2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000

Volume 18, Number 14

[ Page 14791 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are ten members of the Canadian Federation of Students: Ben Williams, Mark Veerkamp, Summer McFayden, Rob Fleming, Jaimie McEvoy, Meadow Allen, Jason Loxton, Scott Payne, Allan Lloyd and Sasha Kvakic. Please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

WOUTERS REPORT ON
B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

Hon. J. Doyle: The Wouters report was asked for by the industry last year. The report was received by myself this morning, as Minister of Forests. I intend to now wait and hear back from British Columbians as to how they feel about the report.

As far as the Forest Practices Code and other safeguards we have brought in as far as being stewards of the land, that crew over there has spoken loudly against the Forest Practices Code and other items that we've done to be better stewards of the land. We have done a very good job in this government as far as being good stewards of our land in the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Member for Peace River North with a supplemental.

R. Neufeld: I have no idea why this minister would go out and ask British Columbians. You've never listened to them up until now -- for nine years. Why would you start today?

One of the recommendations in today's report is to review the Forest Practices Code to find new approaches to reduce overall administration costs. In 1998. . .

An Hon. Member: Right on.

R. Neufeld: Right on.

. . .the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests committed to doing that to reduce regulation. Will the Minister of Forests agree with Mr. Wouters that his government has failed miserably to eliminate needless red tape that continues to threaten the forest industries and jobs that are actually in that minister's constituency?

Hon. J. Doyle: The former minister, over the last year, brought in savings of up to $1 billion in savings as far as the Forest Practices Code in the province of British Columbia. It's a very important part of our stewardship of the land. We are proud to have brought in the Forest Practices Code. I know that group over there doesn't believe in being good stewards of the land.

OPERATION OF GLACIER VIEW LODGE

We have a minister responsible for volunteers and protecting volunteers in this province. I would like to ask her, in view of this court decision, whether or not she will agree to repeal the legislation that is threatening the efforts of volunteers and not-for-profit organizations around this province.

[1415]

With respect to Glacier View Lodge, I understand that the issue has been discussed by the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health for some time, and they've worked towards resolution with respect to that issue. We need to continue to ensure that the volunteers in all of our communities are welcomed and appreciated in every sector.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena with a supplemental.

C. Hansen: I suggest that she read the court ruling, because it's a rather different interpretation of the work that this government has done towards volunteers. The court reviewed comments that were made by the now Deputy Premier during the debate on this legislation in 1997. The Deputy Premier went to great lengths to say that this was not about expropriation. And the court says that the then-minister's attempt "puts a meaning on the word 'expropriation' different from the common meaning." The Deputy Premier was clearly playing games.

Will the minister responsible for volunteers agree that the Deputy Premier was wrong in her definition of expropriation and that they were wrong not to repeal this legislation when they had the chance to do so?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand that the member is picking out certain comments in a 31-page decision, but what he missed -- and what I think is important -- is that the appeal that was lodged against the decision around Glacier View Lodge was dismissed by the court. The court actually found in favour of the province. I think that's a very important thing to know.

Second, the important thing is the fact that Glacier View Lodge is not being expropriated. In fact, a contract is in place for the lodge to operate in an agreement with the health

[ Page 14792 ]

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena on a further supplemental.

C. Hansen: The most important point in this judgment, which the minister obviously misses, is that while we need long term care facilities in this province -- we have a critical shortage -- the existence of this legislation on the books is preventing not-for-profit organizations from going ahead. And I find it interesting to see that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is heckling on this issue, because the court judgment actually points out that he is on record as opposing this legislation.

Hon. Speaker, the member opposes this legislation; we oppose this legislation; and, more importantly, the volunteers in British Columbia oppose this legislation. Why does this government ignore the outcries of volunteers and only does what's right when it's ordered to do so by the courts in this province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is demonstrating the problem of trying to read a 31-page judgment in two minutes before question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Continue, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The key finding of the judgment was in fact in favour of the province. The case was dismissed; the appeal was dismissed. As I said before, Glacier View Lodge will operate under an agreement in affiliation with the authority. There is no expropriation taking place. That's a key point that the opposition doesn't seem to want to recognize, and that's crucial to understanding the issue.

[1420]

PROTECTION OF BURNS BOG

Hon. J. Sawicki: I'm assuming that the question was directed at me. I want to say that I really welcome the two reports that we've been able to release today. Greg McDade, in his recommendations, has given us a pathway to encourage all jurisdictions and all agencies interested in acquiring and preserving that bog to actually get together and try to achieve that.

The Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands with a supplemental.

M. Coell: Last year we were trying to put Disneyland North on the bog. There's no excuse for delays. Will the minister stand up and announce today that she and her government will protect the bog in its entirety right now?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Sawicki: I hope that I may take that question as an indication that the official opposition will sit down with us, as well, and work with the federal Liberal government, Delta, the GVRD and the other interested non-profit agencies to try and achieve just that.

REPORT ON COST OF
PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES

So my question is to the Premier. Who's in charge over there? And why has it taken so long to release these details to the public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, obviously these numbers and these figures have to come from across government, from all of the ministries. They have to be collated, and they have to be presented fairly and honestly in the context of the circumstances that those decisions were made in. I was under the impression -- and I have learned that I was under the wrong impression -- that we were ready to release them today.

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to answer the question once they're ready to hear the response.

The Minister of Finance advised me that Treasury Board still has more work to do in that regard and that those numbers will be available tomorrow. But let me tell you, I have seen the preliminary numbers, and they tell a story that the opposition might not want to hear. The story is that we have provided low-wage redress and pay equity to the women in British Columbia who work in the public sector.

C. Clark: Gee, hon. Speaker, I checked their web site yesterday, and the HEU can cook up their numbers faster than the government can. I'll tell you why the government's taking so long to get these numbers out. It's because, instead of just releasing them to the public, the Premier has appointed the government's chief spin doctor, John Heaney, to monitor their release. That's the same John Heaney who was in charge of stonewalling the Parks report release to the public, the same John Heaney who was in charge of the Nisga'a propaganda campaign. Can the Premier tell us, if indeed his government is so committed to openness and transparency, why he has appointed a spin doctor to filter the facts rather than just releasing them to the public?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As the Premier has said, these figures will be ready for release tomorrow. The work is ongoing by

[ Page 14793 ]

[1425]

FAST FERRY ENGINE PROBLEM

M. de Jong: Here's the rumour. The rumour is that the sole surviving, operating fast cat has blown another engine, and the doctors are being flown in from Germany to see if they can patch it together one more time. But I know that rumour's not true, because I know a government that was truly transparent and accountable wouldn't have waited from Monday to Tuesday to Wednesday to tell British Columbians that their multimillion-dollar investment in this monument to NDP incompetence has gone off the rails one more time.

So will the minister responsible for this ferry boondoggle stand up, eliminate the doubt and tell us it hasn't happened again -- that the ferries haven't broken down one more time and that it's not going to cost British Columbians more money to fix an NDP problem?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The fast ferry is operating. No passenger service has been affected. However, yes, there is a problem with one of the engines on one of the fast ferries. Yes, the warranty on that engine did expire last week. The problem occurred yesterday. However, there are parts. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members will come to order, please.

J. MacPhail: The manufacturer is coming over to work with the corporation to repair the engine. There are parts of the engine that are under specific manufacturer guarantee, in addition to the basic warranty. So the manufacturer will work with the corporation on, first of all, fixing the problem and working to determine what parts of the manufacturer guarantee are still in effect. The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Introduction of Bills

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: This act extends the current tuition fee freeze for approximately 190,000 students at B.C.'s 28 public colleges, university colleges, institutes and universities for a fifth consecutive year, to March 31, 2001. The introduction of this bill today underscores this government's continued commitment to access to post-secondary education for all British Columbians and is another example of this commitment in action.

Under the act, the freeze applies to fees charged for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and developmental programs, as well as to mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. The tuition fee freeze does not apply to student organization fees or to fees charged to an international student or for a contract service or a continuing education program. The act provides that tuition fees for new programs must not exceed fees charged by an institution for similar existing programs. The act also allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to apply to the act in particular circumstances and to define terms used in the act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1430]

G. Farrell-Collins: While the minister is making that motion, seeing as the opposition has voted in favour of this bill every time, I'd be pleased to move it through all stages today and support it, if you'd like.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the matter of changing our rules and doing that -- the approach that the member alludes to -- is always at the Speaker's discretion. However, I don't imagine that we would have difficulty on this side.

The Speaker: It will just be one moment, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I ask your guidance. We are certainly receptive to the suggestion made by the Opposition House Leader. I would suggest that we would be wise, however, to take a few moments to debate a little bit on the throne speech. Then we'll bring the bill back for second reading, if that's agreeable.

The Speaker: From the nods of heads, I would assume that we have agreement on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have sorted out the logistical and procedural difficulties already. Just to clarify for members and those who may be watching these proceedings, later this afternoon I shall seek leave to proceed to second reading of this particular bill. If that is agreeable, I will simply now call. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Have we not voted on the motion? I'm sorry. Let's do it.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could make that motion.

[ Page 14794 ]

The Speaker: Members, is leave granted first?

Leave granted.

Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading later today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I hope we're all mindful of the precedential possibilities here. I would dearly hope that the members opposite would consider responding the same way to a number of other legislative initiatives that we're going to bring forward.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now call continued debate on the throne speech.

Orders of the Day

Throne Speech Debate
(continued)

The Speaker: The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks rises on a matter.

Hon. J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[1435]

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, when I last rose in this chamber to respond to the throne speech, it was about two and a half weeks ago on March 16. So that there is some continuity with what I said at the time, I will just briefly refer to where I was. I had mentioned at that time and referred to previous throne speeches. . . . Those previous throne speeches had offered promises to this province -- promises of protecting health care, promises of protecting education and promises of a commitment to continue to work on reducing government debt. As I indicated back then, those promises had been offered in those throne speeches, but those promises have never been kept.

We have come a long way in nine years -- a long way down, from the first to the worst economy in Canada. I shall continue with my perspective of this year's throne speech. When I was speaking of this year's throne speech on March 16, I left off speaking about the fast ferries project. I wondered why it was that not one member on that side of the House had offered to speak publicly and openly about the need for an independent inquiry as to what happened with the fast ferries project. It was a half-billion of wasted taxpayers' dollars. That is no joke, and that is no laughing matter.

I hope that the Finance minister and the Labour minister can offer their own personal apologies at some future point and stand up here and say to the people of this province and the people that they represent that, in fact, it was no joke and it was no laughing matter.

Even the member for North Coast, who is the Minister for Energy, Mines and Northern Development, as well the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who is the Minister for Employment and Investment, had a role in the fast ferries debacle. They too should stand up and apologize.

I do understand, though, that there has been one member who spoke out on this issue some time ago. But since we have come back to this chamber, he has been silent. That is the member for Nelson-Creston, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. At one time he believed that the only way to move ahead was to fully investigate what went so terribly wrong. He believed that -- or at least that's what we heard -- when he was running for the NDP leadership. If he had been put in the Premier's chair, I wonder where we would be today. We wonder if, in fact, those words would have rung as hollow as they now appear.

So why was it that there was only one person who was willing to speak out and support a full, open, independent public inquiry into the fast ferry fiasco -- at that time, but not now? I am truly disappointed, although I'm not at all surprised. What this indicates is that this new Premier is really no different at all from his predecessor and that his promises of openness, cooperation and transparency are already tainted by not initiating this public inquiry, a public inquiry that many British Columbians are still demanding -- not just members on this side of the House. The constituents that we represent are asking us to speak up, and speak up loudly. While I do not want to diminish the importance of cooperation, I would like to state for the record that cooperation is what members on this side of the House and the Leader of the Official Opposition have stated and called for, for many years -- for as long as I've been here, anyway.

I speak about the fast ferries because I receive so many calls in my constituency office about this. It is because I represent a Vancouver Island constituency. We are all dependent on that vital link to the rest of the province. The constituents who call me and write to me ask questions. They are astounded when I have to tell them the real facts -- the facts and the real facts, as the Premier would like us to offer. The fact is that the B.C. Ferry Corp debt was about $60 million when the NDP took office in 1991. Now it is well over $1 billion in debt. In nine short years it has climbed astronomically. The fact is that the fast ferries project cost close to half a billion dollars, while we were originally told that it would only cost $210 million -- more than double the original estimate.

[1440]

As legislators, we are duty-bound to guide and protect the use of taxpayers' dollars. It is not the government's

[ Page 14795 ]

What does this throne speech offer to the constituency of Oak Bay-Gordon Head, the riding that I have had the honour of representing these past four years? One of the most pressing concerns that I constantly hear is: how will we restore our economy so that our young people have hope and opportunity as they strive to compete in the global marketplace? While I appreciate and acknowledge that education and training is fundamental to prospective employers and entrepreneurs, to businesses and industries, those businesses and those industries are still not flourishing. Consequently, there are even fewer opportunities that now exist for our young people.

In fact, what is happening is that our young graduates are leaving our province in record numbers. So our unemployment rate is falling not because they're getting jobs, but because they're leaving the province. When our young people leave our province, we lose not only their taxes but also our future tax base -- a tax base that is absolutely necessary for protecting health care and education for the future.

Hon. Speaker, again, what does this throne speech offer to the constituents that I represent in the way of protecting health care and education? Again I say: very little, except more rhetoric. Over the next ten to 20 years British Columbia's population of seniors, many of whom live in Oak Bay-Gordon Head, will increase more dramatically than any other population age group. That is an extremely significant statistic that we cannot afford to ignore.

The demands on our health care system will be even greater than the demands that we are now experiencing. Yet this throne speech did not offer any solutions or any vision as to what we can expect from this government in dealing with the very new demand that will be upon us soon.

What I did hear in this throne speech was that there would be a B.C. health innovation forum that would take place this spring. I haven't seen that started yet, but I'll wait with bated breath, as you can imagine, to see when that does start. In any event, this new innovation forum is supposed to be a place where health care providers, administrators and other experts will be brought together to exchange and offer ideas.

[1445]

As well, I wonder what the outcome of this forum will be or what the intention of this forum is. If a report is to be tabled, will it end up on a shelf someday just collecting dust, as so many other reports have? Hon. Speaker, I think you can understand and appreciate why I look at this initiative with some cynicism.

In the past month we saw nurses here in Victoria, on wards 7A and B at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, plead for more assistance. Our front-line workers, the nurses, had to come forward and warn the public that they could no longer continue to provide safe services should patients be admitted to their wards. The health regionalization project that this government imposed without a proper plan continues to fail the people of greater Victoria. Thousands of dollars were wasted, which should have gone to hiring more nurses and updating equipment.

I can think of one particularly wasteful expenditure in the amount of $70,000 shortly after I was elected, when I defeated the member who used to hold this position. And that $70,000 did nothing more to help health care in this region.

When you think of all the other dollars of overspending that has occurred, especially in the fast ferries project, it really angers you more. And it angers the constituents I represent that much more. If the Premier had offered, in his throne speech, a promise to stop politicizing our health care system and stop politicizing our public education system, maybe we would have seen a new vision and a new direction that would happen for the people of this province.

The throne speech didn't mention that health care is still deteriorating here in greater Victoria. Today we have another emergent issue unfolding as we speak. Many of the services that are offered at the Victoria General Hospital and the Royal Jubilee Hospital are not just offered to the residents of greater Victoria. They are offered to all people here on Vancouver Island. Yet we have the real threat of closure of the pediatric intensive care unit at the Victoria General Hospital. Our youngest people -- the pediatric care unit -- are being affected. We also have the real threat of closure of the burn unit at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. So when someone says, "Is health care improving?" I can point to those areas I've already mentioned which clearly indicate that health care is not improving.

Speaking of closures, this past year we saw the potential closure of four schools in the greater Victoria area. In particular, two of those schools were targeted in the riding that I represent. At that time the greater Victoria school board budget had a shortfall; it was about $1.5 million. The Minister of Education insisted that there was money available to properly fund education. That Minister of Education is now our Minister of Finance, so it'll be interesting to see what he has in store for other parts of this province. What other school districts can look forward to dealing with school closures? I hope they don't have the experience that I had last year, hon. Speaker.

What does a $1.5 million shortfall mean in the area of Oak Bay-Gordon Head? If I can put that into context, that represents about one week's amount of interest expense -- debt-servicing expense -- on the B.C. Ferry Corporation debt. One week's interest would have dealt with the shortfall. So it is clear that it is about choices.

And it is clear that the choices to protect health care and education have to be more than just the vagueness that this throne speech has offered us. I see that the throne speech offers nothing new to our young people either, the young people who are hoping for a new era of prosperity. It also offers nothing to our seniors wanting a sense of reliability in our health care system. The people that I represent in Oak Bay-Gordon Head see this very well.

[1450]

[ Page 14796 ]

It is clear that this Premier is offering nothing new in this throne speech, because it is devoid of detail, and it is lacking in vision. What it does reveal is that we can expect more of the same. If that is to be the case, how are we to move ahead? The most clear way we can tell the people of this province that we want to move ahead is for this Premier to stand up and for those members to support the Premier in calling an election now.

I know that members on that side of the House would rather that I not bring up the subject; they'd rather wait it out and go for another year. But another year is not what people in this province can stand to bear.

Let's think about what has happened since we adjourned last summer. We have had three Premiers in one short year. Two of those Premiers, including our current Premier, were not even given a mandate from the people of this province to govern. Is this how democracy works? Is this how this Premier and his government members earn back the respect and confidence of British Columbians? How can this Premier truly respond to the needs of British Columbians when he hasn't even put forward a real vision for them?

Listening to the throne speech, I believe we can sum up the government's agenda and vision for the year, and that is to spend, spend, spend and spend some more without so much as providing any accountability or any business plan. What it is about is continuing on with their fiscal irresponsibility that has permeated our lives for the past four years, by wasting taxpayers' dollars on megaprojects like the fast ferries project.

