grants, for young women as they are emerging.

This ministry does not duplicate what the Health ministry is doing. However, because this ministry is at the cabinet table when discussions around this broad issue come up, we advocate on behalf of women. We do it every day that we are in this building. It is part of our mandate, and we are delighted to do it.

A. Sanders: I just want to read to the minister the remarks from her own opening statement, in support of my colleague from Okanagan West and her questions to the minister with respect to the role of Women's Equality and the role of this minister in doing her job:

"Women feel they have made. . .gains in the area of health. Women's health concerns are no longer ignored by the medical

[ Page 7365 ]

profession. But improvements are still required. That is why my ministry's third area of focus this year will be women's health. My ministry is represented on the Advisory Council on Women's Health, and I'm very pleased to bring the resources of my ministry to that table to make sure that violence against women is seen as a health issue and to advocate for gender equality in women's health services."

Hon. S. Hammell: I would like to reiterate that any withdrawal of service in any community in any area of the province causes hardship. None of us enjoy seeing that happen. As the Minister of Women's Equality, I'm at the cabinet table, and when this issue is discussed, I have input and give voice to women's concerns. However, I'd like to emphasize the record of this government around women and women's issues. A women's health bureau and an Advisory Council on Women's Health were established by this government. That council advises the Minister of Health and the Minister of Women's Equality on key health issues for women, and it helps identify and advise on methods and systems to improve the health and well-being of women, their families and their communities. That health bureau and the advisory council are there to work with both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Women's Equality, because their focus is on women in particular. The women's advisory council has a list of issues that it is dealing with. Their top issue this year is the health system and the impact of violence against women, what the health system can do in response to violence and the fact that the health system must begin to see violence against women as a health issue. It is not only a support issue. We need to intervene and support through the women's community and through the justice system, but there is a role for health. Public education and services were established to increase the number of women who make an informed choice about breastfeeding and to enable women to breastfeed for as long as they choose.

In research and funding, the Ministry of Health tobacco reduction strategy and the Canadian Cancer Society sponsored a $380,000 community-based research fund to fund pilot smoking cessation program groups, which include women in the workforce, prenatal women and women of lower-income status. We have the federally funded B.C. Centre of Excellence for Women's Health. It was established in 1996 and works in tandem with British Columbia's Children's and Women's Health Centre.

I can go on and on. This government's record around women and women's health is outstanding. This ministry supports the Minister of Health's work. We have particular areas that we fund. We have a policy shop with nine people and around $600,000. That is a central agency role of this ministry, and we work in tandem with a number of other ministries around particular issues, such as health and labour issues. What this ministry does not do is duplicate the work of the Health ministry; it works in support. Because the ministry sits at the table, women's voices are there to be heard.

S. Hawkins: This minister talks about violence against women. Let's talk about that for a minute. Last Saturday or the Saturday before, when I was at the Vanderhoof rally, I met with about 20 community leaders. The majority of them were women -- on council, on health boards, on the school board. They're very concerned about violence against women -- domestic violence. Women who are abused now have to travel two or three hours for medical help. I'm not talking about six months ago, when the minister was up there. Frankly, I think this government's record on rural health has been dismal.

You can brag about it all you want, but we know that access to health care for women in northern and rural areas has been abysmal. Women now need to travel two or three hours for help. The hospital used to be a safety valve for them. That's one of the first places they used to go if they were abused. They cannot go there anymore. It's hard enough for them to get out of the house; they've got nowhere to go. They need to find a car, jump in and travel a snowy road. We were actually very lucky this year that the weather conditions in the north weren't worse. Last year they were awful; this year they weren't so bad. Still, women have to travel a long way to go for help, and I want to know. . . . I'm not talking about rural health care in general. I'm not talking about what the ministry has done for women as far as providing midwives, because we know they still don't have midwives in the north. Nurses in the hospitals practically work as midwives right now; they're working overtime at Prince George hospital, helping women with their maternities.

I want to know what this minister is going to tell the community leaders that came to talk to me about domestic violence, abused women and how far they now have to travel for help because of lack of access to health care for women in those affected communities.

[10:45]

The provision of health care in the north -- the actual delivery of health care -- is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. It is not my intention to duplicate any of that kind of work. Our work around health is very specific and very pointed in terms of what this ministry, given its resources, can do. We work largely through the advisory council, and we have some specific tasks that we take on, on our own, such as our prevention programs and body imagery of young women. But we do not participate in the on-ground delivery of health care systems in this province.

Because this ministry exists, we are able to take concerns of women to the table. When these issues are discussed, such

[ Page 7366 ]

S. Hawkins: This minister is saying that she is advocating on behalf of women in the north. They haven't heard it. For the record, what is this minister advising the Health ministry on behalf of these women?

Hon. S. Hammell: Any service withdrawal hurts a community, and it hurts the people within a community. My hope is that the doctors in the north will go back to work and work with the ministry so that the women, children and men in the north can have their service restored. This is a withdrawal of service by the doctors, and I think it would be in all our interests if the doctors went back to work and worked with the Ministry of Health to find solutions to their problem.