I saw nothing in this throne speech that deals with job losses when mills are closing and mines are shutting down. When I heard the throne speech taking credit for the high-tech industry. . . . The high-tech industry has thrived not because of but in spite of this government's destructive economic policies. Nowhere did I hear in the throne speech any solution to the crises that continue to escalate in health care and education. So it was a great disappointment and an indication that what we will expect is more of the same.

Whether it is the member for Vancouver-Kingsway when he was Premier or it's now the Premier representing Vancouver-Kensington, we do know one thing: nothing has changed, and all British Columbians know it. Since 1991 this government has not listened to the people of this province, and now in the year 2000 it is still not listening.

Hon. Speaker, I heard in the throne speech that this government wants to be open and to cooperate. If they do want that, their first order of business -- I again reiterate -- is to call a full, independent public inquiry into the fast ferries debacle, because we all know that that would be a clear sign of a new vision and a new direction.

Without that and without many other things in the throne speech, I can say that the members opposite will understand when I find their comments a little less than sincere. This is not a brand-new beginning; this is more of the same.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me start by expressing my appreciation to the member for Prince George-Omineca for showing me the courtesy of allowing me to precede him in the speaking order -- evidence of the new cooperative environment that we're all trying to aspire to here in the Legislature. I appreciate his accommodating me in that way.

[1455]

Really, what this throne speech is about is a major change in the way that we approach these issues in this House and in this province. It's about putting an end to a form of confrontational politics that has perhaps served us in the past but no longer serves us in this province as we try to move forward. I think British Columbians have said that they are tired of the politics of confrontation. They want to see a different style. They want to see politicians who are not fighting with each other but who are fighting to better the lives of those middle-income families and their children, ensuring that the energy that they put is put productively to setting a course on behalf of this province.

I see in this throne speech and in the budget that followed it strong evidence of the commitment of the Premier, of this cabinet and certainly of this government to move in that direction -- to put aside the old-style confrontational politics and put in its place an agenda that makes government work for ordinary British Columbians.

A balanced approach. . . . Again, along with the confrontational style of the past, we have too often seen an approach which seems, regardless of who's in government, to favour one side or the other and not speak to the need of all British Columbians. What we see in this throne speech and again in the budget, I think, is a balanced approach, a moderate approach, one that shows a government that is trying to move forward in a way that includes and responds to the needs of all British Columbians, with a particular emphasis on those middle-income families, those middle-income earners who are out there and who have been struggling and hoping that they and their families will have a government that responds to their needs.

I see that in the commitment in the throne speech to make tax cuts. That commitment, of course, has now been followed up in the budget. We see modest but, I would say, substantial tax cuts: some $225 million of cuts in taxes this year. That amount will rise next year to $275 million, a half-billion dollars in tax cuts targeted directly at those middle-income families, reflecting the view that those families are the ones who have been squeezed the most as we have seen downloading from the federal government in respect of health care and education. Those families are the ones that have struggled the most in recent years with federal cuts in services, and those families are the ones who will, when given the money -- through tax cuts -- back into their pockets, spend that money here in B.C. and start the process of stimulating the economy and enhancing the recovery that is already underway.

Over the two years, that tax cut amounts -- for middle-income families on the provincial side alone -- to a 9 percent cut for middle-income earners. I think that is welcome news.

[ Page 14797 ]

Then I look at the business side of the tax cut agenda that was referred to in the throne speech and again followed up in the budget, and I see again a very specific targeting of tax cuts to small business. That's no accident. We know that small business is the sector of our business community that creates the most jobs, the sector that is most important in terms of stimulating those opportunities for young people and the like. By cutting the tax rate to 4.75 percent -- the second-lowest in the country and within a hair's-breadth of being the lowest in the country -- this government is sending a very strong signal that we have faith in that small business community and that we put that small business community at the top of our list in terms of its importance to the economy and to the future. We're prepared to support that sector of the economy in its very dramatic growth in recent years, notwithstanding some economic difficulties in other sectors. I also see a commitment to encourage investment not only by small business but by large business, through a credit on sales tax on machinery and equipment.

So what the government has done here is taken a reasonable amount of the budgetary moneys that are available to it and targeted them in a very specific way which shows that the priorities of this government correspond to the priorities of those middle-income families -- targeting it at middle-income earners in the case of personal income tax cuts, targeting it at small business and targeting it at a tax cut that will encourage investment and economic recovery.

[1500]

What is shown here in the throne speech, and through the throne speech into the budget, is an understanding that the economy and the well-being of middle-income families is not just a matter of cutting taxes. It's not just taking a one-dimensional approach, as members of the opposition are wont to do, saying: "Tax cuts are all we need to do. Let's just walk away and leave people to their own devices." No. There's an understanding here that we also need to invest in the key instruments of our social fabric that will help those families and their children to have a brighter future.

We see that particularly clearly, I would suggest, on the education side -- the commitments to education in the throne speech, again followed up in the actions shown in the budget. A tuition freeze for the fifth straight year -- the legislation was introduced today -- which ensures that B.C. students will have affordable post-secondary education, is pretty clear evidence of this government's commitment to access to education, to providing affordable education.

We're very proud on this side of the House that we've moved from the second-highest tuition fees in the country to the second-lowest and that our participation rate among students has risen from the second-lowest to the second-highest. In respect of that participation rate, I see in the throne speech and then again in the budget a very substantial commitment to opening the doors of education wider still. As our economy becomes more knowledge-based and more competitive, it is ever more essential that more and more young people have access to post-secondary education so they can be competitive and be contributors to the economy of the future.

So we see 5,025 new students' faces -- over 2,000 more than are required to keep up with population -- to specifically increase participation rates even beyond what they have become today and to ensure that those doors to post-secondary education become wider and that the price of going through those doors becomes ever more affordable for young people and those who wish to return to post-secondary education.

Recognizing that we are in a changing economy, I am very pleased to see that 800 of those 5,025 new spaces are being targeted to high-tech training, which is a very important commitment that relates to the commitment this government has to diversify the economy. It's part of the reason that we have seen extraordinary growth rates in high-tech. Talk to anyone in the high-tech sector, and they'll tell you that the most important input to the growth of that sector is a strong educational system -- well-qualified, well-trained students who are ready to take on the jobs and opportunities in that sector. This government has delivered by creating thousands of new spaces in the post-secondary sector in recent years and targeting many of those for high-tech trainees.

But we went beyond that this year in this throne speech and in this budget. We went beyond that, because colleges and universities said that if we are to open the doors still wider, then we have to make sure that the quality of education keeps up with the demand. So it's an extraordinary commitment -- $85 million of increased funding commitment for core funding to post-secondary institutions -- that is unprecedented in terms of the commitment being made here to those institutions to ensure that access does not come at the price of quality of education, but that both coexist.

I was very pleased, following the throne speech and again following the budget, to hear university presidents, representatives from students and representatives from the college sector speaking out and talking about the commitment that they see in the throne speech and in the budget to post-secondary education -- a commitment that stands apart from what we've seen in other provinces and what we've certainly seen across the way from the Liberal opposition. That commitment will pay dividends; it means that young people. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: I know that the members opposite don't want to hear this. But they really should understand it, because it is very important that they understand that the young people's future is tied to the fact that those young people have access to training and opportunities. It isn't enough to simply throw those young people into the job market unequipped to fill the opportunities. Here we have that commitment.

[1505]

[ Page 14798 ]

That means we will have a stronger economy, it means we will have a more diversified economy, and it means that young people will be able to share in those benefits and to ensure that they participate fully in helping to create and in benefiting from that new economy. While we talk about that new economy, let me say how pleased I am, as well, that specific measures are being taken -- in addition to the tax cuts, in addition to the investment in education -- to encourage an innovation economy, to encourage diversification of our economy. You know, the downturn we saw in our economy as a result of declines in commodity prices in recent years, coupled with the decline in Asia in recent years, was disturbing to us all. But that downturn did not have nearly the impact of the downturn that took place in the early 1980s, because our economy was more diversified. Through this government's efforts, we are becoming more diversified still.

So what we see here is a commitment not only to education, not only to cuts in taxes, but to invest in a high-tech commission, building on the R and D tax credit that was announced last year and is growing to $28 million this year -- a commission to further accelerate the growth of a sector of our economy which is growing in extraordinary terms, leaps and bounds, and has helped to stabilize our overall economic performance and is very much the wave of the future.

I also see a commitment to deferring income benefits on stock options, some $33 million in cost -- but money well spent, in my view, because it will provide a strong message of support to the high-tech sector, in which stock options are used, that we as a government understand the need to provide some relief in terms of the timing through which those stock options become taxable and to encourage growth in that sector.

We all know that the film sector has grown in an incredible way in this province, in large measure because this government, through its tax credit policy, has supported that growth. It hasn't just stood back, hasn't just said, "You're on your own" -- as members of the opposition are wont to say -- but has said: "We want to be there to encourage and support that growth." The film tax credit has been a very successful initiative.

That film tax credit is now going to be extended in its benefit through the presence of regional film commissions. The film commission that was established and has been very successful promoting film development in the lower mainland and in southern Vancouver Island. . . . To some extent, those benefits will now permeate throughout the province as regional communities have the benefit of funding support to develop their own regional film commissions.

In Victoria, where I come from, or up-Island, where we had an economic summit recently, or in the interior, this is very good news, because they know that the success of promoting film in this province is a success that need not be limited geographically just to the lower mainland. It's a success that can be spread and can serve to benefit communities right across this province. This government's commitment to doing that, to ensuring that this innovation and diversification is not a regional phenomenon but helps to strengthen communities from one side of British Columbia to the other -- from north to south, from east to west -- is, I think, evidence of a government that does understand how to balance our commitments regionally as well as in other ways.

Finally, I'm pleased to see commitments on the green economy -- $5 million to support research and demonstration projects, support for tourism and ecotourism. Again, these are ways in which we can take advantage of our natural strengths as a province, our natural beauty. The commitment and strength that we have towards green technologies. . . . I know the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about that in his budget address yesterday. We can encourage and broaden that development through these kinds of initiatives.

There's one other very obvious area where this government has shown a commitment that responds to the needs of middle-income families, and that's in our commitment to health care. An increase of over half a billion dollars in funding for health care -- coupled with the agreement that was reached with doctors recently, coupled with the commitment to hiring more nurses, coupled with the commitment to training spaces for more nurses, coupled with a $42 million commitment to increasing continuing care beds in community services, coupled with a commitment to reach out and work with stakeholders in order to ensure that we find the answers to very difficult challenges facing our health care system -- is evidence of a cooperative, inclusive approach. It understands that money is a necessary but not sufficient condition to deal with the challenges of our health care system.

I understand that one of my colleagues wishes to make an introduction in the House. To accommodate him, I will briefly take a recess from my remarks.

[1510]

The Speaker: If you could ask for leave, member.

Hon. G. Wilson: I ask for leave, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Wilson: I shouldn't be so presumptuous as to assume that I would get leave. My history in this House is not always to get leave, actually, when I ask for it.

I am delighted to have with us 28 students, who are in grades 4 and 5 at Gibsons Elementary School, who are visiting with their teacher, Mr. Desharnais. They are here not only to partake in government, to see how government works, but also to learn about our first nations. They will be spending some time at first nations displays around Victoria. I'm delighted that they're here today. I'm most delighted that they're here to hear our Attorney General, who is one of our more articulate speakers and who, I am sure, is going to impart words of wisdom that each of them will benefit from. Please, will the House welcome these elementary school students and the future leaders of our province.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm delighted that some students are able to join us today for this debate, because really, this debate is

[ Page 14799 ]

I contrast that with the agenda, such as it is, that has been offered by members opposite -- by members of the Liberal opposition. I regret to say that what I see in that agenda is not a balanced approach, not a commitment to put middle-income British Columbians at the top, not an understanding that we as a government need to do an array of things to support the future for young people. Rather, it is a very narrow and extreme vision, a vision very much based upon the old politics and the old view that it's okay to simply take a confrontational approach to these issues and pursue a very narrow agenda that favours only a privileged few.

When you talk about tax cuts, hon. Speaker. . . . I know that there was a costing of the opposition's tax cut agenda done last spring, and I suspect the numbers have gone up since then. At that point the best number that we could come up with was that the cost of the tax cuts the opposition were promising was about $2.25 billion -- not targeted at middle-income earners, thrown out to anyone and everyone and tied to a moving target of whatever other provinces did, without regard for the consequences for social programs or the impact in terms of fairness and distribution for those who receive it or the impact on the economy. In fact, the tax cut promises were so extreme that even one neoconservative columnist referred to them recently as irresponsible.

So even those who philosophically share the view that large tax cuts are desirable believe that the party opposite has taken a very extreme and indeed irresponsible view. I suggest that's unfortunate. Perhaps they can re-evaluate that position, because I don't think that members of the public want that kind of extreme agenda. They don't want to see tax cuts dominate to the point that health and education will suffer. Indeed, when we look at what the party opposite has said in the past on education, we don't see a positive vision at all.

In the last election the party opposite said that they forgot about post-secondary education, when it turned out that that education was going to be cut by 15 percent. They said: "Oh. We forgot to exclude it. We forgot to exclude it from that 15 percent cut." That's not evidence of a party or an opposition that has any commitment to education.

[1515]

So what is their agenda on education? By inference, I assume it must be to increase class size, to increase tuition, to cut teachers and to cut post-secondary funding. Those are indeed the only policy options they have offered in recent years on that side.

On health care, again, there's a complete vacuum, other than the negativity that they show; they have no positive vision. I assume, because of the trips to Alberta and Ontario and the praise they heap on those governments, that they favour the approach that is being taken in Alberta towards a two-tier health care system -- a public system that is undermined by private health care. That is not going to be acceptable to British Columbians.

I hope that the opposition will join in the spirit that this throne speech and this budget have shown -- and that this government and the new Premier are showing -- towards a more balanced and cooperative approach -- and not just in yielding a space in the speaking order but in policy as well. British Columbians are tired of the extremes of the past. They want a government that will commit to a balanced approach -- one that balances tax cuts with investments in social programs. They don't want to see a government come to power, which would be the case were the members opposite to, unfortunately, assume that position -- which has only a one-trick agenda aimed at cutting taxes at the expense of the very programs that middle-income British Columbians rely upon.

I must say that I think we're also tired in British Columbia of the negativity of politics generally. At a time when we have the lowest unemployment rate in the last 18 years, the second-highest student participation rates, the second-lowest tax rates, the second-lowest tuition fees, and at a time where we're seeing participation rates in our post-secondary institutions rise, there's something to celebrate here. Maybe the members opposite could find it in their hearts to start celebrating as well, because that will be part of setting the tone for the future of this province.

It's time to be positive about our future. This throne speech is positive; this budget is positive. The Premier is positive. It is only the Opposition that is negative. It's time they rethought their ways, connected with middle-income British Columbians, took a balanced approach and set aside their extreme agenda. Let's move forward together.

L. Reid: I am indeed intrigued by the members opposite -- their comments about taking a positive approach for the young people of this province. The young people of this province would like to be debt-free.

I have a child that is eight weeks old, and according to the documents this government would provide to us, this child already owes $9,000. That's the legacy left to her by this government. I find that shameful. I would not be a member opposite, getting to my feet and being proud of yet another empty throne speech which delivers nothing more than debt and deficit to the generations that will come after us.

I for one believe that we have an enormous obligation to safeguard the next generation -- to not saddle them with enormous debt. A throne speech should be a list of promises that the government intends to accomplish. You can't do that as a government when you're dead, flat broke. That's the bottom line. This government has given more debt and deficit to this province than we have known in the entire history of the province. When the government members get to their feet

[ Page 14800 ]

The throne speech should be backed up with some kind of reasonable possibility of implementation. When they talk about the promises -- and they talk at great length -- you have to have some dollars in the budget to back that up. My hon. colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena referenced the mental health plan the other day -- a wonderful plan on paper. Every single group out there was consulted; the committees met in an endless array of meetings. The actual plan was never funded; not once was it funded by this government. We see press release after press release, announcement after announcement. When it comes to the rubber hitting the road, the actual implementation of the idea or the program, it simply isn't funded. There are no dollars in place to do that. That to me is nothing more than a litany of empty promises -- spin doctor after spin doctor, press conference after press conference, announcement after announcement. Very little happens in the paper other than the press conference and the announcement.

[1520]

God, get me out of this street life, please,
'Cause the gold chains of these pimps is such a tease.
I'll be caught like a leaf blowing in the breeze,
Spirits submissed, I'm crawling on my knees.
I've dug myself in as deep as can be,
Too late to get out, too late to be free.
Surrounded by darkness, it's hard to believe
That from this prison I could ever leave.
To all the winds I throw my self-worth,
There is a reason I'm put here on this earth.
Maybe I'll be a doctor or a rocket engineer,
This life is too painful, drowned by my own fear.
Held back by situation and undeniable temptation,
Drugs plus prostitution is my life's simple equation.
My descent into hopelessness has already begun,
I cannot hide, must fight, won't help to run.
'Cause drugs and money are my main objective,
My innocence and respect are the price I must give.
This street life is no way for me to live,
My existence darkened, my life's a sieve.
Lost in the trees, I cannot escape,
Seven years of life marks my future fate.
The hunger, the inner wounds scarring my soul
Broken down, beaten up, on the dole.
Blast all the unforgivable tears I have cried,
My inner wills long ago fatally died.
For added effect, my friends involved on this ride
Rebel, escape, get straight -- I've tried.
Not enough help, there is no one I can trust,
Stay here and rot forever I must.
I need someone to listen, someone to understand,
A group with the ropes is what I demand.
The truth is clearly real, I know I must quit,
My friend, that is painfully hard to admit.
Kindling the fire, I store my power to grow strong,
The time is nearing, soon it won't be long
Until I pull this arrow from my heart to suddenly feel,
Sever my security blanket to make my life shockingly real,
Uncontrollably, I'll discover the truth, like a banana I peel.
Inside, mangled, barely rememberable I see
The remainder of a once-beautiful me.
Like CPR I must breathe life back into my veins,
Striking my weakness, fragile, I stand with these pains.
Telling myself to hold on a little while longer because
Whatever doesn't kill ya can only make you stronger!

That was written by a 16-year-old young woman who, when faced with announcement after announcement on behalf of government, has very little confidence that the government will actually make her life different. She is an intelligent, articulate young woman who indeed feels dismissed, if you will, by this government. She truly had believed that somehow things would be different. There's not much that is different today for young people.

I also had the opportunity to participate in something called Dusk to Dawn, a street-youth resource centre. Many members of this Legislature will know that they offer a program for legislators, community members and community leaders to come together, learn and gather some different vantage points, if you will, from spending a night on the street. They title their evening "A Hard Night Out." Interestingly enough, they have lots of individuals out there who simply don't understand -- don't appreciate the definition of what it is to be a street-involved youth or a street kid.

Again, I've committed to putting their definition on the record as part of this throne speech response:

"A 'street-involved' youth is a person between the ages of 12 and 25 who lives below the poverty level and spends some time on the street. Some of the reasons for leaving home are because of family disputes or sexual, physical and mental abuse, and sometimes there are too many mouths to feed, so they are left to fend for themselves. The living conditions for these youth are either poor or nonexistent. Some live on the street, some live in cheap welfare hotels, a few still live at home, and others live in squats. A squat is an abandoned building with no power, water or heat and the people who live there do not have the legal right to do so.

"Health is a big problem in the life of these individuals. A simple cold can escalate into a life-threatening illness. Small cuts can get infected, and bleeding can lead to death due to blood loss. Major diseases like AIDS can go on unchecked, because of either the lack of funds for medical purposes or the distrust. . . [in the system.] Those with drug problems may not have the money needed for new and clean needles. There is little employment for these youth, and most find money by other means. The most popular of these is panning, which is asking for money on the street. Then there is busking, which is playing a musical instrument -- and a donation is given."

[1525]

It's interesting: when we have discussions in this chamber regarding sexually exploited youth, somehow the youth ends up being the criminal in the minds of a number of

[ Page 14801 ]

There are issues today that we must resolve as a Legislature. Frankly, we must resolve them as a society, when we have, I think, done very little in terms of honouring the fact that those childhoods have evaporated. We've allowed those childhoods to be stolen from the young people of this province and in fact have often penalized them for being the victims in some very terrible, unsavoury scenarios across this province.

I have tremendous admiration for the Dusk to Dawn Youth Resource Centre, for the individuals who work there, for the individuals who bring a supportive environment to street-involved youth in the province of British Columbia. It was my privilege to participate in that evening and certainly to learn some things that I would not have had the opportunity to do otherwise.

If I might just add to the record the mission statement for Dusk to Dawn:

"Dusk to Dawn is a flexible, supportive, non-judgmental and consistent service run with and for street youth. We offer street-involved youth, 21 and under, access to a positive social support network, referral to other services or direct access to service providers, diversionary activities and positive opportunities.

"Dusk to Dawn is a voluntary program that aims to help keep youth alive by providing basic needs and a safe environment. The goal of the centre is to provide support and information for youth to assist them in making healthier choices when they are ready.

"Dusk to Dawn strives to reduce the barriers to service. Youth can access the centre as they are -- under the influence; however young they are -- and can bring their pets. We are dedicated to bridging gaps and reducing barriers by working collaboratively with other services."

I might also take a moment to mention Bruce Topp, who is an elementary school teacher in the district of Richmond. His students from James Thompson Elementary School donated 50 jackets to this program, Dusk to Dawn, and delivered the jackets to the program last November. You will know that it was mightily cold in November on Vancouver streets, and it was a great opportunity for those young people, who reside in the city of Richmond and who were representing the school district in Richmond, to actually give something back to their communities. I think they learned some very healthy lessons from that, and I certainly applaud their efforts for having done so.

In terms of the report that we saw tabled yesterday in this Legislature, "Not Good Enough: Special Report on Government Services for Children and Youth, 1999 Annual Report," the members opposite have stood up and talked about what a legacy this throne speech is to the people of this province, particularly the children, and that's not factual. That's not the information we find today in this report. This report is dated April 4 in the year 2000, so it's not old information. It's not any information that can somehow be tainted by the government somehow spinning it any other way. It's straightforward; it's honest; it's complete. In my view, it points out a very sad look at how this government has handled some of the more pressing issues. The report is written by Joyce Preston, the child, youth and family advocate in British Columbia. I will quote from her letter:

"I have made 17 recommendations that, if implemented, will significantly improve services to children and youth. Only three of these recommendations have been fully implemented. Two partially implemented, and 12 have not been implemented. In my view, as British Columbia's advocate for children and youth, that is not good enough. I respectfully request each member of this House to carefully review this report and, in the best interests of children and youth who need government care, please implement the recommendations now. These children merit your attention; they deserve to be treated as a priority."

[1530]

My caucus has spent a considerable length of time on early intervention discussions, about what happens to children zero to six years of age and how vitally important it is to ensure that we put in place reasonable support systems that make sense. This is the very same government that took speech and language service, occupational therapy and physiotherapy and moved them from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry for Children and Families and then promptly cut the service -- reduced the budget, so the services were no longer available.

If you were the parent of a little person two, three or four years of age who had significant speech and language problems and were told that the wait-list was two or three years long -- that your child would be in grade 2 or 3 before they received service -- anyone who understands anything about child development knows you've missed the opportunity. Frankly, you've slammed the door in that little person's face in terms of them having a decent opportunity to address their own needs around speech and language development and to hopefully go forward in this life with some kind of self-esteem and self-confidence.

There's nothing more stigmatizing than being isolated and separated out from your peers by virtue of how you speak. Little children are very offended by that, very hurt by that and very stigmatized by that. There are services available today in this province that could mitigate that for them, and there are services today that are being denied them.

So the zero-to-six piece -- certainly there's tremendous research on that. Fraser Mustard's work on the real brain drain, which is all about not supporting children in their very early years, means that they do not have the capacity -- that we're not developing the capacity for them to exercise informed decision-making, for them to be the best they can possibly be. We are somehow denying them the opportunity for the best development of their intellectual capacity. That is not a legacy this government should be proud of -- not at all. Certainly every single piece of research one picks up today talks about the zero-to-six piece being vitally important.

So if there was an ability for this government to rank priority, to come back to the table and decide what was the most important, it is the zero-to-six piece. Today it's not

[ Page 14802 ]

For the government to somehow dance around the issue and talk about perhaps a pilot project, perhaps a look at what happens to children zero-to-six. . . . Joyce Preston, Fraser Mustard, Clyde Hertzman and the thinkers on the zero-to-six research say no government can afford to miss this opportunity. This government has chosen to miss it for nine years, and frankly, it has no plan for year ten other than, for children in school, to expand their school day. That is not going to be of enormous assistance to children between zero and six years of age.

Do I agree with the findings of Joyce Preston? I do certainly agree. I've agreed for the last number of years that these reports have come forward. The Legislature and the public at large need to be aware that this was an officer of the Legislature appointed by this government, someone who would report out to members of this Legislature. Indeed, the decision was taken to appoint this individual. It seems to me that if you're going to go to that effort and expend those dollars, one would take the best advice of the day.

This government has chosen not to listen -- not in 1995, '96, '97, '98 and certainly not today. It alarms me that we have individuals who offer the very best advice to government and that advice is ignored -- not to have implemented 12 of her recommendations but simply to have ignored them. It's not an onerous number. It's 17 recommendations in five years, so it's doable. It would have been a manageable task for this government to truly, truly focus on the little folk in society who could indeed have their needs met.

[1535]

The situation is not better today, hon. Speaker. The remedy has not been successful. The Ministry for Children and Families, I would submit, is more fragmented today than it has ever been. It's not a decent system when it comes to reporting out, to having performance measures, to having benchmarks, to having a decent organizational structure, a decent reporting structuring. It is mired down in internal tinkering that has not allowed for the best services on the front line to be provided to young people.

That is more than just a shame; it's a crime. It's a crime that we've allowed this to go on. We will all pay the price as members of society when children do not receive interventions when they're the most effective -- i.e., when children are the youngest. The interventions become less effective as children get older, and they become far more expensive. So we certainly have not accomplished anything by allowing this government to continue to ignore the recommendations of Joyce Preston.

Certainly the ministry has gone off and has become very reactive in terms of its child protection model. They make the case that they can't do the early development piece, because, well, what about the child protection piece? I would again submit to the members opposite that in all likelihood, it's the same family. It's the same child. If you ignore the needs of that child when he or she is zero to six years of age, it's almost guaranteed that you will see that child when they're seven, eight, nine, ten, 11 years of age and again when they're 13, 14 and 15 -- and probably repeatedly throughout their life. When you ignore the work that needs to be done, you simply delay the work that needs to be done. This government today is paying the price for that and will continue to pay the price. But unfortunately, every member of society will pay the price.

[G. Hogg in the chair.]

My concerns are valid. The fact that these recommendations have not been followed alarms me. I want to put on the record a number of comments that Joyce Preston made in her report, because they're contrary to the sentiments expressed by the members opposite when they talk about in fact doing all the right things. Joyce Preston's report, "Not Good Enough," calls for a halt to the erosion of services to children, youth and their families. It's a request, a demand, that the erosion of these services come to an end. It's not that they're doing a decent job and that it is a few little things, and that they're still funding the services and there's just a few little tinkerings that need to go on around the periphery. The services today are being eroded. Joyce Preston believes that, and members of the public believe that. People who work on the front lines absolutely believe that.

Her analysis raises five key concerns. The ministry is totally focused on reducing costs, the crisis in the ministry, the recruitment of new social workers. . . . The fact that individuals don't choose to be retained in the jobs they take on is only a symptom of the dysfunction of the ministry. There is no way the ministry can retain a workforce. That workforce will never become a stable and mature workforce, and it is stability that children in the care of government need. It is stability; it is a steady hand. It is not a new person, a new social worker, a new adviser or a new financial aid worker every time they need assistance. There has to be some ability to have some continuity built into the system. Frankly, it is not there today.

"British Columbians need to know that essential services to children, youth and families are not being given sufficient priority." It's interesting that Joyce Preston would use the words "essential services." We on this side of the House support that -- that these services are essential to the growth and development of healthy citizens in this province. She believes it; the population believes it; front-line workers believe it. It would appear that the only people who do not believe it today are members of this New Democratic government.

She goes on: "In fact, existing services such as supportive services, special needs and voluntary care agreements have been significantly reduced." So when the government opposite suggests maintaining the status quo. . . . There is no comment in this document about maintaining the status quo. It talks about eroding services, reducing services, diminishing opportunities. The population is growing. You cannot reduce opportunities, diminish opportunities, and still expect to deliver a reasonable product.

She talks about the progress to date as being random and insufficient. Again, it speaks to my point of there being very

[ Page 14803 ]

[1540]

Certainly even their own priorities that they listed. . . . I attended and participated in the estimates debate of last year. They talked a lot about prevention and early support as one of the 15 priorities for action. It did not happen. Again, it was another opportunity for this government to put out a press release, to have yet another announcement, another photo op. I'll put this on the record: "Regional early intervention plans created in 1997 and 1998 did not materialize as actual services in 1999" -- did not materialize as actual services. All we got was the paper, the press release, the announcement, the photo op.

We did not get the actual service, they say, due to changes in regional boundaries and a lack of dedicated funding to support and expand these programs. For example, programs to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome were part of several regional plans. Programs that were already operating struggled to keep their funding support. New fetal alcohol syndrome prevention programs were not implemented in any region in 1999. This is the same government that says no, no, no, they have not closed a single child care facility. When you reduce or remove the budget for a facility, you are in effect closing that facility. You are in effect preventing children in this province from accessing that service.

Yes, there is some accountability that's missing from this discussion. There is some cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done, and there need to be some cause-and-effect discussions held by members opposite. When they remove the funding, the effect is that those little children do not have a place in terms of any kind of early intervention strategy.

In the last year's report, the advocate also talked about an early intervention fund to be created as a public-private partnership, separate from the budgets, to provide current services to children and youth. That was in her 1998 annual report. When we were in debate on a private member's statement last week, the member for Kootenay seemed intrigued by the notion that parents in this province would be frustrated to the point that they would approach Elections B.C. and ask that their initiative be put on the record. She seemed intrigued by that notion. They were only asking for that because they were completely frustrated with the fact that they've spent many years of their children's lives on wait-lists. That's what propelled them to the point of seeking what is nothing more than enormous work for themselves. They need to get 10 percent of the registered voters in the province to agree that children in British Columbia should not be on wait-lists for medical services. I trust that they will be successful in that, because this government has, frankly, let them down. They have not received the service.

My hon. colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head and I attended Queen Alexandra Hospital. We met with the parents at the Pearkes Centre, who are nothing more than frustrated. They're a hugely dedicated group of parents in this province, who have had to come to the table and say, "These are the services our children require to have reasonable lives," and have been repeatedly turned down. When they met with the previous Minister for Children and Families, she said to them: "I don't know why you're here." We're here as parents, because our children require these services. It's as simple as that. So the fact that they have now been pushed into an Elections B.C. situation, where they have to seek approval for a petition to go forward to suggest that the children in the province of British Columbia should not spend their entire childhood on a wait-list, is shameful on behalf of this government. That is the legacy they have left for children of this province.

I'm not sure or even aware of how any member opposite can be proud of this throne speech, when it is riddled with empty promises. There are promises there -- no question. But there were promises there in '98, '97 and '96 -- all the way back to 1991 -- and the promises have not been delivered upon. That is why this government has difficulties around its budget. They can't continue to make promises, because they cannot deliver on the ones they've made for the previous nine years. When you are flat broke, there is no point in printing up another list of promises, another list of accomplishments you might wish to offer the citizens of this province. We know for a fact that this government does not have the track record to deliver. So there's work to be done; there's much work to be done.

[1545]

An Hon. Member: Successful.

L. Reid: Yes, successful -- in my hon. colleague's words. These are companies that understand how to deliver on a bottom line. They know they have commitments. They have responsibilities, they have staff, and they have abilities to take their ideas forward. They look at this government, and they look at billions of dollars' worth of debt -- not a balanced budget in sight. Not even for dust will they find a balanced budget. Do they look to these people for guidance on how best to market their companies and their ideas? Not a chance.

Why would they? The fact that the Attorney General was darned proud of his high-tech commission. . . . People in my riding are a bit scared of his high-tech commission, when it comes to stirring the pot, costing them more money. . . . There will be a tax incentive, I'm sure, that they'll end up being charged. For what? So that someone can market them badly,

[ Page 14804 ]

Again, many, many reports have gone forward. Recommendations have not been listened to year after year. There isn't a report out there that asks for a high-tech commission. They don't want more bureaucracy. They don't want another layer of decision-making. They, frankly, are not the people who put up their hands in any audience and say: "Yes, give us more government." This is not a group of individuals who does that.

So I am cautioning the Attorney General and the members opposite that there are priorities that they could address. They're to do with children, the most vulnerable in our society -- not the high-tech sector. The high-tech sector is not the most vulnerable in society. They can speak for themselves. Perhaps this government could cast their energy to the most vulnerable, because I do believe we have an obligation to safeguard the next generation.

I would very much like to see this government take the ball and provide that level of leadership -- that level of vision -- for what we want the next generation to have at their disposal. It's not what we have today. We have today a group of individuals who somehow believe that it's all right to have a generation of disconnected children who don't believe they belong anywhere -- who are not provided service, not provided a home, not provided a comfort zone. Somehow that gets scant attention from the government opposite, and they would turn their energies to crafting a commission for the high-tech sector.

Turn your priorities around, hon. Speaker. My words to this government: turn their priorities around. Focus on those who need assistance from government and then step back from those who truly don't wish government to continue to massage their lives, because that is not something the high-tech sector is asking for.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: Hon. Chair, if you'll permit me an observation. It's the first time this session that I've seen the Chair nodding and smiling in response to criticisms from the opposition. I could get used to this, hon. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to say that I appreciate the conundrum in which the ruling NDP party finds itself. One would expect that there would be difficult choices to be made when you're running a $2.7 billion deficit and when the future prosperity of the province is threatened by the ever-expanding spectre of the debt -- conservatively estimated at $34.7 billion and increasing by another 10 percent by the end of the year -- especially given that the government has only one year to somehow placate a rather restive electorate or join the federal Conservatives in ignominious irrelevance.

What can they do? If they make any real serious effort to rein in the deficit, they're likely going to have to do something about the cost of their programs. There are two basic ways to cut the cost of programs: either you deliver less product or a poorer-quality product, or you realize efficiencies.

Looking at health care as the product, for example, I think we are all aware that people are not very satisfied with the existing product, so cuts in the quantity or quality of product would be very unpopular. Assuming they want to maintain that standard of health care or improve it, they will instead have to realize those efficiencies. But this generally means more with less -- more work, more stress, fewer staff, lower salaries. I don't think they want to take this message to the people delivering the services or their union representatives. It's a very tough choice.

[1550]

Now, government with a full term ahead of it may be able to afford the short-term political costs of dealing with cuts. Assuming that the protection of health care and education services is a priority, cuts to programs or cuts of programs in other areas will be necessary. These cuts will create a new hardship for some but, hopefully, only in the short term. A new government would have a little time to prove itself. Those difficult decisions which may be necessary though painful in the short term may still begin to bear fruit within a new government's mandate.

But this government has only one year. The NDP needs tangible results right now. The NDP has been in power for a long time. . . .

An Hon. Member: Too long.

P. Nettleton: More than long enough to. . . .

An Hon. Member: Feels like forever.

P. Nettleton: Yes, for too long. It's more than long enough to set this province on its feet, if that had ever been its goal. Had the NDP taken the bull by the horns when it took office, this province might now be in a position to actually build up vital services like other provinces are now doing because they can afford to. Instead, our capacity to deliver needed programs is consumed in ever-greater chunks by this grossly bloated debt. No one will accept from the NDP their pledge of a payoff down the road. They have no credibility. They have to deliver right now.