I would just like to focus for a minute on some of the work that we do in the north in terms of domestic violence. In North Coast-Nechako we fund almost $1 million of service for women who have experienced domestic violence. Just for the record, I'd like to help the members opposite with some of the figures. There are five transition houses in the north to assist women: the Help and Hope For Families Society, the Ksan House Society, the Northern Society for Domestic Peace, the Tamitik Status of Women Association and the Three Sisters Haven Society. Those transition houses are our program area that we fund to support women who have experienced domestic violence.

S. Hawkins: Can the minister tell me -- because she's obviously now admitted that she has had discussions with the Health minister regarding women -- what solutions she offered the Health minister on behalf of women?

Hon. S. Hammell: I think the Minister of Health is considering all aspects of this issue. She has appointed Ms. Dobbin because the solutions are complex. I support that appointment, and I hope Ms. Dobbin can ensure that there's a solution, that the doctors go back to work and that service is restored for the women, children and men in the north.

S. Hawkins: I'm glad the minister brought up the topic of the Dobbin report, because that report ensures that service will not be restored for at least another six weeks for those women up north. What is the minister advising the Health minister about that?

Hon. S. Hammell: The solution to that is that the doctors go back to work. If they go back to work, then there's no problem. The commissioner can look at the issue and bring forward lasting solutions -- but there is a withdrawal of service by the doctors. They can fix this problem immediately by going back to work and working with the Health ministry and with the commission to find solutions to what is a very complex problem.

The solution is not only more money; it is more complex than that. We need to give Ms. Dobbin the time to work that out. If the doctors would go back to work, the service would be restored. The commissioner could proceed with her inquiry or her investigation, and we could find solutions through that method.

S. Hawkins: For my own information, what does the minister think the chances are of the doctors going back to work? That's her solution. But in the minister's opinion, what are the chances of the doctors going back to work before Ms. Dobbin completes her review?

Hon. S. Hammell: I suggest the member ask the doctors.

S. Hawkins: Well, I suggest the minister knows as well as I do that they're not going back to work. This government has done nothing to find a solution to have the doctors go back to work, and this minister has done nothing to help those women who have lost access to care and who are begging for help. Here is a pregnant mom -- five months pregnant, three hours away from a hospital -- saying: "Please help us. Who will help us?"

This minister purports to advocate on behalf of women. Now, I've asked about four times what this minister has done to help these women. Why don't they have a voice in her ministry? And what is she doing at the table for these women? She knows darn well, as do I, that they are going to get no help before the Dobbin report is finished.

Hon. S. Hammell: I should reiterate for the member that any withdrawal of services is not looked at with any joy by either your side of the House or ours. All of us are very concerned that the doctors have withdrawn their services in the north. The doctors have been offered more money, and they've rejected it. Ms. Dobbin will go in and look at the situation. The service delivery to the people in the north could be remedied immediately if the doctors would go back to work.

This is a complex situation. It requires a solution that is broader than just adding money to a pot. It is complex, and we need the time to look at it seriously. If the doctors would go back to work, then there would be no problem. We could proceed. People would have their service restored, and there would be a solution being found as Ms. Dobbin discussed the issue with the people in the north. The service to the community is to women, to children and to men. That service needs to be restored, and I hope the doctors would go back while the inquiry is going on.

S. Hawkins: This makes me very angry. This minister knows that, in the next five or six weeks, women up north are going to continue to suffer. I'm hearing mostly from women. And you know what? It's mostly from pregnant women and women with small children. They are very, very concerned about their families right now. It's a very emotional issue up there. I've been up there three times in the last two months. I am very, very concerned, and I don't see that kind of concern coming from that side of the House. I hear a lot of hollow words, and I hear: "Well, the solution is that the doctors should go back to work." Well, no kidding. Yes, the doctors should go back to work. What is this minister doing to help that situation? We've asked that question a hundred times, and she just keeps hoping that the doctors go back to work.

For goodness' sake, I wonder if this minister knows that there are higher birth rates in the north and there's a higher infant mortality rate in the north. These poor pregnant moms

[ Page 7367 ]

This minister says she cares about women; she says her ministry advocates on behalf of women. We stand up here and we ask her: "Well, what are you doing for those women?" For the last three months, women have been crying out -- not only to this side of the House but to that side of the House. It's really concerning that we have a Minister of Women's Equality who says she cares about women's health care issues up north, and I haven't heard her voice once. Has anyone heard her voice once through this whole dispute -- through this northern health care crisis for women? I haven't. She says that she's been talking to the Health minister about this. She says she tells the Health minister: "Well, the solution is the doctors should get to work." I think everybody in the province knows that.

In the meantime, the solution that the government -- and that member, in cabinet -- approved was the appointment of Lucy Dobbin, which the minister says she supports. But you know what? That ensures that these women will not get the help they need for at least another five or six weeks. In the meantime, what do you suggest these women do?

Hon. S. Hammell: I am sure the member opposite has heard me say enough times that all of us, both your side of the House and our side of the House, are very sympathetic to the people who are impacted when some service is withdrawn. I think that the people in the north want their health service restored. Certainly we do, and I know you do. I understand that you have also asked the doctors or want the doctors to go back to work while a solution is being found. Ms. Dobbin has a final report due in 30 days but can make interim recommendations which could be acted on. So we don't need to wait until the end; there can be solutions coming as the report is being done.

[11:00]

S. Hawkins: Well, I'll make sure that I get the message up north that this minister is very sympathetic. That's the solution she offers for those women up north -- her sympathy. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. Her sympathy that's all she offers.

We offered a three-point plan which the government hasn't even addressed yet. That plan would have gotten the doctors back to work immediately. There would have been a cooling-off period. There would have been televised select standing committee hearings -- as non-partisan as you can make it in an all-party committee -- and there would have been a set amount of money committed towards helping with resources in the north. But this government can't even do that.

There are reports in the library; there have been reports done on northern and rural health care. But again, this minister and others fund these reports and then they don't follow through on them. I want to know from the minister. . . . The chair of the regional health board up there is Lorraine Grant, who happens to be a woman. She says: "If this was happening in the minister's back yard, it would be settled a lot sooner. If it was happening in the lower mainland, the problem would not continue." What are the minister's comments on that?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm sure the member opposite understands that Ms. Dobbin will clarify physician coverage issues, look at what other services could be employed to address service needs and review the NIA, the northern income allowance, to see how it could be better used. Ms. Dobbin will consult with doctors who are on strike, as well as other doctors, civic health providers, and health authorities in the north and remote regions. Her report is due in 30 days. She can make interim recommendations that can be acted on in the meantime. I think that might be a little bit quicker than televised, all-party committee hearings.

S. Hawkins: If the government had taken us up on the offer when we laid out that plan on February 14 or 15, it would have been done by now. That was a 30-day hearing, and if that plan had been followed up first, the doctors would have gone back to work immediately. I guess the minister has absolutely no clue about that. That was a plan that had been put forward. If she was really advocating on behalf of women, she may have had a look at the plan, known that it was a good plan and taken it forward. But she didn't care enough to do that.

For her information, it's the northern isolation allowance, not northern income. It makes me wonder if this minister has actually been involved in this process at all on behalf of women.

I asked her a question a minute ago which I didn't hear an answer for. Lorraine Grant, who is the chairman of the northern interior regional health board, made a comment and said that if this had been happening in the lower mainland, it would have been settled a long time ago. I wonder if the minister would comment on that?

Hon. S. Hammell: There is certainly one thing that we agree upon: both of us -- you with your plan and me through what I've said -- want the doctors to go back to work. The critical factor here is the withdrawal of service by the doctors and their unwillingness to go back to work while a solution is being found, whether it's your solution or another solution. The key is to get the doctors back to work so that the service is provided again for the men, women and children of the north. We can move with Ms. Dobbin to find not only interim solutions but final solutions that involve the striking doctors and also regional health authorities and other service providers.

S. Hawkins: The minister has evaded answering the question for the second time, so I'm asking her again: does she think that access to health care is better for women in the lower mainland? And if this were happening in the lower mainland, does she think that Lorraine Grant is right? If it were happening there, would it be settled by now?

Hon. S. Hammell: The northern doctors' withdrawal of service and their demand for more money has implications across this province, including the lower mainland, the Island and everywhere. This is a very important issue, and of course it is punctuated by the fact that the withdrawal of service creates very direct hardships for people in our communities.

[ Page 7368 ]

S. Hawkins: Well, when you ask the question three times, you expect an answer. We keep getting bafflegab, and unfortunately, that's what the women up north have been hearing too. It's too bad they don't have a strong advocate in a Minister of Women's Equality. Unfortunately, because of the length of this crisis, it is not only in the north and not only in those five regions. It has spread to over 13 regions around the province. Not only do we have women affected up north -- as I've said in the discussion I've been having with the minister -- but we now have women affected in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo, in the Gulf Islands. We have communities everywhere that are suffering for access to health care for women, for good health care. And this minister has known all along. She says her ministry does do research into rural health care and isolation health care for women. She's known all along for the last five or six or seven years that access has been poor; it's threatened even more.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

What I'm asking the minister is: instead of just wishing that it would go away -- because we know it's not. . . . We know the doctors aren't going to go back to work; she knows that and I know that. They're not going to go back to work under the so-called solution that her cabinet and her colleague developed. The women want to know that they've got a strong voice that is speaking for them. We have all kinds of letters from women in the north; we have letters from women around the province who are wondering what's going to happen to them when they and their kids and their family need health care. Wishing that it'll go away and wishing that a group will go back to work is not going to help. I know that and the minister knows that.