If nothing else, the NDP is politically astute. I don't expect that my analysis of their conundrum is new to anyone on the other side of the House. They know they can't expect significant, demonstrable success on getting the government's fiscal house in order, even if they were to try -- not right now. There appears to be nothing but a down side to taking any real action.

But -- and here's the other horn of their dilemma -- doing nothing is really not an alternative for them. It's pretty clear that the majority of British Columbians see this province

[ Page 14805 ]

What road is left, then, for our NDP leaders? They can't do much about the state of the province's finances, and they can't do nothing either. I think the throne speech gives us a very good indication of the NDP road. I would sum up the speech in this way: "We like good things; we don't like stuff that's bad." There was no commitment to the utter destruction of health care, education, the economy, industry, the environment or the world as we know it. Instead they plan to make all those things better. And I must admit that I have no problem with any of this, nor, I suspect, do any of my Liberal colleagues.

I would suggest that the speech is deliberately void of specific goals except universal day care -- a dream if you have the money, a nightmare if you do not. I further suggest that the NDP government is planning on paving its road through the next year with good intentions only. All I can say is: I hope this province is no longer travelling with this government long enough to reach the end of that particular road.

I admit that I must also question the sincerity of the Premier's commitment to work with us. All of us in this House would be happy to work in an environment of civility, openness, respect and cooperation. But as the throne speech also noted, there must be honest, forceful debate. That means the real issues must be debated. I think that the throne speech's commitment to transparency in budgeting is a welcome development. However, this budgeting transparency is an NDP-designed therapy for the treatment of budgeting fraud, and I think the NDP should be the first subjects in the clinical trials. After all, you cannot know your therapy works unless you first know that your subject has the disease for which it was developed.

[1555]

The lack of real substance in the throne speech, taken together with this appeal for cooperation, almost suggests to me that there would be little of controversy offered in this session. I expect that the new leader of the government wishes to be seen to be presiding over a much more harmonious government. I therefore predict that the government will undertake little of substance this year -- that the business of this House will consist mainly of relatively content-free pap. I expect the NDP to steer clear of controversy, and I expect there will be very little on the NDP agenda which we as an opposition will have good cause to challenge. I think there may be some symbolic initiatives aimed at appeasing various special interests in the short term, but without compromising the good will gestures aimed towards competing interests. When controversial issues do arise or we in the opposition must force an issue we believe must be dealt with, I expect the NDP to frame the debate in such a way that they can be perceived to be taking the high road.

In short, I think the actual governing of the province will be neglected over the next year and that the NDP will instead pursue a strategy dedicated to their re-election. Over the last nine years we have seen this government pursue its distinctive agenda extremely aggressively, in an extraordinarily arrogant and high-handed manner. They have disregarded the views of the majority of the people of this province in the implementation of their agenda, and they have failed to react to the demonstrably disastrous effects of their intermeddling. As a result, the performance of the province as a whole, the living standards of the inhabitants of this province and the province's relationship with the rest of the country and internationally have all suffered.

I don't see that many new faces over there in cabinet, and I have a hard time believing there has been such a fundamental change of heart. While I will not spurn an olive leaf offered in good faith, and I will never in any event personally attack any member of the government or opposition -- as the case will eventually be -- neither will I abandon the issues important to my constituents for the sake of any new-found spirit of camaraderie with the NDP. To me this just looks like a deliberate strategy of living to fight another day. The government is low in the polls, and they are aware that any real step they take in any direction is treacherous.

I expect that for this session, the NDP will mostly lie low so that they can remake their images under their new leader as a reasonable and cooperative, conciliatory governing party. However, I think a year is a long time for the NDP to hold such a posture. We should never forget the lesson of the former Premier, who in his own inimitable style remade the party just prior to the last election. A leopard that can change its spots is still a leopard.

I think it has already become clear from my comments that I believe that British Columbia's in grave jeopardy, and I believe it is time to make the hard decisions. In a democracy, government is supposed to act as a proxy for its electorate. The people should be involved in those decisions, the decisions that are going to affect their lives. If there are hard decisions to be made, I believe they should not be made behind closed doors. This government has again and again taken decisions that have profound effects on the residents of this province.

In my opinion, the greatest of these -- the decision with the most profound effect -- has been the decision not to take any serious measures to address the deficit at any time in their mandate. Their inability and unwillingness to make hard decisions on which services are essential and which are superfluous, on what level of service is essential and on where government involvement serves the public interest and where it serves the interest of its own power -- possibly unpopular decisions politically, but decisions which would have restored us to fiscal health by now and restored the full funding of all those things approved by the majority of British Columbians. . . . That indecision is costing us now in the reduced level and quality of services we receive, just as our children will pay even more for even less if we continue on this course.

[1600]

[ Page 14806 ]

The NDP has traditionally governed through pandering to the demands of special interest groups, many of whom, it seems, are never satisfied and never filled. In my opinion, the NDP's dialogue with British Columbians has been distorted through the supposed representatives. Perhaps the NDP has come to believe that the unwillingness of these groups to accept sacrifice is representative of the attitudes of the individual residents of the province. We don't believe that to be true.

People will accept sacrifice, but they must first be satisfied with the answers to three fundamental questions: First, is my sacrifice necessary? Second, is this for a cause I believe in? Third, will this sacrifice make a difference? If the answer to those questions is yes, most people are prepared to make sacrifices. The NDP has never asked anyone to make sacrifices. As I said, it may be that the prevailing view of the party, based on their experience with certain special interest lobbies, is that people are primarily concerned with their own immediate interests and that they will never vote except in their own immediate interest. Or perhaps it is simpler than that: they don't want to face these three questions.

It's obvious to everyone, from lenders to economists to corporate investors to businessmen to labourers, that the huge continuing deficits, the level of debt and growing debt-servicing costs are unsustainable. It is further obvious that someone will have to pay -- if not us, then our children. But the NDP are not that honest. They want us to sacrifice, but without knowing it and certainly without thinking about it.

I think it is abundantly clear why the NDP cannot formulate policy, produce legislation or table a budget for which the people of B.C. will willingly sacrifice. I want to stress my firm belief that people can accept sacrifice, but they can't accept meaningless sacrifice. They don't like being conned. This is not to say, not by a very long shot, that we are not making sacrifices under the NDP's leadership. It's just that we're not asked. We may never feel the phantom fingers picking our pockets, but we do notice that there's not an awful lot left in there. In my opinion, this is fundamentally dishonest.

The former Finance minister said once, when she was increasing the funding to health care and education, that it would have been easier to simply maintain funding levels, implying that somehow she or the government was making a sacrifice in increasing funding. This, of course, is nonsense. She wasn't spending her own money. She didn't even take a pay cut to support the increased funding. She was spending the birthright of our children. She was in fact sacrificing future health care and education, funded by future taxpayers who may not even exist yet and certainly have not been consulted, for the present expediency of political gain.

Here's something interesting. At the NDP's recent convention at which the Premier was appointed by the party faithful, there was much reminiscing about the late Tommy Douglas, one of the founding fathers of the NDP's predecessor, the CCF, and of the NDP itself. Tommy Douglas is credited, of course, with pioneering universal health care. His biography on the Saskatchewan NDP web site puts it this way: ". . .when the province's finances seemed to him to be strong enough, Douglas announced the coming of the medicare plan." Did anyone on the other side of the House hear this? Let me repeat it: ". . .when the province's finances seemed to him to be strong enough, Douglas announced the coming of the medicare plan."

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I can't imagine anyone in the NDP chairs over there who cares to argue that Douglas did not care about the poor or the sick. Yet he waited until he had the money before taking action. He did not believe in stealing from his children. I wonder if the province's finances can support universal day care.

Also according to the Tommy Douglas biography, Tommy established new departments in his government to reflect his social welfare priorities. The text continues: "To pay for the new departments, all the CCF cabinet ministers took a 28 percent pay cut." This government has not, to my knowledge, put anything on the line in support of its socialist priorities. In fact, if the news of not so long ago has not completely faded from my mind, it seems that a number of deputy ministers just got a big, fat pay raise -- this in spite of the dire circumstances of the province's finances. Of course none of the cabinet have taken pay cuts to offset any of the costs of the funding announced for health care or the potentially enormous cost of universal day care.

[1605]

But seriously, folks, our tax dollars are appropriated. We're not asked nor do we have a say as to how those dollars are spent. A government that has just squandered half a billion dollars on some useless tubs and another hundred million or so, rounded off, on speculative development plans for a convention centre that will never materialize just does not have the moral authority to ask me for more of my money, because health care is in jeopardy and there are not enough schools. Those two projects alone amount to about $200 per man, woman and child in the province. They cost me personally, in my family, $1,000. In my view, we've given them the money they needed for health care and schools, and they blew it.

Poor planning and wishful thinking are not the only and not the most dangerous failings of this government. It's no secret that the NDP is a party driven by ideology, not reality. Just look at the cost of the fixed-wage policy, estimated at $237 million, and their course has not reversed. According to resolutions passed at their convention, the NDP party wants the government to further extend successorship rights and make decertification more difficult at who knows what additional

[ Page 14807 ]

Look at the cost of the Carrier Lumber decision, the cost of acting in bad faith. Look at the Nisga'a agreement. The settlement costs of the Nisga'a treaty won't be tabulated for many years to come, but the last official government estimate was $490 million, up from their original 1995 estimate of $125 million. And it still doesn't take into account mineral, water and fishery resources or the $160.5 million in guaranteed transfers in the first five years of implementation and indefinite transfers thereafter. One independent estimate by Robin Richardson estimates the tab for this one treaty at $1.3 billion. What will future settlements cost?

It could be argued that in some cases, such as in the formation of FRBC, interests such as business, industry, environmental groups and even the public were asked. At least they were given some control over how the tax dollars were to be spent. FRBC, so the story goes, would dedicate and return a portion of the Forests revenues to the communities from which they were taken. Unfortunately, the government promptly violated that trust and raided the fund to support other government functions. So much for being asked.

So much is made, by this government, of consultation -- and now of cooperation. This is disingenuous. If there is consultation with the public, the public input is ignored. They spent the last nine years or so pursuing their own agenda, utterly indifferent to the views of the people of this province.

[1610]

The debate on the Nisga'a treaty is a case in point. Where was their interest in consultation then? Were the majority of British Columbians behind this treaty? I think not. But if they were consulted, they were consulted and dismissed. We in opposition in the Legislative Assembly -- the very heart of our provincial democracy -- were unceremoniously cut off. Where was the NDP's interest in cooperation? They acted decisively to silence opposition and debate -- and on a vote for which they clearly did not have a mandate. This was an abuse of process.

It was clear to us and to the people we represent that the government was acting contrary to the interest of British Columbians. We attempted to insist on a full and complete debate on each clause of this treaty. We believed that there were real, legitimate and numerous concerns which needed to be addressed. Former Supreme of Court of Canada Justice Estey is now convinced the treaty is unconstitutional, and other first nations with competing claims have come forward. We anticipated these challenges. We were also deeply aware that this was no ordinary bill. This was not just the big smile and handshake opportunity that the then Premier seemed to think it was. It was to be constitutionally entrenched.

The calling of closure on debate of the treaty struck at the foundations of parliamentary democracy. All we have in opposition is the ability to debate. Our votes have symbolic significance at best. For the government to use its majority in the House as a club to shut down debate was reprehensible. The NDP has a majority in the House, but it has no popular majority and never has. I submit that it has abrogated its authority to act.

In conclusion, it has breached its trust with the people of British Columbia and exhausted any mandate it may have ever been given. This is the kind of consultation and cooperation we have had from this NDP government. I don't expect anything to change now. The new Premier did not come out of nowhere. He's been a powerful member of the ruling junta for a long time, and I think we can be forgiven for some skepticism as to the turning over of new leaves. They can turn their leaves over till the cows come home, but they're still the same leaves.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak to the throne speech today. This is typically a time that members dwell a bit on their constituencies and some of the great things about the constituencies that we each get to represent in the province of British Columbia. I'm always very proud that the people in the constituency of Peace River North have elected me on two different occasions to represent them in this House, and I'm highly honoured by that.

The constituency of Peace River North, as many will know, is the second-largest constituency in the province and comprises a wide array of industry, from oil and gas, which at the present time is -- and has been for a while -- priced very high in the world markets and is doing quite well. . . . The agricultural industry, although not doing quite as well, is very important to the constituency of Peace River North and represents a large part of our economy and the people that live there. Also, the forest industry is a huge part of the constituency of Peace River North and contributes an awful lot to the province's economy through fees and royalties.

[1615]

We have some problems. Although I've talked a bit about the great things about Peace River North, we do have some problems as they relate to different areas of the economy. I will touch on them basically as I go through the Speech from the Throne. I'll attempt to be as quick as possible, because I know there are many others waiting to stand up and talk about the constituencies that they represent.

[ Page 14808 ]

People do not forget, let me tell you, about some of the things that this government has done -- done with the blessing of our now Premier, who tries to demonstrate to British Columbians that he is a new face. Well, he's a new face as the Premier, but he's not a new face in cabinet. He's not a new face in driving some of the draconian proposals that were put through by this government. He's not a new face when it comes to approval of tremendous overspending on ferry projects that were tried and untrue and would never work. He's that same person that was there -- the same person that was elected -- in October 1991, when I was elected. The only difference is that he's moved from where the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin now sits, in the back bench, in the back row, up into the cabinet rows. But he's the same person. The people of British Columbia did not get an opportunity to elect this person as their Premier and in fact will flatly turn down this member when he does finally have the nerve to stand up in British Columbia and call an election.

I want to go back a bit to 1992 and read some passages from the Speech from the Throne and make some comparisons. Dare I make some comparisons with Mr. Mike Harcourt, who was the first NDP Premier out of three, elected in 1991? I go to the throne speech debate, and on page 6 it says: "New budget transparency law." I'm reading verbatim from the throne speech, and it says: "It is critical that British Columbians have the highest confidence in the budget numbers." I guess that's an admittance that we haven't had the right numbers; we haven't had the honest numbers; we haven't been given, as people in British Columbia, the true figures about the province.

This Premier now says that he's going to change that; he's going to give all the right budgetary numbers. Well, after eight years of listening to that same thing, throne speech after throne speech, it's no wonder, as I said earlier, that people in British Columbia do not believe this type of innuendo at all. And that's all it is; it's just words.

[1620]

The present Premier in the year 2000 still hasn't learned. The whole government through all that nine years did not learn a single thing, because they're saying the same things in different words. It's amazing. It's absolutely amazing to me that a government that has been as closed and has been so less than honest -- maybe that's the proper term that's acceptable in this House; I can't say dishonest -- with the people of British Columbia is still trying to talk about it today and still trying to convince British Columbians that they are open and honest.

It's absolutely amazing that they would pass this off as a great throne speech, as the previous minister from government just talked about, who was one of those discredited Finance ministers who did not come through with the truth. It's amazing, hon. Speaker. To do this, the government of the day and the new Premier -- the person that has been there through all the dirty little tricks, through all the withholding of information, through all the giving of information that wasn't correct -- says he's going to bring in a budget transparency and accountability act.

Well, isn't that something? This government ran in 1991 on "open and honest," so for nine years they've been less than honest, they've been less than open. In the year 2000 we see them coming forward with a new act called budget transparency and accountability act. Well, I think there should be some accountability on that side. It's high time. There's been no accountability from any one of those members, especially the ones in cabinet who have sat idly by on their hands and let some of the things go by that happened in this great province.

It's absolutely disgusting to read in the throne speech today, in the year 2000, that all of a sudden someone saw the light. Someone opened the door and turned on a dim little lightbulb and said: "We're going to have to put in a budget transparency and accountability act, because we've been so crooked up until now, we've been so less than honest, so less than open with the people of British Columbia that now we have to legislate it to ourselves."

It says: "The aim of this act is to give British Columbians the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts." Why wouldn't you give us the facts before? Why were you dishonest about the facts before? That's what it's all about. Now you're putting forward an act that says you're going to bring forward all the facts. You should have brought forward the facts a long time ago. It's long overdue -- long overdue. And who would ever believe that anyone over there really means "bringing forward the facts"? You'd have to be a fool to actually accept that from this group. After nine years of being less than honest and less than open, all of a sudden we should believe that this is a new world, and all things will change.

[1625]

[ Page 14809 ]

I think actually, when you talk about budget issues. . . . I listened to part of the speech of the member for Burnaby North yesterday. I was stuck in my office for a while and I had to have the TV on, and I was listening intently to part of it. What really came to light was when he praised Quebec because they give such good services and they handle their money so well, and we should be doing more of those things in British Columbia that Quebec does. We should model ourselves after Quebec.

I can't remember the exact words, but I went quickly back and looked in some paper, and I found out that Quebec hasn't balanced a budget in 58 years -- 58 years. So obviously this group, and the member for Burnaby North right along with them. . . . I guess if you kept them here for 58 years, we'd have 58 deficits, because that's what they want to do: they want to model themselves after the province of Quebec. What a way to go.

The throne speech goes on to say, and I'll read again: "The new law will require complete disclosure of all budget assumptions and forecasts, including the advice of the Economic Forecast Council. The completeness of this disclosure will be certified in writing by the secretary of the Treasury Board." Boy, are they ever trying to put some things in place that would almost try to make people think that they really will tell the truth. "The new law will require that the government's bottom line now include the bottom lines of Crown corporations and other government agencies." Well, that's been there. It's always been there since I've been in government. I've been able to read the bottom lines of the Crown corporations and other government agencies in the budget documents every year.

I think what probably needs to be clarified more with the people of British Columbia is how many employees and how much cost has been transferred from ministries to Crown corporations. The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests have both transferred huge costs to Crown corporations from their ministry budgets. You can only do that for so long and then it catches up to you. Or there's selling assets in the province, like B.C. Rail does quite regularly: sell an asset, give the money to government, and put it in general revenue. It never fails. It's a constant move by this government. They'll soon sell off the whole province, and we'll still have $30 billion in debt.