I wonder: is the minister willing to commit to going up north to talk to those women? She was up there last fall. I don't think she has been up there during this recent crisis. Is she willing to commit to going up there and talking to them and finding that voice in cabinet, so that she knows how threatened and frightened they feel, how actually abandoned and neglected and betrayed by this government and this minister they feel? They don't feel they have a voice in either this minister or the past Minister of Women's Equality, who's now the Health minister. They feel that they've been neglected very, very badly by this government. We have pregnant moms who are travelling two or three hours, sometimes in labour, to get to health care. And this minister is just wishing it would all go away. It's not going to happen. I'm wondering if she'll commit to going up there and meeting with those moms and community leaders that I met with, and explaining to them what she's doing and what she can do for them at the cabinet table.

Hon. S. Hammell: I appreciate the points being made by the member opposite that this northern dispute has implications throughout the province, and she reiterated a number of areas that this is having impact on. This issue does impact on the province. It is a very complex one, which needs solutions thought through by a wide variety of people who are involved in the health system. That is what Ms. Dobbin's mandate is. You suggest that the government is treating the people in the north poorly. I would suggest that the government has not withdrawn their services.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Hammell: The government is very concerned that the service has been withdrawn by the doctors. The solution to the problem would be that the doctors return to work while Ms. Dobbin consults not only with the striking doctors -- because the delivery of health care in the north is not only their responsibility. . . . It has to do with other health providers, with regional health districts; it has to do with the community getting involved in the solution and being part of it. There could be, in turn, recommendations by Ms. Dobbin. The doctors could go back to work. You've asked them to go back to work; we've asked them to go back to work. The withdrawal of their services is hurting their community, and both your side of the House and our side of the House are concerned about it.

As a government, we have increased the funding for health care in every single year of our mandate. The total amount of increase in health care funding eclipses any increase made by any other province in this country. We have added $16 million to deal with wait-list problems that have been exacerbated by the fact that doctors are taking days off here and there.

Our record is there. We are working with the communities and with Ms. Dobbin to find solutions to the doctors' withdrawal of service.

S. Hawkins: The minister knows that a good plan is workable. And we did. . . . This side of the House, because we wanted to see this resolved early on, did put forward a good plan. I don't know if the Premier, the minister or the cabinet ever looked at that plan. It would have got the doctors back to work immediately. But what they put forward is a plan to keep those services away from the people in the north -- from women and children and families -- for at least another month or six weeks. We know that, because we know that Ms. Dobbin's recommendations. . . . Ms. Dobbin was appointed without consultation with all groups up there, so we know that her recommendations may not even be accepted.

Frankly, the longer this continues, the more threatened the northerners are about their health care. We know that this government has let this dispute go on and on and on, and we have communities now where doctors are leaving anyway. I wonder where this government is going to find all the health care professionals to fill those places when those physicians leave. That is a problem that has been created directly by this government, by failing to act in a reasonable way.

I've mentioned before that up north there are high birth rates -- higher than the provincial average. There is higher infant mortality. There are higher rates of acute-care hospitalizations, higher rates of unintentional death, and we know that they affect women. All of this affects women. The stress that the northerners are going through right now is multiplied because of this crisis. Just standing up over there and saying, "We really wish it would go away. . . ." Well, that's the problem. This government have wished it would go away for the past seven years that they have been in power. But guess what: it didn't.

It's time to find solutions. For the last couple of years that I have been here, this minister has been the Minister of Women's Equality. She must have heard -- because I've heard, through women up north -- that they have felt that access to care is threatened. Now they're going through a real

[ Page 7369 ]

[11:15]

Hon. S. Hammell: Both the member opposite and I know that the people in the north -- including the women, children and men -- want their health services restored as quickly as possible. We know that when there is a withdrawal of services by any group within a community, it has an impact on the people who they provide those services for. The issues are complex, and there is no one solution. That's why Ms. Dobbin has been assigned. She brings a great deal of national experience to health care management and to health care in the north.

When you mention this problem as being in the north. . . . It is not only in our northern region. It is in the north right across this country. It has been historically and continues to be very difficult to attract and keep doctors in the north. So I hope when Ms. Dobbin looks at the solutions, she also looks at long-term solutions, because we need to take a look at solutions that are long-term.

Let me be specific. This government has increased health care funding at the expense of all other ministries every single year that this government has been in power. That increase has been higher and greater than any other province in this country. So we have made our commitment clear.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: It is amazing to me that never before has this member stood up and spoken so eloquently about the concerns of women. She has discovered that women exist and that women exist in terms of her party. This member and her party were going to eliminate the Ministry of Women's Equality and have the leader do it off the side of his desk.

So, hon. Chair, not only do we have a fine record in health but we have a very fine record when it comes to supporting women in this province.

S. Hawkins: Well, that's a really interesting comment, hon. Chair. Because you know what? This minister purports to advocate on behalf of women. What is the use of having a minister in that portfolio who has done nothing for women in the north in the last three months? I haven't heard one word -- not one word -- from this minister.

We've been hearing from women in the north; we've been hearing from pregnant moms. I actually went to Vanderhoof a week or two ago, and I know they were all invited. I know every one of them was invited; their key people and their MLAs from the north were invited. There were 1,500 people in an arena in Vanderhoof. Do you know what? They came from 300, 400 and 500 miles away -- that's how much they were committed to their health services in the north. Do you know what? Not one NDP member showed up -- not one. Actions speak louder than words, and I think that shows how much they care about those people. Do you know what? They were crying. I can't tell you of the emotion in that room. When you see a pregnant woman standing at the mike and crying and saying: "Who will help us?" Well, I don't see this minister helping. I haven't heard her voice once in the last three months -- not once. That's why I'm asking.

I know that their services are threatened; they've been threatened for the last few years. Ever since she has been the Women's Equality minister, they've been threatened. She says that she works on behalf of women. Well, I haven't seen the actions. What I'm asking her today, right now -- and I've asked her at least three or four times and she has failed to answer -- is: will she commit to going up there and talking to those women who are in a critical state right now, who are stressed like crazy and who feel absolutely helpless? I've said it before: they feel abandoned, neglected and betrayed. That's what they're saying about you and your government. Will you go up there and give them the reassurance that you are listening and working on their behalf? She said a few minutes ago that she thought that it was best to talk to women and to communities and to leaders. I'm wondering if she's willing to go up there and do that right now for those women, to say: "We do care and we are listening." Is she willing to listen to what their solutions are and to offer those solutions on behalf of women to her cabinet and to the Health minister?

The Chair: Just a reminder to focus the debate through the Chair.

Hon. S. Hammell: Again, I would like to reiterate that any withdrawal of service and its impact on the people to whom it provides service is distressing not only to my side of the House but to your side, hon. member. Ms. Dobbin is up there listening to the community. She's listening not only to the doctors on strike but also to other health providers and to other regional authorities who provide health care.

Let's be really clear about how this ministry works and what its mandate is. Our number one mandate and where most of our money goes is violence against women. Let me just reiterate for the member where much of our money goes and what the priority of this ministry is. Our ministry's main focus around program area is violence against women, and that corresponds directly to the information that we get back on what women need and want.

Just so that we're very clear about the services this ministry provides for the north, again I will help the members opposite by reading. . . . "In the Cariboo and the northeast we provide almost $3 million in funding to the transition house program alone." Just to help the members out, this ministry funds the Amata Transition House Society; the Cariboo Friendship Society; the Healthy Fort Nelson Society; the Lakes District Safe Haven Home Society; the North Peace Community Resources Society, which funds two transition houses; the Omineca Safe Home Systems Society; the Phoenix Transition Society; the Prince George and District Elizabeth Fry Society; the Prince Rupert Transition House Society; and the South Peace Community Resources Society. This is the funding in the northeast. In the northwest, as I mentioned before,

[ Page 7370 ]

In terms of violence against women, that is the number one priority of women and the number one priority of this ministry's mandate. I support the Minister of Health's work with Ms. Dobbin. My wish is that the doctors go back to work while Ms. Dobbin works with all the health providers in the north, and a solution is then found.

S. Hawkins: I gather, then, from the minister not answering my question -- unless the minister speaks to the contrary -- that I can go back and tell those women up north that she is not going to come and see them. She doesn't care enough to go and see for herself what they're going through up there, and she is not going to visit in the next short while. That is the message I guess we'll take back to the women up north.

A. Sanders: Let's change the tactic a bit here, hon. members, and see if we can get something encouraging on the record for the minister's benefit. Could the minister tell me with regard to her statement about advocating for gender equality in women's health services and in reference to the northern health care crisis -- which I in fact call the northern women's health care crisis, being that 75 to 80 percent of the people who go through a family practitioner's office are women and children, not men at all. . . . So what we're really talking about here is the northern women's health care crisis. The solutions the minister has offered -- that the doctors go back to work and that we have midwives -- are so completely out of line with reality that it's almost ridiculous.

Let's look at what health issues we're talking about, at what these women are not getting. They are not getting pregnancy care; they are not getting labour intervention and care; they are not getting childbirth support; and they are not getting neonatal care, which has nothing to do with midwives. They are not getting care for aboriginal health issues, which have nothing to do with midwives or pamphlets on breastfeeding. They are not getting anything to do with drug addiction or alcohol addiction work within the emergency department. They are not getting emergency services. They are not getting regular screening exams -- the regular things that would occur within that context -- and they are not getting counselling on any of the issues that are very specific to women, like eating disorders.

When we're talking about the northern health care crisis for women and we're talking about the Ministry of Women's Equality being the conduit that overlays -- provides an envelope, a shellac -- all the other departments to make sure that women are looked after in those departments and that these ministers in those departments focus on women's affairs and to make sure that women's needs are met, let's look at what the Ministry of Women's Equality has done for those women.

Since January 31, when the northern doctors' job action occurred, how many press releases have been released from the Ministry of Women's Equality making a statement -- any kind of statement -- on the northern issue and getting a resolution of that issue?