It also goes on to say: "The new law will open the books on all major capital projects, fully disclosing their objectives, business case, performance targets and, each and every year, the current and anticipated costs to the taxpayer. The new law will hold the government to a higher standard of transparency if it uses special warrants."

[1630]

Or power generation. . . . There are all kinds of things in power generation: upgrade the Burrard generating station, third transformer at the Selkirk substation, improvements to Kootenay's telecommunications system -- the list goes on and on. So what I'd like to. . . .

This is pretty typical. I'd like to see, actually -- like they say in the throne speech -- the new Premier, the new guy, the new fellow that's going to change the way British Columbia operates. . . . I'd like to see them bring forward all those reports. I bet I won't see one. I bet no one in British Columbia will see one. That's unfortunate, because again, it demonstrates to us just who this old group is.

He also says: "My government will work with the official opposition to reach agreement on a parliamentary calendar that will end legislation by attrition, establish workable time lines and ensure a proper balance between member responsibilities in this assembly and within their constituencies."

There's a number of people in the House here that were elected with me in 1991, and having spent many nights -- and I mean all night. . . . Legislation by exhaustion is what we call it -- especially in the first five years under this government's mandate, when they had such a huge majority. When I look at the people that are here today and think about the people who were there in that first legislative session, I see many of the same faces. I remember those faces smiling smugly when we were working until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, 5 o'clock in the morning sometimes, to jam through some of their socialist agenda.

I don't believe for a minute -- not for one lousy minute -- that any one of those people, including the Premier, who was there at that time, believe for a moment that they are going to work with anybody to make this a better place to work in. Or maybe they are; maybe they really mean it. Would that mean that there's an election coming? Would that mean that they're trying to show a softer, gentler NDP? Would that be too cynical of me to think that? I'm not cynical. Would that be too cynical? I've looked at all these faces for many days, and I've thought: "Do I really see a change in any one of them?" No, I don't. I see that they've changed a few chairs, but I don't think that they've changed in their hearts at all.

They talk about strengthening and modernizing health care, and they say: "Finding these balances requires choices. Those choices begin with our universal health care system. . . . We must address the shortage of nurses today and expand training for the nurses we'll need tomorrow."

You know, there was a need for nurses a long time ago. There's always been a need for nurses. But this government, in its direction, has not encouraged that. That's why we see in one of the communities I represent. . . . I see in the newspaper,

[ Page 14810 ]

This isn't new. This didn't happen yesterday; it didn't happen the year before; it happened a long time ago. But in their wisdom, this government elected to never look at that. And all of a sudden, today, they talk about a shortage of nurses. They say: "We must further upgrade hospital equipment." Well, hon. Speaker, I don't disagree with that, because it only took me five years to get this group of people that are really concerned about health care to fix the plaster on the wall in the intensive care unit in Fort St. John. As they put that in there, the Health ministers -- and there have been many of them. . . . The Fort St. John hospital has brought their issues down here year after year after year -- to get the air exchange system fixed in the operating room, which hasn't worked right for quite a number of years. WCB should really shut it down. What has this government elected to do? Not look after it. They really care for health care; I know they do.

[1635]

There are issues with health care in the north. The Minister of Finance will know full well what I'm talking about. He's sitting here listening to it -- about the difficulties that we have in ambulance service. . . . Whether it's air ambulance service, ambulance service, hospital care or long-term care, we do have some problems in the north. It seems as though that set of mountains there -- I'm east of the Rockies -- seems to deflect a lot of the caring that they tend to tell everyone they have about health care.

They say: "We must improve access to long-term care and home support to provide better care outside of hospitals." I totally agree with that. That's a great statement that's been used far too often and never backed up. That's the problem. I believe that the last time I saw a list in Fort St. John for long-term care, it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 150 people and had been there for a long time. In fact, it was so long that the people would have to rotate twice through all the beds that were there before the last person -- the 153rd person -- would be able to get a bed. We saw other places in the province not too far from my area -- where politically this government thinks they can win a seat -- which actually had almost zero for a waiting list and got funding.

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

R. Neufeld: That's not nonsense. I tell the Minister of Finance: you can say "nonsense" all you want. Check out the numbers and just find out for sure. Before you say "nonsense," you should check the numbers.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Listen, if I confused you with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I apologize, but I would rather that the Minister of Finance look at it than the Minister of Transportation and Highways, because. . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Exactly. We wouldn't want to do that. We wouldn't want to let Harry handle the money -- exactly right. In fact, I'm not too sure we want anyone on that side of the House to handle any money anymore anytime. That's it -- just cut you off, and you're done.

The other thing they say -- and it's interesting -- is: "Strengthening and modernizing health care." One of the examples they use -- and I'm going to again read from the book: "For example, last fall, Saskatoon offered free flu immunization for seniors and those at risk, well in advance of winter." Wow, isn't that a real statement to put in a throne speech debate if health care is your top priority? You know what? You talked about immunization in your 1992 throne speech debate. What I'm telling you is that all you do is go back and recycle words and ideas. You don't mean anything that you say.

Then it says: "My government will bring health care providers, administrators and other experts from B.C. and from outside the province together this spring for a B.C. health innovation forum." Well, I'll tell you, one thing this group is good at is putting together a whole bunch of people and getting a whole bunch of reports. Nothing happens out of it -- absolutely nothing. We have got reports that would fill that whole wall that they haven't looked at. I can remember clearly seeing some of them and being on some of those committees. The NDP, if they really meant what they were saying in the throne speech about health care, would redirect their dollars to the patients. Patients are the important part of health care. That's where the dollars should go.

[1640]

Another statement they make says: "By July every public school in British Columbia will be connected to the Internet, through the provincial learning network." You know, Mike Harcourt said the same thing back in 1992, and I'll tell you, not every school is connected yet. Why should we believe this group will be any different? There are probably some schools that it might be impossible to connect. But no one would check that out first.

They talk about safe, affordable child care -- $14 million in the budget -- and yet there's no plan. It says in the throne speech that they would put forward a plan for every major expenditure, and none has come through. This document goes on and on in all kinds of folly. They talk about all kinds of nice

[ Page 14811 ]

Unfortunately, they've demonstrated it with a huge amount of debt in the province of British Columbia and an economy that's in tatters -- an economy that's the last of any province in Canada. They got it when it was number one. They took it to number ten.

An Hon. Member: Look around.

R. Neufeld: Yeah, look around. Look at all the stats. No wonder the Minister of Finance can't balance the budget. He can't even read the economic stats across Canada that tell British Columbians that we're almost last. We've gone from number one to number ten in nine years under this group. What a legacy!

You know what, hon. Speaker? Along with that, we've gone from $17 billion in total debt to $36 billion. We've got schools that aren't functioning well, new schools that have just been built in the northwest. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

R. Neufeld: I will end my remarks by saying that I wish I had another hour, because I could go on forever about the rest of the bill. But I thank you, hon. Speaker, for allowing me the time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Pullinger: By agreement, I call second reading of Bill 6.

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT 
(second reading)

While we have frozen fees at 1995 levels, student debt has been rising in the rest of the country. Right now average tuition at B.C. universities is $2,280 per year, which is $1,600 less than in Ontario and $1,400 less than in Alberta. That's a lot of money to a student, especially when he or she is looking ahead to four years of university or other post-secondary education.

[1645]

This approach, which combines low fees with increased funding and support, is building B.C.'s reputation as Canada's education province, a reputation well deserved and one that we can all be proud of in this province. That increased funding includes an $85 million increase for B.C.'s post-secondary institutions this year. We've increased core funding to the institutions, and we've included $39 million to support 5,025 new spaces this year, including 800 for high-tech programs and 400 spaces for nursing students. In addition, we've expanded funding for industrial training, creating 300 new spaces. We're investing $1 million to create 1,000 new co-op placements in high technology.

This approach to education sets this government apart from almost all other governments in Canada. That became quite evident in a recent Statistics Canada report, which shows that our comprehensive efforts to increase access to education are working. The study shows that B.C. is way ahead of the rest of this country when it comes to enrolment growth. Since 1992 we've seen an over 18 percent increase in full-time university enrolment in this province. During the same period, in the rest of Canada, it grew at 1.9 percent, meaning that British Columbia's growth in enrolment at our post-secondary institutions is almost 10 times the rate of the rest of the country.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

B.C.'s part-time enrolment number grew by 10.6 percent, while it went down by 22.2 percent in the rest of Canada. By keeping fees low, the tuition fee freeze makes sure that all British Columbians have a real option to benefit from higher education without taking on crippling student debt. Combining the tuition freeze with our expanded student grant program ensures that B.C.'s students are graduating with some of the lowest debt loads in the country. We believe that people should not be forced into what might be called a debt sentence for trying to gain the education they need to succeed in a modern, knowledge-based economy. Freezing fees allows more people to have the education that has become a requirement for well-paying, family-supporting employment.

Education is one of the most powerful tools to create a truly equal society. It lets any person, no matter what their background, have the same chance for a better and more rewarding life. We want to give British Columbians the keys to opportunities in today's economy. That's why this government is choosing a better way, an approach to fees and to funding for post-secondary education that includes rather than shuts out, an approach that reaches out to people of all backgrounds rather than preserving education for the privileged few.

This act freezes fees charged for graduate, undergraduate, career, technical, vocational and developmental programs. It also freezes mandatory ancillary fees that have the effect of increasing the cost of tuition. Mandatory ancillary fees might include, for example, library fees, registration fees and laboratory fees. Student organization fees collected by the institutions on behalf of student organizations will be exempt from the freeze. Students themselves shall continue to choose by vote whether these fees shall be increased or lowered.

[ Page 14812 ]

[1650]

Continuing education programs which are not funded by government are operated on a cost recovery basis in accordance with longstanding ministry policy. These programs include such courses as photography, computers, travel and cooking and do not lead to an academic credential. Contract services are intended to be profitable for institutions, with proceeds reinvested in core programs and services for students. Contract services generally involve training provided to organizations and companies. This act also provides that tuition fees to be charged for new programs must not exceed those charged by institutions for similar existing programs.

The act allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to define terms used in the act and to apply the act to particular circumstances. This provision does not allow exemptions from the freeze but ensures that the freezing of tuition fees can be addressed in unforeseen situations.

This government is eliminating barriers to post-secondary education by extending the tuition freeze for the fifth consecutive year. These barriers must be broken if British Columbia is to be ready to face the economic challenges of this new century and to fully grasp the opportunities of our emerging knowledge-based economy.

In my final remarks on second reading, I'd like to say this. There is an ongoing debate in our society about the role of government -- how much or how little government should do in our society. The most vigorous aspects of this debate are reserved for activities that are on the margins of what people would consider proper activities for government involvement. But education is a clear exception to that. Education is a core value shared by the vast majority of British Columbians. Education is at the core of services that people expect government to deliver for them.

I would argue that most people would therefore expect that such a core service from government should be paid for out of the taxes that government collects. In British Columbia we come closer to this principle than other provinces. We believe that post-secondary education is an inherent public good and should therefore be funded out of public resources to the greatest extent possible. That's what the tuition fee freeze is all about. What we're saying to students with this legislation is this: "You're not alone. We collectively, as a society and as your government, will support you if you seek higher education."

[1655]

In those provinces, what is being offered or promised is lower taxes. But we also have to understand that sometimes with lower taxes comes less public service. That's been especially the case in those provinces when it comes to post-secondary education. By increasing tuition fees, as governments in those provinces have done, they have reduced the collective commitment of their society to support students, and they're increasingly leaving those students on their own -- increasingly -- because fees continue to go up. It's a shortsighted view; it's a view that, in this government, we don't share.

So, hon. Speaker, this bill is a measure that we must pass. It is our responsibility to make sure that the education people need is affordable to them and available to all who would seek it.

I await the comments of my colleagues on this side during second reading debate, as well as members on the opposite side. I may have a few more comments to make at the end of second reading.

J. Weisbeck: I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 6, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. Mr. Speaker, this is the identical act to those presented in the last four years. Once again, this side of the House is in full support. Contrary to what the government has said and has been trying to tell the students of this province, we have supported all previous tuition freezes and again this year will continue to support Bill 6, the 2000-2001 version.

But I still don't understand why this has to be legislated. I guess that there are so very few positive statements that this government can make that this is one of those opportunities -- an opportunity to spin that B.C. is the education province.

Actually, the minister made the comment that enrolment growth is the best in the country. He's right; the growth is the best in the country. But in fact we are only producing about 65 percent of the university degrees that the rest of the provinces produce in this country. So we really have a long way to make up. Yes, we are improving enrolment, but we certainly haven't reached the standard of the rest of the country.

The cost of education is definitely a barrier for students to attaining a university or college degree. Tuition makes up approximately 16 percent of a student's cost of attaining that education. So maintaining a low tuition fee definitely is a positive step in removing one of those barriers.

As B.C. stands at the dawn of the twenty-first century, we look around and witness a world undergoing rapid change. We face fundamental changes in our daily lives, as the old economy gives way to the new economy. The industrial age is being replaced by the information age: a cyberworld where knowledge has more value than resources and capital; a virtual world where borders are disappearing; a dynamic, knowledge-based economy where government and skilled staff must compete to do things smarter and faster.

There was an article recently written by James Mitchell. He's a former senior official in the Privy Council office and the Treasury Board secretariat. He wrote an article called " 'What Really Matters:' Higher Education in an Era of Globalization." He says: ". . .the challenge facing higher education in Canada becomes that of competing successfully in a North American environment -- competing for market share, for the best students and for funding from governments and from the private sector. Ultimately, Canada's universities will be challenged to sustain their independence and their intellectual vocation in an environment that is less and less sympathetic to either."

He has a number of propositions. One of those propositions is: ". . .if Canada is to succeed in North America and the

[ Page 14813 ]

There was a student survey done in March of last year on access to post-secondary education. Certainly there was a great deal of support for the tuition freeze. But they also had some suggestions, and if I could just quote from the summary here:

"Students offered a range of suggestions when asked to recommend to government any improvement, new service or new program that would make post-secondary education more accessible. Lowering the cost of attending college and university were measures most frequently recommended by students. These measures included maintaining the tuition fee freeze, increasing job opportunities for students and improving student financial assistance."

I was hoping to hear some creative solutions in this budget addressing the student loan debt problem. Instead, all we got was a continuation of the tuition freeze -- really a band-aid solution at best, because tuition fees make only 60 percent of a student's total debt load upon graduation.

Why hasn't this government listened to some of the practical recommendations from the university community, such as income-contingent loan programs? Such a flexible repayment plan would allow students to repay loans based on a set portion of their income. Even in tough economic times such as we've experienced over the past several years, students won't be saddled with unmanageable payments or forced into bankruptcy. Other jurisdictions in North America have tackled this problem in innovative ways, such as tax incentives and matching grants for tuition-saving programs and prepaid tuition initiatives.

It's really unfortunate that there weren't more consultations with the institutions before these freezes were brought into place, because these freezes have created a series of inequities within similar institutions. At OUC, for example, an academic degree student pays a maximum of $750 per semester. At UBC he or she will pay $1,147. At Malaspina University College the tuition is $945. The result is obvious. Some institutions have more operating funds to invest in their students' education.

[1700]

I'm going to watch with great interest the minister's response to the article in today's Sun which talks about UBC considering charging higher fees for more costly programs. In that article Professor Wehrung, who is the co-chairman of UBC's tuition policy committee, recommends differential tuition. "He said that the current one-price-fits-all fee structure indirectly causes students in lower-cost programs to subsidize those in more expensive programs such as science, commerce and engineering." I think this article proves that this is a very complex situation -- a situation that really wasn't thought out very well by this government.

At first glance it would appear that universities and colleges will be the winners in this year's budget. With the past tuition fee freezes, the government has not made up the difference between revenues lost through tuition and the grants given to the institution. It would appear that at first glance, the new 5,000 allocations of FTEs will be funded.

I was disturbed in that budget speech by the quote that says: "This budget includes an $85 million increase for B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, to increase core funding, help with the tuition freeze and pay for new courses." There's no mention here that past differentials between core funding and tuition fees will be made up. A number of years ago there were 2,900 new spaces allocated with no increase in funding.

Mr. Speaker, where the tuition freeze has been positive in one aspect, it has definitely had an impact on quality. Institutions have struggled to balance their budgets, courses have been cut, access to programs has been denied. There's no doubt that there's been a problem with attracting good staff.

Dr. Jack Blaney, who is, I guess, the past president of SFU -- or is soon to be the past president of SFU -- talked about this situation in an article in the National Post:

"Canadian universities are on the cusp of a crisis. . . . It began with an erosion of research equipment and staff, including post-doctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians, together with our weakened position to recruit and retain top faculty. . . . Important research increasingly is done elsewhere.

"This problem is serious. Canada's investment in research and development is half that of the United States. . . . Canada's research universities, whether large, mid-size or small, operate on about half the revenue per student as do comparable universities in the U.S. . . .. Those [universities and] institutions have the resources to recruit and retain outstanding faculty and graduate students. It's difficult for Canadian universities to compete."

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support this bill, to play a small part in improving access to post-secondary education in this province.

B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I applaud efforts to make advanced education more accessible to young people in British Columbia -- and to all people in British Columbia, because quite often people have to go back for retraining later on in life. That's becoming a fact of life as we move into the twenty-first century.

There are several ways to make education more financially accessible to people. One, obviously, is to lower costs, another is to increase the ability of people to pay those costs, and a third option is some combination of the previous two routes to make education more accessible. In terms of costs, it has already been pointed out by the member for Okanagan East that tuition in British Columbia accounts for significantly less than 20 percent of the true cost per pupil in terms of educating that student. That means taxpayers collectively are subsidizing more than 80 percent of the cost per student in post-secondary education in British Columbia.