Hon. S. Hammell: I want to put it on the record again that when service is withdrawn, be it by doctors, by teachers or by public servants -- by any area of service within our community -- it has an impact on people. None of us are happy about that impact, and all of us have our solutions. The solution that the Minister of Health has put in place is Ms. Dobbin, who will work with the various health people in the north: the doctors, the health authorities and other service providers. As I've said before, there can be interim solutions or interim recommendations, and those can be acted upon immediately. The clear solution is the doctors stop withdrawing their service and go back to work, and that service is then returned to the people in the north.

I would, though, just like to put on the record for the members opposite -- because it has obviously slipped their minds -- that we have added $228 million to this budget to protect and improve health care. This government has increased health care spending by almost $2 billion since 1991.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, order.

Hon. S. Hammell: If women, as the members opposite suggest, are strong users of the health care system, that money goes directly to that portion of the population. Two billion dollars since 1991 -- no other government has come close to matching that record. B.C. continues to allocate more money per person than any other government in this country, any other province in this country. Since 1991 our government has increased health spending by 15 percent per person, while in the rest of Canada health spending has actually seen a decrease by 2 percent.

The person who is the designated spokesperson for this issue and the northern health situation is the Minister of Health. I back her 100 percent in assigning Ms. Dobbin to speak with the people in the north around this issue. My wish is that the doctors go back to work and stop withdrawing their services from the people of the north, and that they work with Ms. Dobbin to find a solution.

[11:30]

G. Janssen: I'd like the Chair to remind both the minister and the members opposite that we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality and not the Ministry of Health.

The Chair: I will remind the hon. members that that is the situation.

A. Sanders: I'm very pleased to know we're in the Ministry of Women's Equality and that we're talking about women in the north and the overall view that the Ministry of Women's Equality has toward solving problems for women in the north with respect to her ministry. I'll ask again, very simply: how many press releases has the Ministry of Women's Equality had since January 31 to support solving the problem in health care for women?

Hon. S. Hammell: Press releases don't solve problems. This minister works with many other ministries in this government around the problems as they affect women. The spokesperson for the doctors' strike in the north is the Minister of Health, and I support 100 percent her assignment of Ms. Dobbin to the north to find a solution and to work with the doctors. My suggestion is that the doctors go back to work and that they work with Ms. Dobbin and the other health authorities and providers in the north to find a solution.

A. Sanders: Through each ministry, we use press releases for the benefit of the record to advertise and to make the

[ Page 7371 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: Press releases and televised all-party hearings don't solve problems. What we have is a person who is highly qualified in the north to listen to the doctors, to listen to other health authorities, to listen to other health care providers, to listen to the community and to come up with solutions. My suggestion is that doctors go back to work and that they work with Ms. Dobbin to find solutions so that all of the community come out winners. They should go back to work, and they should start providing the service that the people in the north deserve.

A. Sanders: When there's a very important issue that the minister wants to bring to the attention of the province concerning issues in women's health, is a press release a way that she would do that?

Hon. S. Hammell: Not necessarily.

A. Sanders: Has the Ministry of Women's Equality had any press releases since January 31?

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm really pleased the member should ask that question. Our focus and the number one priority of our ministry -- where we spend the bulk of our money and where we have exclusive jurisdiction to speak -- is around violence against women. That is where the majority of our work is done. Most of our budget goes out the door to women who provide service to the community. That is where the focus of this ministry is and where most of its press releases lie. And, hon. member, I'm perfectly happy to go through quite a number of them.

We have just worked with Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, and we had a number of press releases. We worked with the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses, where they had an extremely successful event and where they had bumper stickers that were put on police cars. The transition house worked with the police, because often there is some tension between the police and the women-serving organizations. They worked with the police. I don't think you should minimize the work that the women's community does around transition houses and their work with the police. You may have a particular interest in health, but not everyone is as focused on that as you perhaps are. What these women did was very, very important to them, because they are trying to work on prevention. They're trying to get in front of violence before it happens. They worked with the police, and they worked not only with transition houses in the lower mainland but with transition houses in the suburbs and in the interior and in the north. So that was one area that we worked with. There was another wonderful event we worked with that gathers some amount of publicity, and it was here in Victoria. The Victoria Harbourside Rotarians, working with the police and with their community, have. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: No, what we're talking about is the press release. That is the question that I'm answering. The Rotarians are working in their community to get men to sign up to stop violence against women. We also had a workshop in Vernon -- where there was a very serious tragedy -- around the prevention of violence. We had a workshop with the community there last night, to also engage it in the prevention of violence against women.

This ministry and this minister take violence against women very seriously. It is where the majority of our mandate lies. If you're asking me about press releases, I can add a few more.

A. Sanders: What that demonstrates to us is that press releases are in fact used by the minister to advertise to the public those areas that the ministry finds to be very, very important. What we will find, for the record, is that there have been no press releases released by the Ministry of Women's Equality on dealing with health care, specifically health care in the north and the issue of the lack of health care since January 31 for women who require a myriad of services -- not just pregnancy, but childbirth, aging issues, etc. Therefore the Ministry of Women's Equality has been absolutely, completely mute -- muzzled, silent, absent -- when it comes to the issue of women in the north and their health care.

Now that we've cleared up the press release circumstance, how many letters has the Minister of Women's Equality answered from northern women who have written to her concerning the issues of the northern health care crisis?

Hon. S. Hammell: The withdrawal of services by any service provider in our community is a serious issue. I know that the members opposite take the issue seriously, as do we on this side of the House. My wish is that doctors would stop withdrawing their services, would reinstate their services to the community in the north and would work with Ms. Dobbin, the person who has been assigned to work with not only the striking doctors but also the community, health authorities and service providers.

The Minister of Health is the designated spokesperson for the doctors' issue in the north. I support her work 100 percent, and I support the assignment of Ms. Dobbin to work with the communities and come up with a solution.

A. Sanders: I take from that that no letters from women in the north, asking for her help in solving this problem, have been answered by the Minister of Women's Equality, the spokesperson for all women in our province. Since January 31, how many meetings with northern constituents has the minister had with respect to the northern health care crisis for women?

Hon. S. Hammell: For the record, I really don't see where press releases solve problems. It should be noted for the record that the ministry and the minister answer all letters. But the Minister of Health is the spokesperson for the issue of the doctors in the north. Any time there is a withdrawal of service by any provider in the community, it causes hardship. All of us, not only this side of the House but also the other side of the House, are concerned when that hardship arises and affects not only women but children and men in the community.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

I completely back the Minister of Health's action to assign Ms. Dobbin to look for a solution by working not only with the striking doctors but also with other health authorities and health practitioners, as well as the community. So I wish the doctors would go back to work, work with Ms. Dobbin and come up with solutions that all of us can live with.

[ Page 7372 ]

Hon. S. Hammell: I'm not quite sure how a press release solves anything, nor how a letter to the editor solves anything.

What I am doing is backing the Minister of Health, who is the spokesperson on this issue, and her assignment of Ms. Dobbin to work not only with the striking doctors but with the health authorities, the other health practitioners and the northern communities to find a solution. My hope is that the doctors would go back to work and reinstate their services and that they would work with Ms. Dobbin to find solutions that all of us can live with.

A. Sanders: From that, I will assume that no letters to the editor have been written on behalf of women by the Ministry of Women's Equality to urge the solutions to the northern health care crisis.

How many visits to the north has this minister made since the start of the women's health care crisis?

Hon. S. Hammell: It is amazing to me that the Liberals would continue to raise the issue of letters to the editor.

This minister supports the spokesperson, which is the Minister of Health, and her assignment of Ms. Dobbin to find solutions in the north. Ms. Dobbin will work not only with the striking doctors but with other health practitioners. She will work with the community; she will work with health authorities. My wish is that the doctors would reinstate their services, get their offices working, provide the health services to the community -- not only to women but to children and to men -- and work with Ms. Dobbin to help find solutions to the health situation in the north so that the north can again have their health services.

A. Sanders: This minister said in her opening address for these estimates that her job is to advocate for gender equality in women's health services. We have a crisis in northern health care for women. She has told us her job. She is paid; her office is set up to advocate for gender equality in women's health services. There has not been a press release, there has not been a letter to the editor, there has not been a meeting with constituents in the north, there has not been a letter to the mayor, there has not been a letter to northern doctors and there have not been letters to the regional health boards, the community health councils, the mayors, the regional districts or the Health ministry. There has not been one letter that this minister will speak to that she has written on behalf of women, who make up 75 to 80 percent of all the visits to family practitioners and northern doctors in general.

[11:45]

I'm wondering, when we're asked on vote 62, what is it that this minister is doing. . . . What is it? If it is transition houses, I'm all for that. But this minister has told me that one-third of the job she is doing is to advocate for gender equality and safe access to health services. She cannot demonstrate one piece of paper, out of a paper factory, that indicates in any way, shape or form that she has done one thing since January 31 to provide any advocacy whatsoever for women who live in those 13 communities affected by the northern women's health care crisis.

Hon. S. Hammell: Just so the member has a better understanding, I need to clarify a few things for her. Of the $38 million that this ministry spends, $30 million is focused on violence prevention. This ministry's budget is $38 million, and $30 million of that goes to violence prevention. I gather the member is unaware of that. This is the number one priority of women, it is the number one priority of this ministry and it is an area that takes a lot of our focus. Just to make sure that you don't. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: Just to make sure that you understand, I can help you out with that. That $30 million supports transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing, counselling for women and counselling for men who abuse. It also works with prevention projects, as we are trying very hard to move prevention. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hammell: So let me help you with the gender equality and the health care services. . . .

The Chair: Direct remarks though the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Hammell: Your question is around gender equality, so let me just help you out with a few issues. Women have told us that the health system must acknowledge the unique health characteristics of women. In a recent poll in the Vancouver Sun, the issue of women. . . . It said that health and fitness was an important issue to them. We must work with others in government and in the community to make sure that women's health care is addressed. We do this through the Health ministry's advisory committee on women's health. An example of a recent health project is the document "Alcohol and Other Drug Problems and B.C. Women: A Report to the Minister of Health from the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health," released November 1997. This is gender specific, and the report provided a timely framework for analysis and action on the Supreme Court decision on compulsory treatment for pregnant women and other issues concerning women and substance abuse.