[1705]

There is something, I think, that we can do about living costs, which is another component of the total cost of going to

[ Page 14814 ]

I stand here today as a person who did benefit from being able to remain close to home for the first couple of years of my post-secondary education. Following graduation from high school I completed two years at what is now called the University College of the Fraser Valley. If that institution had not been available, there's a very good chance that I would not have attended any post-secondary institution -- certainly not university. Because the local college was available and less expensive in terms of both tuition and living costs to me in Chilliwack, it was an option I was willing to take a risk on. I was willing to give it a chance, not being convinced that I would succeed in a post-secondary setting. The rest, as they say, is history.

At that time you were not able to complete a four-year degree at the local college. I had to transfer my education -- two years' worth of university credits -- to Simon Fraser University and complete my bachelor of arts degree there. That was obviously more expensive for me to do than the previous two years, when I was still able to obtain food and lodging from my parents and also a subsidy on the amount of food I was eating. That's another option -- making the accessibility to our local colleges more available in terms of spaces.

I've just mentioned that I had attended University College of the Fraser Valley. I have done some checking, and this current year the University College of the Fraser Valley expects to have 4,300 full-time-equivalent students enrolled. I'm told that if they had increased funding or could fund it some other way, they would easily be able to take in 1,000 additional students because of the level of demand for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley.

So there is unmet demand out there. We are not accommodating all of the people who, for whatever reason, have decided it's important for them to get some extra training or education -- certainly not in my part of the world. There is an unmet need, and it needs to be recognized. Presumably some of those people will give up and not pursue the extra education they otherwise would like to, or they may have to embark on a more expensive course of action, and move away to an urban centre or pursue some other field of endeavour.

In any given year the vast majority of the cost that students attending universities or colleges or training institutions face is the cost of living, which includes rent, food and transportation. Tuition has always been on the lower end of the scale in terms of the overall cost. That continues to be the way it is today, and I think we need to recognize that. Keeping the cost of tuition under control is an important part of keeping costs down, but it is not the only factor.

I mentioned at the outset that there are a number of ways that we can look at lowering costs; that's what I've been speaking about. The other end of the equation is increasing the ability of students to pay. I think that we have a lot more work to do there, particularly in British Columbia. I noticed recently, reading some figures presented by Statistics Canada, that the average income for wage earners in British Columbia is now significantly below that of some of our closest competitors.

[1710]

University students and post-secondary students of all kinds look to acquire good-paying summer jobs, because they only have a few months in which to earn money and hopefully put some in the bank to help offset the cost of tuition, books and cost of living throughout the rest of the school year. That means that they have to be able to acquire decent-paying jobs. In British Columbia those jobs have become very scarce under this current government and the current negative investment regime that we have in this province.

The examples are legion. You don't have to look very far for examples of young people who, even if they have been able to obtain an education in British Columbia -- and it's taxpayer-subsidized, as I mentioned -- have had to leave in order to be able to pay back their student loans. My colleague the member for Abbotsford. . . . I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning this, but in order to land a successful first job after his education, one of his young sons went to Washington State and is working for Microsoft.

There are many facets to the whole issue of accessibility to education, and one of them, clearly, is the students' confidence that they'll be in a position to pay back whatever debts they've incurred in order to obtain that education upon graduating. In British Columbia I don't think there is a tremendous amount of confidence on the part of young people that they will be able to earn the necessary income in this province in order to pay back to the cost of attending school.

I ask that all members of the House keep those various points in mind as we support this bill. We support keeping tuition low, but we should also recognize that there are many other facets to this overall equation. They are the cost of living and keeping people close to home so that they don't have to move to expensive urban centres, increasing the ability to pay by making sure that our economy is strong and putting in place policies that are attractive to investors -- because without investment there are no jobs -- and also making sure that once students graduate from whatever course of study they pursue, there are good, meaningful, long-term, sustainable jobs in the province so that they can work here and repay the debts that they may incur while attending university or post-secondary education.

That concludes my remarks, and I look forward to voting in favour of the bill.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a real pleasure to stand today in support of Bill 6, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. As many in the chamber know, I came to this profession of politics after a long career as an instructor and administrator in the post-secondary system in this province and elsewhere. One of the things that actually got me interested in and involved in provincial politics was the policies of the government in the seventies and early eighties regarding post-secondary educa-

[ Page 14815 ]

In the 1980s the government of this province had an explicit policy that said: "We are not going to provide adequate space to actually train our own citizens for the jobs that they can get." They said very explicitly: "We can import that from elsewhere. We can have that burden borne by taxpayers elsewhere and simply import the trained personnel." It was a deliberate policy; it was one that denied opportunity to people in British Columbia to actually go to post-secondary education in colleges or universities.

[1715]

In recent years that has actually accelerated. In some areas the changes have been huge compared to the rest of the country. Overall in Canada, the number of people graduating with university degrees has only gone up around 1.8 percent in the past decade. Here in British Columbia it's gone up by 18 percent -- ten times the national average. But I would agree with the critic who says that there's still more catching up to do, and that's why the Tuition Fee Freeze Act is so important in continuing the progress that we have made.

The other comparison is how accessible post-secondary education is for all citizens. This act and its predecessors have guaranteed that every year college and university has become more accessible to people in British Columbia. In the 1990s we have gone from the jurisdiction that had the second highest tuition fees in the country to the jurisdiction that now has the second lowest. That is wonderful, wonderful progress.

I'm pleased to speak to this bill not only because of my support for and former involvement in post-secondary education, but because I'm pleased to speak for it as the Minister of Finance of the province. We know that one of our competitive advantages in this coming century is going to be the skills and knowledge of our citizenry. We know therefore that we have to invest in education. It's one of the best investments we can make to ensure the strong economic future for our province. That's why an act like this is so crucial.

As we look at where the jobs are going to be in the coming decade, most analysis of the labour market suggests that something like 15 percent of those jobs will require a university-level education, and another 60 to 70 percent will require technical, vocational or diploma training of some sort. The reality is that post-secondary education is now a requirement for 75 percent or better of jobs in this province. It is no longer enough, therefore, to have an education system that says we'll provide post-secondary education for the elite few. It has to be a right for British Columbians of whatever economic circumstances, whatever geographic location, whatever family background. That's why this act is so important.

I heard some of the critics of this freeze from across the way and elsewhere. Some say that tuition is only a fraction of the cost of attending college or university, and they're right. But I submit that a difference in the cost of a university degree of $5,200 between British Columbia and Alberta is real money. I submit that a difference between British Columbia and Ontario of $6,400 in getting a university degree is real money. That's a real advantage in British Columbia -- it's a B.C. advantage. I believe that, while they are correct, they need to look at the larger picture and the magnitude of the savings that this fee freeze has brought about now.

I would also say another thing. As a college instructor I always found that some of the students who were most concerned entering college were those who were the first in their family ever to seek post-secondary education. For them the very concept of tuition was a strange one. Keeping that barrier low meant that we were sending the right message of inclusiveness and accessibility out there to people who might never have even considered college or university education. Not only is it important financially, I think it's an important symbol of our commitment to accessible college and university education.

[1720]

Interjections.

Hon. P. Ramsey: They don't think the figures that I'm giving are accurate. Talk to student organizations across the country. See how student financial assistance stacks up here relative to elsewhere. You will see that this is the place where we provide the most assistance to people who are going on to college or university -- particularly for single parents, where we've extended the period of assistance beyond the normal time of completing university.

There are those who simply say this is wrong. The business summit, for instance, has said: "Do away with the freeze." I was sort of interested to hear -- or I thought I heard -- the Liberal opposition say they endorsed all the recommendations of the business summit. I'm pleased to hear them stand today and say that at least on this issue they don't think it's so important. It will be interesting to see where they actually come down on these and other issues as we move forward.

The Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology said that what we are facing here is the fundamental issue of who pays for post-secondary education. I think he's right. A couple of generations ago we had the same debate in most jurisdictions in North America about who should pay for secondary education, for high school. Jurisdiction after jurisdiction eventually said: "Well, it shouldn't be the individual. Having people that have a high school education is a broad public good; we should pay for it out of the broad public purse."

I think we are on the verge of having the same sort of debate around college and university education. A secondary education was sufficient 30 or 40 years ago -- to actually get a high school education -- but now that is not sufficient to succeed. We need college or university education. Increasingly we have to acknowledge that having people with those levels

[ Page 14816 ]

As a former chair of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, though, I have to say that as a country, I don't think we're taking the right steps. We are the only country in the OECD that doesn't have a national grant program to assist college or university students; that's not a good sign. At a time when our competitors, particularly those to the south, are increasing state support for education, with the exception of B.C. we have declined in public support for education over the last decade in Canada. This is not a good sign.

In 1997, for the first time since the Second World War, university enrolment in all of Canada actually went down. Why? It's because unlike B.C., the rest of the country was hiking tuition through the roof and lowering the number of spaces. If we are to succeed in the knowledge economy of the twenty-first century, that's the wrong strategy. I would submit that the Tuition Fee Freeze Act and the strategy we've adopted in this province is the right strategy to make sure that the doors are open and that access to good quality public post-secondary education is available to all. It is a winning combination. It opens the door of education. I am very pleased to support Bill 6, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

[1725]

We'll stand on this side of the House, and we will support the tuition fee freeze this year, just like we have every previous year, but don't let anybody be conned into thinking that because the government's freezing tuition fees, they care about education. This is the same government that thought it was okay to let students in K-to-12 sit out for a week, because they didn't have the courage to order people back to work. This is the same government that has put our universities, in the words of the university presidents, in a position where we are slipping into a backwater in Canada in the academic universe. That's what they've allowed to happen to our education system in British Columbia.

The government hopes, with symbols like the Tuition Fee Freeze Act, that they can get people to just focus on one tree in the forest so that they won't notice the rest of the forest. If they just look at that one single tree there, they won't notice that everything else is in danger of getting cut down, shipped away, sent to other jurisdictions. That's what's happening in our education system. While the province says to universities that they must freeze fees, they don't also go to universities and say: "And here's how we will help you make up that money so that it doesn't damage the quality of education."

What happens when the government freezes tuition fees is they sit back and say: "Well, now you guys deal with it. It's your problem now, folks." What do universities do? They make all the other tough decisions that impact the quality of education. They cut back on library resources. They cut back on the resources that are available for research and development, the infrastructure for labs. They cut back on the other kinds of services that are important to students. Book costs go up; accommodation costs continue to go up. Students, while they might have tuition fees frozen, still have all those higher ancillary costs. And they go up and they go up and they go up.

What do they get for it? They get a lower quality of education, because the government goes to universities and says: "We are going to force you to freeze tuition fees, and now it's your problem." They're not just saying to university presidents that it's their problem; they're making it the students' problem. Students are the ones that are getting stuck paying the tab for this. It's students that are the ones that have to live through larger and larger class sizes. It's students that have to go to classes that don't have the same kind of level of teaching quality anymore. It's students that have to work in labs that are ill-equipped, work on computers that aren't world-class. It's students that have to go and try to find textbooks that won't even meet their needs anymore in their libraries. It's students who have to try and find courses that don't even exist.

There are colleges in British Columbia now that only offer some courses once every three years because they don't have the money to provide the access. That's what this government has done to education. Simon Fraser University is located in the heart of my riding. Every day, I get calls from students and parents and people who are concerned about the quality of their education, because it's declining. You can talk to almost any student, and they'll tell you that. You can talk to almost any faculty member, and they'll tell you that. You can talk to almost any parent, any university president, and they'll tell you that. So when the government stands up and says, "We're going to freeze tuition fees, but that's all we're going to do," it's not good enough. That's not a commitment to education.

A real commitment to education is ensuring that our post-secondary institutions give kids and adults the tools that they need to be able to go out and compete globally. Our most important resource in British Columbia, as in any jurisdiction, is our people. If we don't educate people and give them the tools they need to compete, where will we be in ten or 20 years? That has always been British Columbia's strength.

[1730]

This government isn't providing people with access to the tools they need to be able to compete, and that is a shame. It's a shame to watch, year after year, this government get up and introduce this legislation. It's like a hoax on all the people who are depending on British Columbia -- on our government -- to provide them with the quality education they need.

So what do universities do? They offer courses once every three years, or they make it harder to get into courses.

[ Page 14817 ]

In British Columbia it used to be that the college system was supposed to be open to everyone. Now people can't even get into a first-year course. That's what this government's done for education. They've forced universities to raise the entrance requirements to the roof, so that people can't get in. They've gone out and made it impossible for universities to be able to offer the breadth or the number of courses so that people can get in and register. That's what they've done to the quality of education in British Columbia.

When you go and ask students what they think about the piecemeal approach this government has to education, they'll tell you they think it stinks. It stinks because even if they're paying lower tuition fees for one year, if they have to go to school for five years for a four-year degree because they can't get into their courses, they'll end up with the same level of debt. Hello -- I know that not everyone in the NDP is schooled in basic mathematics, but that would seem to be pretty easy to figure out. That's what is happening to people in British Columbia. They are graduating later and later and later, because they can't get the courses anymore. This government says that it wants to make British Columbia the education province. Well, if this is the standard they're setting, it's not going to be very difficult for a B.C. Liberal government to beat it.

The last area I want to touch on before I finish this short speech is what happens to young people when they graduate from university. If they can finally get those courses, if they can finally find a professor that meets their needs before four or five or six years have passed, what do they do when they graduate? What is this government educating people for?

In British Columbia, when you graduate from university nowadays, it's tough to find a job. But there are lots of other jurisdictions that look at British Columbia and say: "Thanks a lot; thanks for educating those people. We'll welcome them down into our jurisdiction, where we do have jobs."

That's the crime of what this government's doing. On the one hand, they're saying: "Well, we're not going to make it easy for you to get an education. But if you do get your education, don't expect to get a job when you get out." The people that we do pay for -- the people that we invest in, the people in whom we invest not just our money but our hopes and our dreams for the future -- don't even have a prospect of staying in British Columbia to use those skills. And goodness knows, this is where most of them would like to be.

It's something they call the brain drain. And it's not just happening with students; it's happening with faculty. In British Columbia we can't even attract the kind of quality faculty that we used to, to our world-class universities, because we just can't compete. That's what this government's done to education, and it's shameful.

I'll close with this, because I want to quote somebody who certainly knows more about the education system than probably anybody in this House. He said: "There is not a lot of time left for B.C. to make its choice to either compete or to slip into a kind of provincial backwater. The universities are clear about their choice. The government must now confront the question and make a decision."

[1735]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I was going to thank the member for her comments, but maybe it would be more appropriate to thank her for her tongue-lashing.

However, I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of Bill 6, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. This is a very small bill, a very short bill, but it's one of big importance to students. I've had a lot of students in my riding tell me, and I know a lot of students have told all of us in this House, how important it is to continue the tuition freeze in British Columbia. Clearly even the opposition has heard that message, because they're voting in favour yet again -- which is a very interesting thing for this opposition to do, and I will talk a little bit about that later.

We all know, on this side of the House, that education is key in the economy. We're moving into an information-based economy, and we know that training and retraining, education of every kind, are critical for the economy. The members on the other side understand that as well. We also know that education is key and critical in the lives of our young people and of adults who are retraining and upgrading their skills to fit the new economy and the new jobs that are coming. We know that it's critical for them as well. But I think that what we on this side of the House understand, and I'm not sure the people on the other side do, is that higher education, in all its diverse forms is also critical to the growth and development of a civil society -- the kind of society where communities are strong and families are strong, built on the values of inclusion, fairness and social justice, and on horizontal rather than vertical power relationships.

We know that education is key. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll wait until the opposition stops heckling. I know they don't think this is important.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please continue, minister.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We know that education is key in a civil society; it's key to building a civil society and the kind of democracy that we want. You can't have a strong democracy without a well-educated public.

Those are the reasons that we have invested a huge amount in education in this province, and those are the reasons that we continue the tuition freeze in British Columbia. B.C. is known as the education province. This is the fifth year of the tuition freeze. We have the highest per-capita funding in Canada for tuition. We have more people attending school in B.C.; in fact, the increase in B.C. is ten times that of other provinces. The increase in the number of people attending post-secondary education of all kinds is ten times that in the rest of Canada.

[ Page 14818 ]

But do you know where we were in 1990, after a decade and a half of the ideology that sits across on the benches opposite? Do you know where we were? We had the second-highest fees in Canada; we had the second-lowest participation rate in post-secondary education. That's where we were after the people opposite, when they were called Socreds, had their free way with this province for 15 years. The second-highest fees, the second-lowest participation and no capital building -- that's where we were. Today. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Obviously the members opposite have no clue what civil society is either. They don't understand the difference between horizontal power relationships and vertical ones; all of the builders of civil society understand that. But then, of course, these are the people that laughed at volunteers every time I used to get up to speak. You know, they just don't understand that.

Anyway, hon. Speaker, what has happened is that we have gone from the second-highest fees and the second-lowest participation to the second-lowest fees and the second-highest participation, in British Columbia. We are overcoming the massive social deficit of the 1980s and the late 1970s inflicted on the people of British Columbia by the people opposite.

[1740]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The opposition, of course, is trying to pretend that it's never been around before. But, you know, in every riding across B.C. they're now running. They're showing their true colours. Old Socreds are starting to run for the office. Old Socreds are starting to show up all over the place, along with a bunch of Reformers. So we know who they are -- not kidding anybody.

The opposition criticized the fact. . . . They said: "You've got to also have accessible education." And they're right -- we do. That's what it wasn't in the 1980s when they had the reins of power. That's what it was; we had high fees, low participation, no new building. That's what happened when they were in charge, when their ideology was in charge.

We've got a couple of new universities, we've got colleges that have become university colleges, we have a province that is ahead of the rest of the country in terms of access to the Internet, we've expanded spaces dramatically, we've expanded the range of post-secondary opportunities, we're way ahead in terms of trades and technology training -- and all of it over their opposition. They would rather go on the kind of ideological craze that says, despite the fact that we have the second-lowest debt in the country and despite the fact that we have the second-highest credit rating, they're going to stop building schools.