In 1998 we intend to provide technical and financial support to the minister's advisory council on health. . . .

S. Hawkins: She was asking about the northern rural health crisis.

[ Page 7373 ]

S. Hawkins: She asked specifically, and you have not answered one question.

Hon. S. Hammell: She asked about gender, and I'm giving a response to gender-specific. . . .

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. S. Hammell: In 1998 we intend to provide technical and financial support for the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health and a research project to determine issues around violence and the health care system.

We also support the work of the women's health bureau and contribute to discussion at the policy level around gender issues. Examples are mammography policies and bone-mineral density screening policies. Through our collaborative work with the women's health bureau, we are participating in a regional project to ensure that women are at health-planning tables. One outcome of this work is in Kamloops: the advisory council to the regional health board there has two seats to ensure that. . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. S. Hammell: . . .the voices of women are heard.

In the past year we raised young women's awareness about the date-rape drug Rohypnol and provided information on this topic to women's organizations, police, health professionals, educational institutes, the media and the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. We provided technical and funding support for two self-directed pilot projects relating to health issues for young women: body image and respect, and leadership for young aboriginal women. We provided funding support to the third aboriginal women's wellness conference, and we supported a mini-conference with the northern aboriginal women's group on alcohol and other drug-related problems for northern B.C. women.

We also supported greater awareness of the debilitating effects of tranquilizers and sleeping pills through funding to a television documentary called "Our Pill Epidemic." This is a serious issue for older women. In 1995, 25,000 or 10 percent of women over 64 were prescribed tranquilizers or sleeping pills for longer than 100 days.

S. Hawkins: These will be my last comments, hon. Chair. This minister has been as unhelpful in answering questions this morning about the northern health care crisis for women as she has been helpful to those women -- which means she's done nothing. There have been no answers this morning, no help for those women. It is pathetic watching her here for the last couple of hours or so, saying absolutely nothing. That's what it boils down to: she has done nothing. The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon was trying to ask this minister. . . .

There's been a flurry of press releases. We've seen them from her ministry. Of course we have. Whenever it's to their advantage, they will write letters to the editor; we've seen that too. But when we have a pressing and substantial critical concern for women in the north, this minister does nothing. This minister purports to be an advocate for women, purports to speak on behalf of women across this province, and says: "I'm there for you. You know, that's what my ministry is all about. I'm the Minister of Women's Equality. I can cut ribbons at transition houses; I can cut ribbons here and there."

That is not good enough. There is a critical crisis going on in the north for women. The member for Okanagan-Vernon laid out some of the concerns very nicely for those women, those children and those families up north. We talked about all those people that are affected up there. We talked about nurses in the Prince George hospital.

Has this minister even gone up there? We asked her, and you know what? The answer is no, she hasn't. We asked her this morning if she will commit to going up there and speaking to those community leaders, to those women, meeting with those groups and helping to find solutions. You know what? She said that that's what needed to be done. We asked her what her solutions were. She said: "We need to talk to the community. We need to talk to those women. We need to commit to finding solutions up there." That's what she said. You know what? She's done nothing. She won't even commit now, in the middle of the crisis, to go up there. The decision she supports is to keep this crisis for women going on for at least another month or six weeks.

Then when that report comes out, we don't even know if it'll be acceptable. We know what they've done with other reports and recommendations that they have commissioned. They don't follow a darn thing in those reports. We've seen some of those reports come out earlier in this session, reports that have been sitting in the library for two years, for six years, for four years, that they just put on the shelf because -- you know what? -- it looks good if people think you're doing something about something.

Let's appoint Jack Munro. Hey, that was a good idea; that really worked. He really wished the doctors would go back to work up there too.

Well, let's appoint Lucy Dobbin. She doesn't even start until next week, and her report is going to be back in 30 days. Well, hey, isn't that consolation? Isn't that cold comfort for those women up north who are pregnant right now, who have to travel two or three hours to get hospital care, who end up at the hospital door and get told there's no bed? And looking after nurses -- who happen to be women -- who are absolutely exhausted on the maternity ward. . . . Women admitted to hospital and sleeping in hallways, nursing their babies there -- is that appropriate? Shouldn't the Women's Equality minister be speaking up for those women around the province, and especially up there? That's what I would expect; that's what the hon. member from Vernon would expect. That's what the women up north expect. But you know what? Nothing.

Today, when we ask her to go up there and speak with those women, to meet with those groups and with those community leaders that I met with a week or two ago. . . . I've been up three times, because they are absolutely desperate up there. They are looking for help -- for the help to come, the real action, from that side of the House. We all know that they are the ones that are going to find the solution. But they have done nothing -- absolutely nothing.

The Chair: Noting the time, hon. member.

S. Hawkins: With those comments, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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