They're going to stop building roads. They're going to stop building universities. They're going to stop expanding spaces. They're going to end the freeze. They're going to go on the same kind of ideological crusade we've seen in Alberta and Ontario. That's what they've said. They have objected all the way along to the things that we have done in British Columbia to make this the education province and to open up opportunities that clearly British Columbians are taking advantage of.

It's true that fees are not the biggest expense. It's also true -- expanded access -- that we've expanded the ability for students to get loans. We've reduced the cost of loans. We've changed the system so that women who have children can go to university. Those are a number of changes we've done. We've made it more accessible.

I've sat here and listened to the members opposite say: "This is just a band-aid; it's just a symbol; it doesn't matter." But you know what? This matters to the students of British Columbia -- middle-aged, young, older, all of them. It matters to them; it matters a lot. We've seen that every day.

Finally, the members opposite have said: "It's not enough to have all of those things -- access, low fees, decent student loan programs. That's not good enough. You also have to have a summer job, and you have to be able to earn some money to go to school." That's true too. But then that begs the question: why do they object to all our youth programs? Why would they give that money in a massive tax cut instead, to their corporate backers? Why do they object to those programs? And why do they want to drive down minimum wage and discount young people's work a further 50 cents? That's what they're committed to; that's what they're going to do. That's what they're committed to, because they've committed to the B.C. Business Summit.

So we're here today passing, for the fifth time, a Tuition Fee Freeze Act. We're passing that from this side of the House. The members opposite are going to vote for this, and I'm pleased with that. But these members opposite are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They have said very clearly that they endorse the conclusions of the B.C. Business Summit; they endorse them. And they will enact them; they have said that. Guess what that does. That is a $1.5 billion tax cut, half of which will go to the 4 percent richest people and biggest corporations in British Columbia. They have also committed to a 5 percent across-the-board cut. That means no inflation; that means no population-growth funding. It means going the other way -- a 5 percent across-the-board cut. And here's what they're committed to on tuition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Continue, minister.

[1745]

[ Page 14819 ]

J. Dalton: I have two questions for the minister, and I know he's very keenly getting ready to wrap up. I will also address these questions in his estimates if he can't respond to them now. Firstly, would the minister admit to the $54 million shortfall that the universities alone have suffered because of the failure to make up the difference with the tuition freeze?

The second question relates to accessibility. There's another A-word, and it's called availability. I know the Minister of Finance will back me up on this, because in his days at New Caledonia he saw firsthand that students could not get the courses they wanted, and I've seen it at Langara over the years. My daughter and her friends certainly see it at Capilano College right now.

Will the minister be prepared to address the other A-word -- forget the accessibility and address the availability, the appropriateness of courses, which very often forces students to take a two-year degree or diploma in three years perhaps or maybe four? Of course, as my colleague from Chilliwack pointed out earlier, this economy is in such a downfall that the students can't even afford the tuition that this government has so kindly frozen for five years. Those are my two questions, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and Minister Responsible for Youth to close debate.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: First of all, I've listened intently to the remarks of all members of the House, including members of the opposition. There are matters raised by the opposition which I will be delighted to address during the estimates process. Today we're addressing the Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

It occurs to me that during the debate, certainly while listening to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. . . . I should say by way of background that that member and I are almost exactly the same age and went to Simon Fraser University at the same time. I suspect that people who read the Hansard of this debate or who have followed it at all, listening to that member. . . . Essentially one might conclude that the sky was falling, if they listened too carefully. And on this side there's a minister saying that British Columbia has done extraordinarily well in post-secondary education this decade. In spite of the fact that we have an outstanding post-secondary education system in British Columbia, they'd have to look at those two divergent views and wonder if the system apparently didn't serve one of us very well.

A few things. The Opposition House Leader rose this afternoon to say that we could pass this bill in one day. He certainly made it appear that opposition support for the tuition fee freeze is routine, and certainly the opposition has voted for this legislation before. But I would argue that opposition support for the freeze isn't routine for these reasons. The Liberal opposition has failed to make a clear commitment to the freeze. A vote in this House unfortunately does not clarify the issue for the 190,000 students in this province who benefit from the freeze. This is why, first, if we want to look for evidence of Liberal commitment to this freeze, we have to look at two things.

The "New Era" document that the Liberal opposition is promoting around this province unfortunately doesn't have one single mention of post-secondary education in it. One would have thought that after the debacle of the 1996 campaign, when the Liberal opposition produced a document that didn't even fund post-secondary education, they might pay a little more attention to this vital issue. But they haven't in that document.

[1750]

Finally, there is the B.C. Liberal web site where they post their policies passed at conventions. I have taken a look at that document on the web site, and it allows that tuition. . . . It says: "Tuition increases will be the last resort." There is no clear commitment to maintaining a freeze.

Hon. Speaker, this opposition commits to having the lowest taxes in Canada. It commits to having no deficit, it commits to paying down the debt, and it's increasing spending in vital areas that British Columbians want, like health care and education. I would submit that that is entirely unrealistic.

Ralph Klein hasn't managed to do that. Mike Harris hasn't managed to do that in Ontario. Indeed, in those provinces, what they've done -- where they've decided to cut taxes and balance the budget, which they haven't done in Ontario yet. . . . They haven't managed to increase spending until maybe this year.

This opposition is asking us and students in this province to believe that the Leader of the Opposition can do what Mike Harris can't and what Ralph Klein can't. So the fact is that they're left without a clear commitment. In the case of Ralph Klein and Mike Harris, one of the first things they did was raise tuition fees.

The Liberals say that raising tuition fees is a last resort; that's what their policy states -- last resort. I submit that it's more likely that the raising of tuition fees would be the first order of business if this Liberal opposition came to power in this province. Students have to be clear on that, until they make it clear in their policy platforms exactly what their position is.

Hon. Speaker, I now have the honour of moving second reading of the Tuition Fee Freeze Act.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please. The question is second reading on Bill 6.

[1755]

[ Page 14820 ]

The Speaker: Is leave granted, members?

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Tuition Fee Freeze Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

TUITION FEE FREEZE ACT

[1800]

Title approved.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Tuition Fee Freeze Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

THE PRIORITIES OF HEALTH CARE

I would like to draw particular focus to the special problems experienced in remote and rural communities in British Columbia. I would also like to put forward what I see as some of the priorities of health care in British Columbia. I am pleased that this year's budget shows an increase in health care spending for the ninth straight year, by $549 million -- an increase of 7.1 percent over last year, I might add. But there are still challenges that need to be met.

There has been a recognition of inequities in health status among the people of British Columbia, and I would like to see us improve the responsiveness of the health care system. There are a number of groups that are directly impacted by these inequities -- rural and remote communities, aboriginal peoples, women, our aging population, special needs and the mentally ill. While I would like to speak to all of these issues, I'll only mention just a few.

There is no avoiding the reality that health needs in our rural and remote communities are not being met to the same degree as they are in the southern urban parts of the province. At the heart of recommendations made in a plan that was titled "Enhancing Health Services in Remote and Rural Communities of British Columbia", there was a recognition that each region and each community in the province has its own special needs. I look forward to seeing that many of the recommendations and solutions that come out of the plan actually come to fruition in my constituency of Kootenay.

Improved women's health also is an issue, hon. Speaker; it's a very important concern. Last week this Legislature declared and proclaimed April Cancer Awareness Month. In working to alleviate the devastating effects of cancer on women, this government has committed $9 million for Canada's most extensive mammography screening program. Last spring in my constituency, Cranbrook Regional Hospital received $205,108 to replace a mammography unit. At that time I was really pleased to let women and families know that breast cancer prevention remains a priority for me.

[1805]

Another priority that I would like to stress is working towards relieving some of the pressures on our hospitals, the heart of our health care system. This is an important measure for all British Columbians. One of the major challenges in my constituency has been staffing of health care professionals. While there are many advantages to rural practice, including greater professional opportunities, personal safety, a strong sense of community and opportunities for community involvement and/or leadership, there are still difficulties in recruiting and retaining physicians, nurses and other health care providers.

Finally, I would like to address what I see as the most significant issue facing health care, and that is its future -- to ensure the protection and the improvement of universal health care throughout British Columbia. To do this, we must encourage innovation throughout the province when it comes to those solutions that we are all seeking and striving for.

Beyond innovations and modernization comes the recognition that cutbacks to Ottawa's support for health care to this province have put added stress on the system from coast to coast -- not just our province. The federal government's contribution in fact has fallen from 50 cents to 15 cents on every health care dollar that we receive. No province, including British Columbia, can hold up to 85 percent of the sky and still sustain universal health care over any long haul.

I don't want to see this province follow the example that's being set in other provinces, where experiments are in fact now, today, being launched that could easily start Canada down the road to an American-style, for-profit medicine. In fact, in previous speeches I have stood before this House and told you of how Cranbrook Regional Hospital in the past has birthed many American babies. Many women come to the hospitals in Canada because of the cost of having their babies

[ Page 14821 ]

I live next door to a province -- the province of Alberta -- where there has been a lot of interest in private health care. Premier Ralph Klein has said that there is no question that they are paving the road for private for-profit health care facilities. We in this province cannot allow this to happen in British Columbia. We must find ways that we can in fact protect universal health care to the most vulnerable in this province. A two-tiered care system has no winners. We must ensure that affordable, sustainable and equitable health care is there for everyone.

I welcome the comments from the opposition. I know that some of the values and the priorities that I've talked about here right now -- that I've outlined -- are important to all British Columbians, regardless of any party affiliation.

The Speaker: In response, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: Hon. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments about priorities in health care. I just want to give a different perspective on some of these.

The minister talked about the increase in the Health budget for the ninth straight year and talks about $454 million more in health care spending. In fact, if she looks at the numbers in the budget, it's actually an increase of $333 million over last year's spending, and that is not even the amount that has been transferred from the federal government.

[1810]

The member talked about women's health. She talks specifically about the mammography program, which I was quite surprised at, because if you go back and look at last year's budget, there was a commitment made in last year's budget for a specific number of mammographies and an increase in the number of mammographies in British Columbia, and in fact that hasn't happened. The B.C. Cancer Agency will tell you that British Columbia has not even come close to delivering the number of mammographies that this government committed to a year ago.

We look at aboriginal health, and I truly share her concern. It is an aspect of health care that I think we have to do much better at, because if you look at the patient outcomes, they're truly sad in a modern, industrialized country like Canada. We have to do a better job.

The member talked about pressures on hospitals. Here what we see as one of the biggest pressures on hospitals is the lack of community care beds in this province. We need about 4,000 new beds in British Columbia today. In the last five years we have seen about 500 beds opened. Even today we see a court judgment coming down regarding Glacier View Lodge. It says in the court judgment -- it pleads to repeal the compulsory expropriation provisions in the Health Authorities Act so that we can once again get the not-for-profit sector energized in this field of building community care beds. That is one of the most important things that this government can do to take pressures off our hospitals.

She talks about the training requirements. You know, the shortage of nurses that we have in British Columbia today was predicted three and a half years ago, and nothing was done until we got into a crisis. It's not just the nurses; we're talking about all of the health care professions that we are going to be in short supply of. Quite frankly, the problem is going to get worse before it gets better, because this was not dealt with years ago when government had the opportunity to deal with it in a timely fashion.

She also talks about the future of health care. She criticizes the cutbacks from the federal government. I have made those same kinds of criticisms myself. But I thought it interesting that the member probably hasn't read today's edition of the National Post, where the Premier is actually quoted as saying that it doesn't make sense addressing the funding issue from Ottawa until there is some long-term planning in place. That is one of the problems that we have today in British Columbia: we don't have long-term planning for health care. As a result, we have these knee-jerk reactions. We have short-term plans, and the problems get worse instead of better.

What I would like to suggest is that when it comes to the future of health care, British Columbia should be leading by example. We can help set national standards for health care. We can have a constructive contribution to make in terms of the national debate on the future of health care. We can do it by leading by example in this province instead of looking eastward for our answers.

She also makes reference to the cost of surgeries and the number of patients in the U.S. that come to Canada for surgery. I actually reviewed some of those speeches by the minister. I was astounded when she talked about the cost of hip and knee replacements in the U.S. being $12,000, compared to British Columbia's cost of less than $1,000 or in that neighbourhood. Quite frankly, she was in error, in that her research wasn't accurate. She was looking at one very small aspect of how the Canadian Medical Services Plan costs those procedures.

But I think it's most important, when it comes to restoring confidence in health care, that we cannot look to the private sector as the panacea for the future of health care in British Columbia. The private sector is not going to solve our health care problems. There may be a role for them to play in the future, just as there has been in the past. But the future of health care and the solutions to the problems in health care will come by restoring public confidence in a public health care system. That is what we stand for, and that is what I hope the government members will stand for, in terms of delivering a long-term solution and long-term strategies for health care.

[1815]

E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, I recognize that we do have a long way to go, not just in my constituency but in the province as a whole. I am committed to working with key stakeholders

[ Page 14822 ]

Anyway, to go on further, I would like to take this opportunity at this time to thank the health care workers and the health care providers of Kootenay. I would especially like to thank those workers of HEU, CUPE, HSA, BCNU, BCGEU and the non-union workers in the health care field. These workers work every day, ensuring that every one of our families, our neighbours, ourselves and the people who mean everything to us are taken care of.

There are a number of priorities and values with respect to health care that I would like to reiterate. The Ministry of Health has identified and recognized the need to maintain and improve the health of all British Columbians. This isn't to say that our current health system is not, as I've said, without challenges.

Health needs in our rural and remote areas are not being met to the same degree as they are in southern urban centres. I encourage this government to recognize the uniqueness of each region and each community of this province. Together we can minimize the effects of inequity by establishing a coordinated system to address those needs that affect most remote and rural communities as well as individuals and families throughout the province. These efforts should set the tone for more cooperative and sustainable health that benefits all British Columbians, whether they're from Elkford or Telegraph Creek.

We can continue to talk and to debate this issue, but it is really about the funding restoration of federal dollars to this province's health system. Our commitment to universal health care is resolute. We just cannot, we must not and we will not accept any American-style for-profit health care in this province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: I recognize, for the second private members' statement, the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

DO IT FOR DAD

Hon. Speaker, my father died when I was two years old. At seven, I was very lucky to have flight lieutenant Doug Cook take on the job of trying to raise me. He may not have been my genetic dad, but he was the one and only that I think about when Father's Day comes. He cared for me as if I was his own and gave me wisdom and support at all the critical times in my life. From him I learned that behaving like a real dad was a lot more than just bearing the title. Thirteen years ago -- just before my son was born -- Doug died. I always regret that they never met.

Like many of our fathers and sons, Doug died prematurely of prostate cancer. I think of him on Father's Day, because after all this time, prostate cancer still remains largely a silent killer. Breast cancer has many advocates these days, but prostate cancer is seldom in the news. Why is that? Men are much less open to discussing medical conditions, especially those that involve any element of male sexuality. The prostate is the male gland that produces the fluid part of seminal fluid. Even with trusted friends and family, men are reluctant to discuss a cancer that may harm their masculinity. I've interviewed male patients with prostate cancer who are unsure of what the disease is, are unwilling to talk about it and prefer not to be totally informed. Their behaviour is solely motivated by fear.

[1820]

Disorders of the prostate are screened by rectal examination, and the Canadian Medical Association recommends yearly examinations for all men 45 years and older. If abnormalities are found, further testing may be required. Radiation and/or possibly surgery follow when cancer is confirmed. Some men die prematurely due to prostate cancer.

But it is the morbidity of the disease and its treatment that has led to so much silence in those men that are afflicted. Surgical removal of the prostate gland can lead to urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. In addition, hormone treatments used to combat the disease often leave men with enlarged breast tissue and additional sexual dysfunction. Humiliated by the cure, many men prefer the silence above open discussion of a cancer that challenges their self-esteem and masculinity.

Are there solutions to this conundrum? You bet there are. For starters, we need more education and public awareness about prostate cancer. We need more research; Jimmy Pattison recognized that fact when he recently donated $20 million to Vancouver General Hospital for just that reason.

More access to prostate-specific antigen testing should be available; the Canadian Urological Society and the B.C. Urological Society agree. PSA testing is indicated when prostate cancer is suspected clinically or when the diagnosis of prostate cancer would alter the patient's care. This simple blood test is available in B.C. at a cost of about $20 for screening.

But in B.C., PSA testing will only be paid for by the MSP, the Medical Services Plan, if you already have prostate cancer. Despite the fact that we know that men between 40 and 70 years of age are at increased risk for prostate cancer when they have a brother or a father with the disease, we do not offer them the test free of charge.

This is in a province where, at the same time, women with similar risk factors can now have a screening mammogram paid for by MSP, even though that test is approximately four times the cost and less specific for breast cancer detection. Just as breast cancer dollars are raised for research, so too should society consider prostate cancer a worthy cause to invest in. If the government will not provide for testing our men, what can we do for ourselves?

The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, I really want to commend the member for raising this issue in the House, because as she

[ Page 14823 ]

The member is correct: there needs to be more information and more discussion about this issue in the broader public. I've been very pleased since I've been elected. . . . Actually, just after I got elected in 1997, I became involved with the Vancouver Island Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and the group that works with them. At that point there was a number of different things that were going on in the greater Victoria area around trying to get a new cancer centre built. I worked with those folks. We were able to get it underway and under construction. It will be completed this fall and actually up and operating early in the year 2001.

I think it was really a tribute to that group -- the Vancouver Island prostate cancer research group in Victoria -- for the work that they've done, during and after the process, to get the cancer centre up and running.

I'd like to make special mention of a few people. There's so many people in the group, but a few people I'd like to mention. Ken and Jan Willoughby have done tremendous work in leadership, in talking about prostate cancer and convening monthly meetings, where I have the opportunity to attend every second or third month. I talk to between 200 and 300 men who have prostate cancer, coming together in this support group to talk to each other, to support each other, to talk about different types of treatment that are available. It really is a coming together of a number of people in the community on this issue.

[1825]

I agree with the member. While the jury is still out somewhat on the accuracy of the testing, I think it is wholly appropriate to move. If we can get earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer, I think it is an appropriate thing to do. I've certainly been talking to my colleagues in government about that issue. It's very important, and if we can get early diagnosis, we can get the treatment that's needed and not have to put men through a very difficult series of circumstances and difficult choices -- choices of whether to have radical surgery, whether to take hormone treatment or engage in radiation. Those are all very tough choices for men who find themselves with prostate cancer.

My colleague the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca has a constituent who is also active in the Victoria area. We all thought Juan de Fuca was a little ways away from Victoria, but he's very active. He's part of that support group as well. His name is Milt Schop. He volunteers with the Vancouver Island Prostate Cancer Research Foundation and the group that meets monthly. He assists them and does a tremendous job, along with hundreds of people from the community.

The member is correct -- we have a lot more to do on this issue. There is a lot of work being done. The member, in her initial remarks, talked about a friend of hers who meant a great deal to her and who passed away with this disease. Both my father and my stepfather. . . . My mother remarried when I was well into my adulthood. Both of those members of my family have prostate cancer. I know firsthand the difficulties that surround that illness.

In closing, I'd just like to say that I think this is a very important issue. It's a credit to the House that this member has brought it forward to have this discussion. I think it's wholly appropriate, and I think that we need to talk more and more about these kinds of issues in public. Men need to know that there are things available for them, in terms of treatment, other than what they simply suspect may happen to them. There are lots of options that need to be considered, and the only way to get that information to men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer is through an education process and through a support mechanism. It's through people in this House and across the province engaging in discussion and debate on this issue.

A. Sanders: I belong to a group of women who feel that we owe it to our sons and fathers to raise dollars for prostate cancer research and screening. This side of the House has lobbied the government to provide PSA testing as a screening mechanism to men in British Columbia. To this point, we have been unsuccessful.

As MLA for Okanagan-Vernon, I may not be able to provide PSA testing for all of our men, but I can provide PSA testing for those in my riding. On June 18, which is Father's Day -- appropriately, I suspect -- Vernon will host its first Do It for Dad event. As the member has mentioned, the Willoughbys have been very helpful to me in getting this event off the ground. I appreciate their time and energy and their information.

At the historic Coldstream Ranch we will be having an event where, through pledges and sponsorship, we will raise funds. Those funds will be earmarked to provide free PSA testing for men aged 40 to 70 at risk in my riding. The free PSA clinic will be held during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month in September, and I look forward to hosting this event. Any of those MLAs who can't get their PSA test can come to Vernon, and we'll provide it for you free of charge.

I dedicate my involvement in this run to Douglas Cook. I thank him for loving me, and I thank him for teaching me the importance of this issue for all of our sons and fathers.

[1830]

RURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA

I come from an area where people have a slightly different attitude towards the way the province works than the

[ Page 14824 ]

I'd like to spend some time just basically talking about the demographics of this province. The population growth trends for the past 30 years have created a situation where over three-quarters of British Columbians live in the urban areas of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

Until 1985, our provincial population growth was evenly distributed between urban and rural areas. Yet beginning in 1985, rural population growth levelled off, while our urban centres continued growing with migrants from other provinces and from abroad. Rural population change at that time was typically migration within the province that followed the economic cycles of our resource industries.

However, this is changing. Since 1991, many rural areas -- the Okanagan and mid-Island in particular -- have grown faster than our urban areas. Yet for most of the rural areas, especially the area where I live in the north, this has not been the case.

Between 1991 and 1996 the largest population growth for rural and small towns in Canada was in British Columbia. Our rural growth of 12.8 percent in those years compares to 7.8 percent in Alberta, 4.7 percent in Ontario, a loss of 2 percent in Saskatchewan and 5.1 percent in Newfoundland. This trend has levelled off somewhat in the part of the world that I live in, with a growth rate of 3.4 percent from 1996 to last year.

People choose the rural lifestyle over urban amenities many times and are seeking ways to exert more influence on the quality of life in our communities. The rural economy has shown strength in the last year. The economic mainstay of my riding and most ridings in rural British Columbia, of course, is the forest industry. The U.S. housing market and rising lumber and pulp prices have helped the forestry sector across B.C. this last year, earning $600 million for our publicly traded forest companies.

Rural British Columbians also benefited from strong oil and gas development, particularly -- obviously -- in the northeast. Crown drilling rights in that region almost doubled last year, and the value of natural gas production rose by 24 percent.

Agriculture continues to be a bigger part of the economy than most people give it credit for. Agriculture is three times the size of the oil and gas sector in terms of employment and is the only primary industry that has created jobs at the same pace as population growth over the last 20 years. The agricultural industry has surpassed the mining sector as the third most important sector in our province. This is something that we're seeing continue as the years go by.

[1835]

First nations communities are contributing more and more to the economy each and every year and are becoming bigger players as they become more involved with the question of asserting their rights in this province. As community capacity is enhanced, we will witness the complete transformation of life in first nations communities. I believe first nations are a major component of the new economy that's coming our way, especially in the area of tourism and ecotourism.

In closing, I'd like to encourage the people who live in urban British Columbia to take a closer look at life in our part of the world and to take the time to try to better understand the challenges and opportunities that we face in our part of the world.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Boundary.

B. Barisoff: As a rural member who comes from a riding that has 15 different communities -- and not one of them has a population of over 5,000 -- I think I fairly represent the concept of coming from the rural area.

When you look at the problems that people have in rural areas. . . . In my travels throughout British Columbia I've found, as Agriculture critic, that -- whether it's in the Peace River, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the Okanagan or the northern part of Vancouver Island -- we all seem to be faced with the same kinds of problems. We have a lot more difficulty with our health care. We don't seem to have the benefit of what takes place in the urban areas. As the member opposite has indicated -- the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- the bulk of the population is focused in the lower mainland and the Vancouver area. But when you look at it, where do most of the resources come from? Where is the forest industry focused on? The gas industry comes from the Peace River, the forest industry from central and the rest of British Columbia. But we still have a difficult time getting people to realize that our health care problems and our education problems are greater than what they have in the lower mainland.

I think that what the member opposite and the government and the opposition. . . . It seems that we have to come together when we look at these kinds of things, because the focus has to be that if the resources are coming from the rural part of British Columbia, maybe some of the resources and money have to go back into these areas. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine indicated that he's seen a decline in population growth in his area. I happen to be a little bit more fortunate in the South Okanagan, where the population growth isn't declining as much. But you're seeing it all over rural British Columbia, simply because we extract the resources from the rest of the province, and then we focus the energy, it seems, on the lower mainland.

So I think there's a real frustration in rural British Columbia. Yes, the tourists come. They leave their few dollars or whatever. But we need the focus for the young people, for jobs to come back, for the amenities to come back into these areas

[ Page 14825 ]

It's not criticizing them, but it's from a point of view that many people feel very strongly that the young people are leaving. They're leaving for the high-paid jobs, or whatever, in the cities. When we focus our attention on these areas, we find that everything starts to deteriorate. We saw it last year, when we saw what happened with the rural hospital situation in central British Columbia. We've seen what happened in the Peace River, where a lot of people were going over to Edmonton. We see it happening in the Kootenays, where people are going to the Alberta side. We see it all over rural B.C., and yet we don't seem to be able to get the attention.

[1840]

I think one of the key points that brought it to a head for me was when the Electoral Boundaries Commission went around the province of British Columbia. What they chose to do, rather than dividing up the seats in the House by the areas that they should come from, in rural B.C. . . . We found that they'd focused their attention on the populations. In the lower mainland MLAs can walk around their ridings, probably, in a couple of hours. My riding is 250 kilometres from one side to the other. Actually, it's probably nothing, compared to Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Peace River North or Peace River South, where they actually have to take an airplane to go to different places. But what did they do? They focused their attention on putting more ridings into the lower mainland, more ridings into the area that was highly populated already. If I can leave the people of British Columbia with anything, it's that they've got to remember where the resources come from, where the people are focused on.

I sat for many years on the school district. . . . They were going to take the taxation part of it and say: "You tax in your own local area." Well, the MacMillan Bloedel building would not be built in Vancouver if it weren't for the trees in the rest of British Columbia. You don't see a lot of logging that takes place around Vancouver.

I see the red light's on, and I'd like to listen to the end of the comments from the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine.

The Speaker: For reply, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine.

B. Goodacre: When the member referred to the Electoral Boundaries Commission -- just noticing the member for Peace River North -- I was thinking about what they did to our respective ridings. They hived off 17,000 square kilometres of Bulkley Valley-Stikine and put it in Peace River North, but not one single human being was living in those 17,000 square kilometres. That probably underscores a lot of the issues that we do face.

I am also glad that the member brought up the issue of the allocation of moneys coming from resources extracted in rural British Columbia. We just witnessed the establishment of a Fair Share agreement in the northeast to deal with revenue-sharing of oil and gas. In my area in particular, which is a forestry-dependent area, the calls from local municipalities to have a similar type of arrangement for forestry revenues are certainly coming about. I think it's something that we've got to recognize. The idea that rural British Columbia was some kind of hinterland, where people just lived and worked and then moved somewhere else, is no longer a reasonable stereotype to use. People come to our communities; they make their homes. . . .

One community in my riding by the name of Houston has two large sawmills. For years they had really high turnover in those sawmills. But today you can find many, many families that have worked in that mill for 12 years or more. It's becoming more the norm that people choose the rural lifestyle as the place that they want to live. It's something that we're finding with keeping professionals -- for example, doctors -- working in rural areas. It tends to be the reason that we are able to keep most of them around for a long time. It's because of the lifestyle; they like the rural lifestyle.

[1845]

I think the other thing that, hopefully, we're going to be doing better in the near future is getting people living in the Big Smoke down here to understand who we are a little better and to take us a little more seriously.

The Speaker: For the final private member's statement, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

POLICING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Policing in British Columbia is reaching a crossroads. Over the past number of years we've had a number of reports and studies done relative to policing. One of them was the Oppal commission, which made a number of recommendations relative to policing in this province.

As I've travelled this province, communities have actually told me -- many members of councils and what have you -- that they're concerned about their perceived lack of control over policing within their communities. They want more input. They want to be able to have some input into the operations and the priorities of policing within their communities. Actually, we must remember that most of these communities pay the majority of the costs relative to policing in their communities. But it is oftentimes decisions made 3,000 or 4,000 miles away in Ottawa that are actually directing the policies that affect the policing in our communities. This is of a great deal of concern to many communities in British Columbia, because the majority of policing in British Columbia is done by the RCMP.

The Oppal commission made a number of recommendations. A number of them centred around the reasons and how

[ Page 14826 ]

The first point was recruitment. One of the concerns in all of the studies that have been done is that recruitment in a police force should be reflective of the policing that's required in a society -- our crime prevention needs and our population. What the future will bring is the need for a more flexible police force, a police force that recognizes what needs to be done in a community. It is incumbent on all of our police forces -- including the RCMP, which does most of our policing -- to recognize this.

The frustration exists in areas such as Surrey. Surrey's is effectively a major metropolitan police force, but the community has no input into the selection of the person who would come in and be the chief superintendent or deputy commissioner that would run that operation. Yet they're paying 90-cent dollars to operate that police force. And they feel that they're entitled to have input into the selection of the people who will make those decisions to run that organization.

Recruit training must continue to reach the highest of standards. In fact, the RCMP depot -- which is of concern to me, because I spent eight years in the RCMP -- has now become more like a college, where trainees actually pay to go, rather than join the RCMP and be paid as a member of the force for their training. That's a concern to us in British Columbia, because every major police force in Canada today has a headhunting team looking for the best of the best. What's happening in depot today is that the best ones are being taken as they come out of training. They're not coming to British Columbia to be in our policing; they're actually ending up in other police forces across the country.

Professional development. The RCMP used to, internally -- when the budget was there -- have a program of professional development for its members. The members on the street tell me that their morale is very low today, and their professional development is very poor. It used to be that you would take a junior constable's course; then you would take a breathalyzer course; then you would be trained in drug enforcement; and then you would take a senior investigator's course -- all part of your ongoing personal development -- in the first three to five to seven years of your membership in the RCMP. That's not happening today. What happens as a result is that people do not feel like they're getting the opportunity for personal growth within the organization, and they look elsewhere. They're usually the ones we want to keep, who have the initiative to look elsewhere. So we need to keep on top of that.

[1850]

Private policing will be an issue for all of us in the years to come. As our society finds itself being more and more drained down on the tax dollar and the cost of policing goes up, we're going to see more and more of what today we know as security organizations. We are going to have to be cognizant of the fact that we are going to need the licensing, information and policing of that to make sure that those organizations operate in a professional manner and do not step out of the bounds of normal policing.

We have to set enforcement priorities that don't say that we're going to do corridor patrol in some area of the province, so that members can get extra overtime, or photo radar, where we take 100 qualified policemen out of a police force and put them in vans. What we need to do is focus on serious crime, crime prevention and technology such as Viclass and DNA, versus photo radar and that type of thing.

Policing operations are going to have to be cost-effective. They're going to have to be accountable to you and accountable to society. There have to be ethical standards for police members across the board. One of the frustrations you will hear out there is that we have gone to the work in this Legislature of coming up with a police complaint commissioner and a police complaints system, but the majority of police in the province do not have to participate in that, because they're in a federal force governed by a separate act. That is not good. All police in this province should be held to the same high standard of behaviour and to the same high standard of investigation. Whether it be at the provincial level or the federal level, that has to be standardized. The investigation and adjudication of allegations of misconduct must be handled in the same format.

The public have the right to believe that we have transparency in policing -- transparency in the way we will deal with police forces and their members -- and that we will provide them in the future with the professional development, the organization and the priorities that make sense to deal with the crime in this country, and not the wrong agendas. That will be very critical to policing, and I hope the organizations such as the RCMP and municipal forces are prepared to make the adjustments and changes so that they will be able to do this in the future.

The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for North Island.

G. Robertson: I would like to begin by thanking the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for his comments on policing in British Columbia and his concern for the safety of British Columbians and indeed a better police force in this province. We on this side of the House are also concerned about safety in this province, and we also understand that the police are not alone in their attempts to ensure safe communities throughout our province. Terry Blythe, Vancouver's chief of police, says: "It is imperative to build strong partnerships between the police and the community. This teamwork directly results in a reduction of crime and an increased feeling of safety and well-being within the community."

The Ministry of Attorney General's safe communities strategy aids police in British Columbia by encouraging and supporting crime-prevention activities of individuals and communities throughout our province. There are a variety of programs undertaken every day to do this. This includes an increased number of police officers on the streets and funding community policing projects such as storefront police officers and police bicycle patrols to help police stay visible and accessible throughout the community. It includes a guide, "Be

[ Page 14827 ]

For example, Nights Alive is a Ministry of Attorney General youth crime prevention program that gives youth the tools and skills they need to respond to the challenges of life. Under the guidance of police and community members, youth organize music, sports, arts and other events and have opportunities for training in areas like conflict resolution, peer mediation and life skills. Since it began in the spring of 1997, more than 10,000 youth in 53 British Columbia communities have created and are participating in their own after-hours recreational activities as part of the Nights Alive program.

[1855]

The ministry also supports a community accountability program, which I think is a really good program. This program makes low-risk offenders accountable for their crimes and responsible to their community. As a result, the offenders benefit, the community benefits and the traditional court system benefits, because it is able to focus their vital resources on high-risk offenders.

The ministry also funds programs to help police and individuals in smaller communities. For example, there is now access to a 24-hour justice of the peace to ensure that police have timely and efficient access to justices of the peace for search-and-arrest warrants and other legal documents.

I could go on; I've got about two more pages of programs that we have within our province that work with communities and police together. I think they're really benefiting a lot of our communities and their justice operations in this province. As I said, this is basically a brief snapshot of some of the programs that we have undertaken in this province to ensure safer communities. These programs, along with our existing police and auxiliaries, work to make our communities a lot safer.

Again, I thank those who are involved in ensuring safe communities in British Columbia and the member opposite for raising his good points.

The Speaker: For a reply, the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, an apology to my colleague from Langley, who is also the Women's Equality critic. I used the term "policeman." I should have said policewoman, police officer. Policeman -- to me, it's generic. They're all professionals, and I hold them all in the highest regard.

The previous speaker mentioned the auxiliaries in British Columbia. I can tell you that one of the things that strengthens policing in our communities is the use of volunteers -- volunteers in our community policing offices and volunteers that can back up the resources of normal policing.

One of the difficulties is that most people don't realize the high risk of a man in a car by himself -- or a woman -- in a community out in a rural area. . .

Interjection.

R. Coleman: . . . where there's no backup in a difficult situation.

I really have difficulty with that, don't I?

I know what it's like, because I was in that situation many times. I believe -- I firmly believe in my heart -- that the mistake they made to disarm our auxiliaries and basically to shut down a very important program within our communities was shameful. I believe that we made a huge mistake. It will take a long time to repair the damage to our communities as we try to reinstate the idea that participation in policing and in the security of our communities is something to be looked up to.

We should never demean those volunteers. They had worked hard and had done the training. I believe that properly trained auxiliaries, in the right circumstances, can be a huge asset to a police officer who is on patrol. We should not forget that, and I believe that we should move forward at some point in time to reinstate a program where we can bring that relationship back into policing in British Columbia. To me, it was another example of Ottawa and perhaps the province not really understanding what goes on, on the ground, for the men and women that serve our communities in a very dangerous job. That was the mistake, because people who are not on the ground shouldn't be making the decisions that affect those people's daily lives. It should be those people who make those decisions.

[1900]

The Speaker: Thank you members.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'd like to congratulate all of the members for their excellent statements. And with that, I'd like to move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. Kwan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada