2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2001
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 7
[ Page 17423 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Joining us in the House today is a long-time friend of mine, Ravi Hira, with his two young sons, Ryan and Robin. They're here to see adults in action in the House. I'm asking the House to please make them welcome.
C. Clark: I've two constituents visiting us today. Harry Warren is visiting us from Coquitlam. John Seney, who lives up the hill from me in Port Moody, is also visiting us. So I hope the House will make them welcome.
[1410]
G. Mann Brewin: In the gallery today are four wonderful political activists, who have been doing political work for a very long time both in this province and elsewhere. But right now they're from greater Victoria. They are Bessie Ellis, Joseph Meade, Betty Muller and her husband, Warren Muller. Would the House please make them all welcome.
L. Reid: In the precinct today is someone who has provided enormous support to me over the past 12 months, and that is the person who operates as the nanny to my little girl. So I would like the House to please make very welcome Rheta Steer.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to make several introductions today. First I'd like to welcome representatives of the B.C. Opportunities Youth Tour, who are here today having lunch with myself and my colleague the Minister of Education -- talking with them about the work they've done in outreach to parents and students across the province on what the career choices and opportunities are for young people in the future. Joining us here today are Tomas Ernst from Victoria, who's a co-op student from SFU and has almost finished his degree in commerce; Elsie Kipp from Hope, who is working on her degree in journalism from Mount Allison in Calgary; Sikee Liu from Vancouver, with a science degree from SFU; Eric Kerr from Victoria, who has a BA in philosophy from UVic and plans to teach English in Japan this summer and attend law school in the fall; Candice McIntyre from Victoria, a UVic student who plans to join the RCMP; and Jordan Watters from Sidney, who's just begun his post-secondary education at Camosun College. Would the House please make these very talented young people welcome.
L. Stephens: Visiting in the precincts today are 52 grade 11 and 12 students. Half of those students are from Langley, and the other half are from a Quebec City high school. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Roukema and three adults. They're here to learn about government legislative procedure and history. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: Like the member from Victoria, I have the honour to introduce two young aspiring social activists. They're a little younger. They are the daughters of my ministerial assistant: Jennifer Koide, age 8, and Emily Koide, age 7. They're here with their grandmother. Would the House please make them welcome.
C. Hansen: I'd like to introduce a very important constituent from Vancouver-Quilchena. His name is John Clark. He's a grade 4 student, and he's using part of his spring break to come over and see how the Legislature is working. I'm also delighted that John brought along with him his mother, who is Vancouver city councillor Jennifer Clark. Make them both welcome.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure today to introduce a very important committee and the members of that committee. They are the child care advocate committee to my ministry, and they're over here for news about child care, which we shall be talking about later on. In the House today with us are Necole Anderson, who is a founding member of Parents for Child Care; Maryann Bird, who is currently a social policy and child care policy issues advocate for national-provincial organizations; Sheila Davidson, chair of the Provincial Child Care Council and the executive director of the SFU Child Care Society; Sharon Gregson, who is a founding member of Parents for Child Care; Susan Harney, an owner-operator of Country Grove Children's Centre in Langley; Kaela Jubas, executive director of the B.C. Association of Child Care Services; Diane Liscumb, longtime director of the Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral Program and now the executive director of Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre; Linda MacDonnel, the president of the Early Childhood Educators of B.C.; and Christine MacLeod, a family child care provider and past chair of the Western Canada Family Child Care Association.
[1415]
Also with us are Karen Norman, who is the chair of the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre; Marg Rodrigues, who is a family child care provider in Delta and the current chair of the member council of the Canadian Child Care Federation; and Astrid Visscher, the director of the Spare Time School Age Program, parent of four children. She is active in and trained in Montessori and is well known for her activities and efforts around school-based child care. Would the House please make these hardworking advocates for child care in British Columbia most welcome.
B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to welcome from my riding Vicki Pedersen and her daughter Laura. They're here while Laura is on spring break. Laura goes to Semiahmoo high school, and one day she would like to be a writer. I give her all the encouragement in the world. I tried to talk her into coming into politics, because we need more women. But she said no. I ask the House to make them welcome.
Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you for recognizing me again, hon. Speaker. I have another set of visitors I'd like to introduce that are in the gallery today. The B.C. Teachers Federation has been hosting its annual general meeting here in Victoria -- an unusual event, because it's normally held in Vancouver. But this year, because of the World Figure Skating Championships, they moved their convention to Victoria. So we've had a number of friends visiting the Legislature -- a chance over spring break to watch the proceedings of the House. I'd like to introduce the teachers here: Valerie Windsor, Jean Fraser, Phillip Milligan, Sukhy Dhillon, Jessie Dhillon and Michael Bal. Would the House please make them welcome.
I. Chong: Today I'd like to introduce to the House some constituents of mine. Visiting the House today are Mr. Michael
[ Page 17424 ]
Easton and his wife Melanie, accompanied by their four children, Brendon, Elya, Shaylynn and Rachelle. Would the House please make them welcome.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure to introduce today two people visiting from Chilliwack. Warren and Cathy Hultman are here attending the BCTF conference this week in Victoria. I had an opportunity to speak with them earlier, and it's my pleasure to ask the House to please make them welcome here.
Hon. H. Giesbrecht: I'd like the House to recognize a couple of members of my staff. Visiting us in the gallery are Maurine Karagianis, who is also a councillor from the city of Esquimalt, and Navin Madhopuri. That gives me a chance to say thank you to them for all their work. Thank you.
M. Coell: I have four students that I'm pleased to introduce to the House today. They're taking political science at Camosun: Adam Olsen, Jason Masai, Tiffany Cowell and Trevor Allen. Also in the House today we have Cyril Shelford, a former MLA. Would the House please make them all welcome.
The Speaker: Thank you, members, and if I may, I see a constituent of mine, a teacher from Maple Ridge, Helen Homer. She has been here many times with classes from the constituency, and I welcome her here today. I hope members will also make them welcome.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Security -- sorry, Social Development and Economic Security.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's something that some of you may never get a chance to try.
[1420]
Introduction of Bills
Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child Care BC Act.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to introduce Bill 2, the Child Care BC Act. Studies clearly show that quality child care that the child receives in early years is the strongest indicator of their later success in school and life. We know that access to appropriate, affordable child care is a major factor in a working family's ability to succeed in the labour market and gain economic security.
This bill is an important commitment to helping children get a better start in life. This act would govern all of B.C.'s grant programs for licensed child care providers. At the same time, we will amend the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act so that it will govern solely the child care subsidy for low-income families. This will clearly separate legislation that governs programs that directly fund child care providers versus a program that assists low-income parents.
The bill includes the new Child Care B.C. funding assistance program that was launched in January as a first step to a made-in-B.C. system of publicly funded child care. The Child Care B.C. funding assistance program began with before- and after-school care in licensed group facilities. This bill sets out a timetable to expand the funding assistance program to more children and more licensed providers between now and 2004. It also sets the maximum fees that a participating child care provider may require a parent to pay. These maximum fees are designed to make quality, accessible child care affordable to thousands of working families across British Columbia.
The act would also cover the granting programs that have been with us for several years. These programs help child care centres with repairs and upgrades to meet licensing standards, help non-profit child care societies create new spaces, help child care providers with higher costs of infant and toddler care, help top up the wages of lower-paid child care workers and help support child care for special needs children.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
VANCOUVER ISLAND ELECTRICAL
RATE STABILIZATION ACT
R. Kasper presented a bill intituled Vancouver Island Electrical Rate Stabilization Act.
R. Kasper: I move that this bill, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
R. Kasper: Electrical consumers on Vancouver Island will be faced with impending shortages of electricity in the coming years. B.C. Hydro is in the process of implementing options to meet the anticipated electrical demand. This bill recognizes that the relative isolation of Vancouver Island makes these consumers more vulnerable to rate fluctuation due to projected and current capital and natural gas costs required to generate and transmit electricity to this geographic region.
The bill further recognizes that net revenue projections for B.C. Hydro in the current budget year are substantially lower than previously anticipated, thus possibly forcing B.C. Hydro to increase the cost of electrical energy to consumers on Vancouver Island, and that such action would be unfair.
I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M203 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 17425 ]
Oral Questions
B.C. HYDRO BUDGET PROJECTIONS
AND IMPACT ON MACKENZIE
R. Neufeld: Documents released by the Minister of Finance on Monday reveal that the NDP will drain Williston Lake to as low as 2,140 feet this year in order to meet the minister's reckless revenue targets. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro inform this House when he decided to break the promise that the NDP made to the community of Mackenzie that Williston Lake would never be drawn lower than 2,150 feet?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We expect B.C. Hydro to demonstrate leadership. We expect it to manage the things that it can manage. That includes its reservoirs, that includes its non-hydro facilities, and it includes controlling its cost. We believe that it can do that, and we believe that it can meet its net income target of $300 million. In fact, I think they'll do better than that, hon. Speaker.
[1425]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North with a supplemental question.
R. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some problems -- and they were listed out in the documents that the minister tabled that day -- to meeting these targets. According to those documents, it says that below 2,150 feet, docking facilities in Mackenzie will be impacted. Below 2,150 feet, they can't run their crane. Below 2,140 feet, they're not sure of the impact of pulp effluent on the lake. Yet the minister says they have to go lower. Why would this minister be playing with a community -- the entire northern community of Mackenzie and all the jobs associated with that community -- just to meet his inflated revenue targets?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, hon. Speaker, I do wonder sometimes why they want to question the ability of B.C. Hydro, even in a low-water year, to manage its resources and make profit for the people of this province. Last year was not a high-water year. B.C. Hydro made $1.1 billion last year in a below-average year for water.
Hon. Speaker, I think what's really going on here is not their concern that B.C. Hydro make $1.1 billion or $300 million or $100 million. Under their plans -- these admirers of California deregulation, these admirers of what Alberta's done to its hydro system -- B.C. Hydro won't make a dime for the people of British Columbia, because they're going to sell it.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North has a further supplemental question.
R. Neufeld: We're not questioning B.C. Hydro's integrity. They are the ones that are presenting the numbers to the minister. It is the minister that is telling them to extract more dollars, more dollars, more dollars, more dollars. Further, it was that government that talked about selling off the huge asset called B.C. Hydro. That's what we're talking about.
Further, Mr. Speaker, a 1994 report commissioned by the NDP said that if Williston Lake falls below 2,150 feet, the impacts upon Mackenzie and the forest industry would be disastrous -- disastrous. And the opposition has obtained new documents from B.C. Hydro to show that we are heading for that disaster. Hydro's March 1 forecasted levels for Williston reservoir show it's expected to drop to 2,150 feet on May 2; 2,145 feet a year later; and 2,140 feet a year after. This was before the Finance minister decided the levels could drop by another ten feet. Again I ask the minister: why would he even consider this when it will shut down two pulp mills and four sawmills in the community of Mackenzie?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Through Forest Renewal B.C. and others, we have invested millions of dollars to make sure that Mackenzie can deal with lower water levels, and the member knows that. The reality is that we don't know what level it will have to be drawn down on.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We do know this
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Hon. P. Ramsey:
R. Neufeld: Well, I guess it's very clear to everyone in British Columbia that this government, this Premier and this minister have written off the north again. The Finance minister's own documents say he's prepared to draw down to ten feet lower than the disaster zone -- ten feet lower than the disaster zone. And yet he stands up and makes light of it. When will he come clean with the people in Mackenzie? Why is he putting working families at risk in Mackenzie -- good, well-paying, family-earning jobs? Why is he putting them at risk just to get his inflated revenue?
[1430]
Hon. P. Ramsey: You know, I heard a former head of the B.C. Utilities Commission on the radio this morning -- Mr. Jaccard. He said that this target of $300 million that we have set for B.C. Hydro is entirely achievable. It's entirely achievable.
But speaking of coming clean, when will this opposition come clean on how they expect to pay for their reckless tax cuts? When are they going to come clean? They run away from the budget debate. Will they come clean and tell the people whether they're going to accept the recommendation of their think tank that we saw yesterday -- the Fraser Institute -- which said: "Well, here's a plan for you. Why don't you review Crown corporations?" I think we've heard that before. "And after a review, here's our plan for selling B.C. Hydro." The reason why they don't want a positive target for Hydro is that they expect no money from Hydro at all. They're going to sell it, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 17426 ]
FOREST SECTOR JOB CREATION
G. Abbott: It has been a pathetic week for the government, so I'm happy to bring some good news to them this day. Today is a very special anniversary for this NDP government. Five years ago today the NDP promised to create 21,000 new forest jobs in British Columbia. They didn't low-key this. They said this was the most ambitious package of job creation in the history of Canada.
G. Plant: How did they do?
G. Abbott: Well, unfortunately, since then not one new additional forest job has been created, and in fact thousands of forest workers have lost their jobs, lost their homes, due to NDP policies. Will the Premier admit today that his phony promise of 21,000 new forest jobs was nothing more than a sham?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'll tell the people of British Columbia what is a sham. What is a sham is these members opposite who say that meetings took place when we know that they didn't take place or who are not prepared to come out and table their budget. They're not prepared to tell us what estimates they would put on Hydro. And when it comes to forestry, I am absolutely astounded that this member opposite would make light of the difficult situation that British Columbia faces as a result of softwood lumber countervail and a declining Japanese marketplace.
I have invited that member to participate with me in discussions, to work with my staff, and to date that member hasn't made one phone call or one suggestion and has offered no solution or help to us on this side.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Shuswap has a supplemental question.
G. Abbott: I've actually been feeling for the past three days like a date that's been stood up. Last Friday the minister's staff called my office. We called his office Monday, Tuesday and today, and we have had no return calls from his office. Further
The Speaker: The member has a question?
G. Abbott: It's fascinating. Back when the jobs and timber accord was announced, this member didn't have quite the same opinion of the accord as he apparently does today. In fact, he called it a Technicolor dream. "A Technicolor dream," he said. Well, no wonder he called it that. Not only did the NDP promise 21,000 new forest jobs for this year, they also promised 42,000 new forest jobs by the year 2005. So I want to ask the Premier once again: does the Premier still support the NDP's phony promise to create 42,000 new forest jobs by the year 2005? Or was it, as the Health minister put it, another announcement that they never intended to keep?
[1435]
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm amazed that the member suggested his office was trying to contact us, because after the offer was made, we read in the Liberal campaign newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, that he didn't want to and would not attend. So we simply believed that he wasn't interested.
Hon. Speaker, when it comes to the forest industry, it is this side of the House that has said that we are going to work with the industry to move to market-based stumpage, that we are moving with respect to tenure reform. It is this side of the House that is working with the forest industry and with the environmental communities and with first nations to bring about working, lasting solutions in our forests, and it's this side of the House that is moving towards certification. It is that side of the House that will -- through their obscene policies toward aboriginals, their gutting of the Forest Practices Code and their absolute disdain for labour through their desire in the first 90 days to amend the Labour Code -- bring an absolute shutdown to the industry, kill our markets and put first nations at war with us once again. Those are the members we have to be fearful of.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
USER-PAY KINDERGARTEN
J. Dalton: Yesterday the Minister of Education addressed a friendly audience -- namely, the BCTF -- that she would look at outlawing the user-pay half-day kindergarten in West Vancouver. Her predecessor last year looked at the School Act and said, and her lawyers agreed, that there was nothing illegal about user-pay kindergarten. Given that the program has run since last September, that it's a choice available to parents and that there is a waiting list for this September, on what grounds can the Minister of Education justify this change of policy, particularly when you compare it to the BCTF opposition to independent school funding, which will not be changed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: What an NDP government
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. MacPhail: What an NDP government does believe in is that a child entering our public education system should have equal opportunity regardless of his or her socioeconomic background. That's our beginning principle. That was always the intent of the School Act, and it was never contemplated under the School Act that any child would have to face a situation where, because of his or her parents' economic circumstances, she or he may be disadvantaged compared to other students.
The previous Minister of Education was exactly right -- that people have found their way around the original intent of the School Act. Absolutely. And at the time she was also correct when she said parents are looking for alternatives -- parents who have children who require care from morning to evening. You know what, hon. Speaker? Today we have entrenched in legislation for the first time a four-year program of child care that finally gives parents an alternative, and that's wonderful news. It does mean that school boards won't be able to say: "We have to compete with independent
[ Page 17427 ]
schools, and therefore we're going to force parents who have chosen the public education system to have to pay fees." We are against that, and we're working to stop it.
[1440]
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Reports from Committees
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia." I move the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Thorpe: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted.
This seventh report reflects the Public Accounts consideration of the auditor general's report, "A Review of the Estimates Process in British Columbia," released in March 1999. The auditor general's report recommended changes to the budgeting process and the way in which the Legislative Assembly scrutinizes and approves government spending plans. As well, it recommended changes to the way the government plans to finance its programs, monitor actual results and report on its performance to the assembly.
In tabling this report and reflecting on the auditor general's report No. 4 regarding the government's 1996 budget, which the public named the fudge-it budget, I am very troubled. In the auditor general's report from page 139, I note: "In our opinion, information provided by government when these budgets were presented did not make full and fair disclosure of the extent of the business risk being assumed and the government's plan to address it."
Unfortunately, today's Premier and today's Finance minister have now, only five years later, taken exactly the same route in an effort to table a balanced budget just prior to an election. The public are now calling this year's budget fudge-it budget 2. This government still believes it can do whatever it wants and has totally disregarded the auditor general's concern about developing budgets on revenue estimates that are disproportionately risky.
Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee, the auditor general's office, those who worked so hard on the Enns panel and the professional civil servants of British Columbia were all working for open, transparent and truthful budgets. Sadly and unfortunately, once again this Premier and this Finance minister have put politics before an open, transparent and truthful budget. Unfortunately, the 1996 budget was developed on overly optimistic revenues. Now in 2001 the budget is built on the minister making overly optimistic revenue projections on behalf of B.C. Hydro.
In tabling this report as the former Chair of Public Accounts, I ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance to stop the charade, to stop embarrassing our province, to stop embarrassing the people of British Columbia, to stop embarrassing the public service and to apologize. The work has been done; the recommendations have been made. It's time for the recommendations to be followed.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I take your silence with respect to the member's comments as licence to offer my own comments. I think the member went far beyond
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Enns report was commissioned by this Minister of Finance. Its 26 recommendations have virtually all been accepted and, I think -- I didn't do a full count -- implemented. There is some difference of opinion with respect to recommendation 19 and the inclusion of the SUCH sector. I think that's a legitimate accounting debate that will probably go on for some time before there's a finalization on that question.
But I'm a bit perplexed. It was not my intention to get into the realm of politics in discussing a report of
[1445]
Interjections.
D. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit much to take after listening to the comments of the Chair of Public Accounts, who has broken with a longstanding tradition with respect to the introduction of reports to this House -- a flagrant disregard of that longstanding tradition. And that's fine. I guess if the political mood is such that he feels that's acceptable, then fine; I don't quarrel with it. But having listened to him, I suppose I should be afforded the same opportunity.
But I wanted to go back and
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
D. Miller:
I do know, having been a minister in the past
[ Page 17428 ]
I listened very closely to the questions with respect to energy forecasts and the implications with respect to Williston and others. I did pay particular attention to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain and the Leader of the Opposition, who promised to shut down Burrard Thermal. The forgone revenue for that reckless, reckless political act is $2.7 billion over ten years. They promised them -- I saw them make the promise -- a replacement cost of $600-$700 million.
However, the purpose of all of this -- particularly the Enns report and the auditor general's report, as you well know and members opposite in this House well know
But it does strike me as passing strange that we have an opposition that made significant fiscal promises in 1996, and they have now, on the eve of an election, said: "We have scrapped all of those." And while we've made the opposition's job easier in terms of questioning the budget, this is the worst year in my 15 years in this place, because the opposition refused to debate the budget that we put forward. And I can only conclude that the reason they refused is that they do not want their hand revealed to the public of this province in terms of what they will really do.
That is the central debate in this province. When will these people come clean and tell the public of British Columbia what their real fiscal plans are? Will their agent in Ontario, who's with Mike Harris, follow the lead of the Harris government announced today, which is controlling civil servants, cutting back in health and education? What is it, Mr. Speaker? That's the question. That is the central question that we are about to face in this province.
[1450]
E. Walsh: Hon. Speaker, I stand because I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. When I hear what the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said in this House today, it does not reflect the discussions that took place in the Public Accounts Committee, hon. Speaker. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I take great offence that he would dare reflect my views that had absolutely nothing to do with his political partisanship in this House today.
What is at risk here today is the integrity of an all-party committee of this House. It's the integrity of the people in this province that trust the people in this House to do their work and debate the work of this House. And for the Chair of that committee, for the Chair of the Liberal opposition to stand in this House and report on falsehoods that did not take place in the committee is a disgrace. Shame on them. Shame on them.
I will add, too, that they have every opportunity, as does every member of this House, to put their views forward. They have every opportunity to speak on the budget, to speak on every issue that comes up in this province. But they choose not to. Why do they choose not to? They choose not to because they've chosen to hide behind a façade. They choose to hide behind political partisanship in discussions that should have taken place in Public Accounts. That's a disgrace. It's a disgrace and is disrespectful of all the people in British Columbia.
This report reflected nothing of what this member, a member from the opposite Liberals, has in fact quoted from. I would like this member to point out where has been the consensus of the committee of which he spoke. I'll also mention the fact that the courts threw out any charges on all of this brouhaha about the '96 budget. How dare they show such contempt for the courts of British Columbia? How dare they show contempt for the judge, Justice Humphries, who said that there was absolutely no fault found in the '96 budget.
Hon. Speaker, I believe that this member owes the people of British Columbia an apology, not only for the falsehoods he's reporting that the committee spoke about in Public Accounts but for all the falsehoods that they are spreading today. [Applause.]
The Speaker: Order, members. Order, members.
S. Orcherton: It was not my intention to rise to discuss this report today. But you know, we did some good work in Public Accounts. We worked with the auditor general. We canvassed a whole variety of issues. We listened to what the Enns report had to say. I think that at the end of the day, we came up with a good report.
It's absolutely staggering to me that this biased member, this Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, this master of slur and innuendo and allegation, can stand up in this House and talk about issues that have nothing to do with this report. It amazes me that they can debate on allegation. They have no capacity on that side of the House to debate anything of substance. We haven't seen them stand up and debate a single issue in this House since this House was called back -- not a single issue.
[1455]
They refuse to debate the budget. The only thing that they can stand up and speak on in this House is allegations surrounding a report that comes from Public Accounts -- unbelievable. I challenge any member on that side of the House to stand up and support what that biased Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has said in this House today. Stand up and support it.
He talks about all these allegations. Not a mention of this is in the report -- not a mention of any of these issues. Stand up. Who's going to be up next on your side to talk? Let's hear some issues of substance, not allegations and innuendo.
Hon. Speaker, what's occurred here today is unbelievable, in terms of that member presenting this report to the House in the fashion that he has. I think it is reprehensible. It does not speak of what occurred at the Public Accounts Committee. It is, by its very essence, a minority report that's been presented here today by way of the comments made by the member opposite. He should be substantially and fundamentally ashamed of himself and ashamed of his behaviour in this House.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
P. Calendino: The reaction from the opposite side shows that I stand up to speak on issues that have to do with the behaviour of members in this House. I haven't spoken very much in this place. I intended to speak on the budget in the last few days, but those members over there have come down
[ Page 17429 ]
with a game that has prevented us from fully debating the merits of the budget. And it's shameful. It's shameful that they've behaved that way.
I have to tell you, I've been on the Public Accounts Committee since I was elected to this chamber. I was proud and happy to be there discussing issues in a non-partisan way. The former Chair, Fred Gingell, was an exemplary Chair. But ever since he has been replaced by that member over there, who stood up to make the report, it's been one shameful session after another there.
Tonight there's going to be a private member's statement on bullying in the school yard. That member, as Chair, is behaving like a bully both in the committee and on this floor. What he said today does not reflect what was discussed in the committee. I was shocked and offended by that member getting up to make a report which should be a non-partisan report and starting on a political rant that he could have done in the debate on the budget.
They refused to do that, because the budget was a good budget. The budget is what the people want -- investing in health and in education, not huge tax cuts. He could have given that political rant in the budget debate, and he refused to do that. I am offended. I ask him to stand up and apologize for what he said today.
The Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton to close debate.
R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to close the debate. I'd like to observe, though, that I've seen more action here today in 15 minutes than I have in the last five years in Public Accounts from that side of the House.
Interjections.
R. Thorpe: In closing, hon. Speaker, the truth seems to have struck a very exposed, raw nerve. I move this report be adopted.
[1500]
The Speaker: I take it the member has concluded his remarks.
The member for North Coast on a point of order.
Point of Order
Interjections.
D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'm well able to defend myself. I don't need anybody's protection, but this is the most flagrant abuse of this process I have ever witnessed in 15 years in this chamber. I can play politics, and I love playing politics. I'll debate that member any day of the week anywhere. But I would ask that member to consider what he's done, and perhaps reflect, stand up and tender an apology to this House for the flagrant abuse -- flagrant abuse -- and the insult to all members of this House that he has just done.
The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader on the point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have been debatable
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, the member has the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have
Interjections.
The Speaker: Will the member for North Coast come to order. The member has the floor.
G. Farrell-Collins: These motions are debatable. They have been debatable before, under the leadership and stewardship of the former Chair, Mr. Gingell, the member for Delta South. In fact, I object strenuously to the characterization made by the member for North Coast of the former Chair. That Chair was handpicked by the former Chair because he knew he'd be the best one in the House to do that job.
These motions are debatable. They're debatable when everybody agrees, and they're debatable when the government doesn't like what the opposition has to say as well. There's nothing out of order at all in what's happened here today.
The Speaker: On the point of order, Government House Leader.
Hon. G. Janssen: It is laughable that the Opposition House Leader would stand up in this House and mention the fact that there's debate going on, after the antics of that side over the last few days.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, members. The only comment I have is that there were reflections on members and on the House from both sides today during that debate, and I would ask members to perhaps look at what they said and consider what they might say in the future.
Motion approved.
Reports from Committees
B. Goodacre: Now for something completely different. Hon. Speaker, pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament.
An Hon. Member: Spice it up a bit.
B. Goodacre: Yeah, indeed.
I move that this report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. Goodacre: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
[ Page 17430 ]
B. Goodacre: I move that the report be adopted. The second report presents the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries with respect to the agricultural lease program.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Motions on Notice
Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued debate on Motion 1.
REFERENDA ON ISSUES AFFECTING
MINORITY RIGHTS
(continued)
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Wilson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to this motion. The motion is very clear. But I want to reflect for just a moment as I make my comments about what has just transpired in this House, because it speaks very directly to this motion. It speaks to this motion to the extent that we have just witnessed not only contempt for parliament by the members opposite, but we have witnessed the absolute contempt for the people by the members opposite.
[1505]
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Could you take your seat for a moment.
The Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
Point of Order
G. Farrell-Collins: If the member wants to make an allegation of privilege as contempt of parliament, he should make it. He shouldn't do it in debate. He should make it formally, and there are rules to do that.
The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could confine his remarks to the motion on the floor.
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Wilson: Contempt is an issue that I think we need to deal with, because it speaks particularly toward the motion that has built up a process for treaty negotiation over the last number of years. And I would like to quote a former member of this House whose name was Fred Gingell, who was an honest man, who was an honest Liberal, a real Liberal and somebody who had great integrity. This is what Fred Gingell said about the treaty process: "I rise to speak for both myself and the members of the Liberal caucus who will not speak on second reading of this bill. I wish to advise everyone that our caucus supports Bill 22."
Bill 22 is the Treaty Commission Act, which establishes the treaty that we have been working on and the process of treaties that have been underway in British Columbia. I go on to continue with this member's comments: "It is time -- in fact, it is over time -- for us to get on with the negotiation of land claims. There are many questions that will be dealt with in detail during committee stage. We do have questions that we need to have answered. We support in principle, however, the creation of this commission to assist the process in as timely a manner as possible."
Hon. Speaker, that's what an honest Liberal said when this in fact came forward in the House to commence a historic process of treaty negotiation. It is interesting today, when we take a look at the issue that's in front of us now, that we see that despite the fact the federal government, the provincial government and first nations have, in the spirit of Mr. Gingell's comments, undertaken debate and discussion, the members opposite now say they will not honour that. They will not honour those words; they will not honour that commitment.
Every single member opposite of the so-called Liberal Party, which it is no longer today
There have been some successes. There have been some excellent successes: Sechelt and the movement to AIP. And now again, with some discussions underway with them, hopefully, to get them back to full treaty
I see the member from North Vancouver laughing. They always laugh when we talk about aboriginal people. It's the only issue they bring forward that they want to hold a referendum on. It's aboriginal rights; it's the only one. They see nothing else so compelling that they have to go to the people except when we want to have inclusion of aboriginal people in the economy of British Columbia. What a change there has been in that party since the departure of Mr. Gingell and others who believed in true Liberal policy.
[1510]
Hon. Speaker, it's no wonder there's been a change, because if we look to see who runs among them today, they're not Liberals. They're not people who were part of a movement in 1991 to bring progressive new policies into this province. Indeed, they are people who we ran against in 1991 to try to push them out of the agenda so that we could bring progressive new policy into British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: Wrong. Wrong.
Hon. G. Wilson: That member for North Vancouver-Seymour who stands up and says, "Wrong, wrong," or sits and says "Wrong, wrong," because they don't have the courage to stand and speak
[ Page 17431 ]
through the Hansard as I have done today -- and I'm happy to read into the record their views on first nations when they had an opportunity
When a park was to be created in Vancouver on the Musqueam, when the members of the New Democratic Party stood up at that time, when they were in opposition, to try to amend it to protect the rights of Musqueam people on the creation of a park, the very member, Mr. Richmond himself, who now runs in Kamloops, stood up and blocked it. He said that he would not entertain it, because there was no inherent right of aboriginal people in this province to hold it. That's what the Hansard says. So let us not be surprised when we see that these members now, these retread Socreds
We have heard from their official critic, and we've heard from the Leader of the Official Opposition, who stands up and says -- although certainly not in defence of this motion, because they won't speak to this motion about whether or not we should have treaties
Well, that's what Bill 22 did. It created a commission that brought people together: first nations under the Treaty Commission, the federal government and the provincial government. That's what it did, hon. Speaker. And when we start to look at what the members opposite say -- "We're not opposed to it" -- you cannot trust what they say. You cannot trust what they say; you have to analyze what they do.
What is their action? When the Nisga'a came forward and we had a treaty finally signed -- the first modern treaty for the Nisga'a people -- what did these members do? Every individual in this chamber opposed that treaty. They voted against it, notwithstanding the fact that the federal government, the provincial government, the first nations and the vast majority of British Columbians supported the conclusion of that treaty. They voted against it.
And that wasn't enough -- oh no, not for these members opposite. It wasn't enough to vote against it in this chamber. They rushed it off to court. Now, what really concerns me is the fact that this debate has been caught up -- it's been captured -- in a tone reported in the popular press as being something that is somewhat irrelevant. I think the word that was used today in their new propaganda magazine
[1515]
I don't think it's a charade. It speaks to the very heart of who we are as British Columbians. If they don't have the courage
Well, the people of British Columbia need to think about that. They need to witness what we just saw today in the absolutely flagrant breaking of the rules, which you aren't going to read about in any kind of unbiased fashion in the papers. You're not going to see this reported in any unbiased manner on television, God knows. When the media of this province have contributed over $150,000 to the campaigns of the members opposite, how would you expect that there is going to be any kind of unbiased, unfettered coverage? Let's not go there, because you're not going to find it. Why? Because they are part of the corporate entities in this province, the corporations of this province that would very much support these members opposite. These members opposite have been bought and paid for.
Up to 1999 -- and the numbers grow -- if we take a look at the numbers of dollars that have been put into their coffers
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Could you take your seat just for a moment, please. The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.
Point of Order
G. Farrell-Collins: The allegations and the absolutely ridiculous comments that the member just made are extremely offensive, and I ask him to withdraw them.
The Speaker: The Chair would ask the minister to withdraw the comment that the members opposite were bought and paid for.
Hon. G. Wilson: I've never intended to offend the members opposite. I certainly don't. If any of my comments have offended the member opposite, I would happily withdraw them.
The Speaker: Thank you.
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Wilson: But let me continue by saying that what we are witnessing from the members opposite in this so-called debate, which they refuse to stand up and debate, is clearly an agenda at work that they will not tell the public about. Why do they oppose this motion that talks about the mandates? In this amended motion we talk about having a referendum on the mandates for first nations.
Now, think about that for a moment. And the people of British Columbia should think carefully about that. The reason they want to hold a referendum on the mandates is because they do not support the mandates as they are currently constituted. They don't support them. They do not support the creation of first nations government. They do not support the
[ Page 17432 ]
idea that we are going to have first nations tenures. They do not support the notion that first nations in this province will have an equal opportunity to succeed.
The reason that they don't is because they have a different agenda. That's clearly why. And that's an agenda that they will not table in this House. They are fearful to table it before an election, because if the people of British Columbia fully understand what that agenda is, they will not support these people in the Liberal Party for government. That's why they won't table that agenda. That's why they want this. And if we need to have a bit of glimpse as to what that real agenda is, we have to go back and do a little bit of homework, a little bit of research, to find out what these members opposite have been saying.
[1520]
These members opposite, in terms of doing a general synopsis with respect to where they are going, deal more specifically with the corporate desire to have greater control over the economy and over the government of this province. Corporations don't put up $7.8 million and not expect something in return. So what are they going to get in return? Well, I'll tell you what they're going to get in return. They're going to get a process of privatization unlike any we have seen in this province yet, and that affects the ability of the members opposite to settle land claims.
I've been engaged over the last while in trying to settle issues with the Americans on softwood lumber. One of the things that's become absolutely clear to me is that if we are to have any kind of opportunity in this province to be successful, the successful resolution on first nations land claims is key to it. I can tell you that what their agenda is with respect to privatization impacts directly on their willingness to include first nations in that agenda. The movement to greater privatization in the forest industry is something that the Leader of the Official Opposition has confirmed in his comments. We have that on record, something that their official opposition critic has spoken to, and we have that confirmed through his taped work on television.
When we see that information and we start to understand a little bit more specifically about where they're going -- which is really outlined in what their program of advancement is, which we find through the Fraser Institute -- we take a look at a very interesting document indeed, because it speaks to policy recommendations. It talks about the movement to work first nations land claims in conjunction with privatization of the forest land base. That's interesting, because the Fraser Institute has long been something that has been used by many members opposite as their sort of bible.
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister. Could you take a seat for a moment. The Opposition House Leader has a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the member is referring to documents in his speech, I would ask him, in compliance with the rules, to table those documents so all members have access to them.
The Speaker: The point that you're raising is necessary for state or government documents only. Minister of Forests, continue, please.
Hon. G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm amazed that they're so touchy about this, because clearly we are slowly unmasking their agenda. If the member would like to see what they've got, I would refer him to the Fraser Institute web site, www.fraserinstitute.ca/media/media_releases/. Hon. member, you might want to go and check it out.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, right. I'm surprised he hasn't seen it, because the foreword is written by somebody who is working very closely on their transition team.
It seems to me that we have a fairly good understanding, in looking at this document, of what they're all about. And let me tell you, that is one of the reasons that these members opposite are quite concerned with respect to their willingness to get into treaty negotiations.
It is interesting that if we take a look at what others believe in, others recognize that there is a movement toward the desire for privatizing the forest.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: The members opposite have ample opportunity to get up and refute my comments if they choose to. Stand up and get involved in this debate.
The fact of the matter is that we have people
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have to just pause for a moment.
The Speaker: Through the Chair, minister.
Hon. G. Wilson: This member, who suggests I stand up and tell the truth, is the very member who read into the record a meeting that took place between the chairman of B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Finance when the chairman of B.C. Hydro wasn't even in the province. And this member is suggesting that I get up and keep my facts straight? Good luck. That is just so ridiculous.
I want to come back to this important point, because it seems to me that the members opposite have to account for what their issues are. Why are these members so opposed to this? I think we can start to see why. They are opposed to the treaties under the mandates that they are currently involved in. We have somebody here who talked fairly specifically about what their involvement was. There's a gentleman by the name of David McLean. Now, David McLean will be
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if I could finish my remarks without this heckling
Interjections.
[1525]
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this member says he's not on their transition team. I haven't suggested he is. If he would let me conclude my remarks, he will understand where I am going with my comments.
[ Page 17433 ]
What David McLean and the Canadian National chair at the time, Mr. Brian Smith, who has been in the news recently, have said about the Nisga'a final agreement is that the Nisga'a final agreement was an important breakthrough. The certainty this agreement brings to the business climate of British Columbia is only one of the very good reasons to fully support this initiative. And the reason those two senior business leaders have said that we have to have an opportunity to settle land claims is because these two senior business leaders know that if we do not settle land claims, it is going to be at our peril economically. The Premier has already determined quite clearly, and has said quite clearly, that it has cost us -- some economists would estimate -- $1 billion a year because of uncertainty.
Hon. Speaker, let me tell you that what is interesting to me, as a former Finance minister -- and other former Finance ministers will confirm -- is that when a Finance minister goes to New York, the one issue that the people who put the financing together for this province, in terms of our principal lenders
It's also quite clear that if we are to move into a new and progressive economy, it's essential in that new and progressive economy that we settle land claims because of our primary, extractive, resource-based economy. We believe, and I think that we have demonstrated quite clearly, that in the forest sector we will lose market share if we do not have first nations involvement. We've made it a policy to involve first nations in the forest sector. One of the key components to that is settlement of first nations land claims.
When we moved to AIP with the Nuu-chah-nulth -- a historic breakthrough with the Nuu-chah-nulth -- did we see the Liberal opposition stand up and say: "Good job. Great job. We're moving forward. We think this is a good idea"? We did not. What their critic turned around and said was that they did not feel obliged to honour it, that they would review and may not honour that agreement-in-principle.
Let's be clear. The member opposite -- I think it was the Attorney General critic -- talked about the Premier speaking on behalf of the government. All of us in this chamber know that government is more than the governing party. It includes the opposition. That's why we had an all-party committee on aboriginal issues travel the province -- so that we could make sure that we had this correct. Quite clearly, the contempt that is demonstrated in the words of the official opposition's Aboriginal Affairs critic -- that they are not going to honour an agreement-in-principle, that they would not honour that, that they may not honour that, that they will review that
That certainly was the interpretation offered by federal critic Nault, who believed that once we have an agreement-in-principle through a treaty, we should honour that. We should stand forward and we should put the word of the Crown on the table, and once we have signed that word, we should maintain it.
It is quite obvious to all of us observing that the reason they don't want to do this is because they have another agenda, and that other agenda is a corporate agenda that does not wish to see land claims set down.
It is quite obvious that that's where we're headed. When you take a look at the agenda that these people have put forward, particularly in light of the discussions around privatization of the forest land base, issues around privatization of B.C. Hydro
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, it's clear that settlement of land claims will interfere with that process. And that is at least one of the reasons why the members opposite would simply not be prepared to support what we have put forward.
D. Jarvis: Sleazy innuendoes.
Hon. G. Wilson: Now, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour says "sleazy innuendoes." This is the party that has levelled attack after attack after attack not only against this party but from time to time against me personally. They have been investigated, they have been studied, and they've been reported out and found to be untrue -- on every count, untrue. Yet they accuse us of doing this.
[1530]
What is sleazy, what is underhanded and what I believe is fundamentally dishonest is to go into an election with an agenda in your hip pocket and not tell the people what it is you really stand for. That is what it is. "Call the election," he says, "and then we'll tell you." We've heard that before. It was put out by a fellow by the name of Mulroney: "Call the election, and I'll unveil it." And when he did unveil it, they commenced on one of the greatest privatization scandals in this nation's history. Let there be no doubt that's where these people are headed. Let there be no doubt of that. The reason they don't want to have the settlement of aboriginal land titles is because that will get in their way.
Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, that there is an interesting turn of events in British Columbia. What we have been able to do as a government -- and one I'm very proud of -- is bring people together. We have been able, instead of driving people apart, instead of pushing people into referenda where you have one group voting against other groups and you have people who are going to be quite divided
It seems to me that we've been able to go a different direction, and I think that causes some considerable concern among the members opposite. Our direction has been one that talks to bringing people together, that brings together first nations, non-first nations, companies and unions, environmentalists and companies in a process which is called land use planning. It is a process that talks about building an economy in British Columbia that is inclusive. We have undertaken to include aboriginal people in record numbers, and more so we have also been able, through the inclusion of first nations, to build partnerships that are steps toward the finalization of treaties.
[ Page 17434 ]
All of this is put in jeopardy. It is put in jeopardy by members opposite who are prepared in the first 90 days, if we're to believe the Leader of the Official Opposition, to immediately make an attack against certain segments of our population. That is going to divide us. I'm not even sure if the members opposite understand that under the new certification polices that are going forward, particularly FSC, the inclusion of first nations in the certification process is mandatory.
I ask the people of British Columbia to consider this: having had ten years of trying to bring people together under the Treaty Commission -- something they all supported when this was put in this House, something they've all committed their word to, which they have now gone back on
They don't even understand it; that's what's concerning. They don't even understand that process. We will not be able to sell a single stick of wood if these members have their way. And if, God forbid, we are ever to elect them government, if they divide us, if they go out with referenda, if they put the first nations on the streets, if they go out and gut the Forest Practices Code -- which they say they want to do -- and put the environmentalists on the streets -- if all of this is in a plan which I believe is fully scripted out there in the Fraser Institute's model for the economy, which is their policy
[1535]
Well, I ask British Columbians to consider this one fact: where is our economy going to be when you've got first nations in the streets, you've got environmentalists in the streets, and you've got this province once again divided because of the policies of the mid-1980s, which are reflected
Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you conclude your remarks, please.
Hon. G. Wilson:
Hon. I. Waddell: I rise to take part in this debate on the amended motion. I'll try to be as brief as possible, because I know a lot of my colleagues want to speak. I want to speak on two parts, as I see them, to the debate.
The first one is the fact that I was the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs when we did extensive hearings on the Nisga'a treaty and on the process of land claims itself. The second part I want to raise is from my own experience over a number of years -- 21 years in politics both on the federal and the provincial levels -- with respect to minority rights, which I care passionately about.
I want to start with the select standing committee. I have the report. It's available in the library, and the members would have the report before them. It has been tabled in this House. Included on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee that did these hearings was the hon. member for Peace River South, who spoke in this debate, and the hon. member for Matsqui, who's the critic for the Liberal Party. At the first session of the committee the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, who's the Attorney General critic for the Liberal Party, had to resign from the committee because he had a conflict of interest, as ruled by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. With the law firm of Russell and DuMoulin he had prepared briefs for COFI, the forest industry, and substantially the same briefs were being presented to the committee. So he had to resign from the committee on a conflict of interest. But the rest of the members were there on the committee, so they took part in what happened, and they issued a report.
There was a resolution of this House on August 8, 1996. That set out what the committee was to do: "This House authorizes the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on: the application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle to treaty negotiations throughout British Columbia; how progress can be made towards treaty settlements with aboriginal people beneficial to all British Columbians." And then: "Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to express their views on these matters." Further, it allowed the committee, for the first time in legislative history here, to permit television broadcasting of any public hearings the committee may have. Those were the terms of reference.
Remember that in this debate we're having today, the opposition raised the issue that they need to have a referendum because they have to give the people of British Columbia a chance to pronounce on the terms of the treaties and the treaty-making process. Well, what did we do for half a year in this committee that they took part in? It's a puzzlement, then, that they need a referendum. I'm going to suggest later on that that's a smokescreen and that they want the referendum for other reasons.
But let me continue with what the committee did so that the members will be reminded that we actually did have a process. I want to quote from page 13 of the committee report, about three-quarters of the way down the page: "We heard 560 oral presentations and an additional 232 written submissions." We had 62 hours of television coverage, live. We had 31 public hearings in 27 communities in every region of British Columbia.
And then I'll just quote on page 14:
"The committee tried its best to inform the public about its hearings. Two weeks before each hearing, quarter-page advertisements were placed in local daily and weekly newspapers with the highest area circulation figures. Each advertisement ran at least twice. Prospective witnesses were asked to register with the office of the Clerk of Committees, and approximately 30 minutes were reserved for unscheduled speakers in an open microphone session at the end of each hearing."In an effort to reach out to both native and non-native communities, the committee conducted its hearings in band
[ Page 17435 ]
halls, legion halls and in hotel meeting rooms and aboriginal friendship centres. By alternating hearing locations, we were as accessible as possible to all interested parties.
"Before each hearing letters were sent to local mayors, regional district officials, band offices and chiefs, inviting their participation. The committee met formally with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee
. . . the committee Chair met with the First Nations Summit before the hearings, and the full committee met with the summit at the end of the hearing process."The committee was pleased with the wide cross-section of people who appeared before it. Approximately 32 percent of the witnesses identified themselves as aboriginal. Just under half of the witnesses spoke on their own behalf, while the balance were affiliated with one of an assortment of corporations or groups. We heard from Members of Parliament and locally elected officials, first nations chiefs, elders, associations and tribal councils, members of churches and church groups, fish and wildlife organizations, forestry companies, labour unions, [business groups] and regional and treaty advisory groups."
[1540]
We went to schools. We got the local MLAs involved. Well, I could go on. Clearly you wouldn't read about this in the Vancouver Sun, and you didn't -- the most important committee hearings, I think, of any committees held.
Dealing with the treaty process, dealing with what people want in it -- you don't need a referendum. We did it. We went around the province, and there it was. Vaughn Palmer didn't write about it because you'd have to have some depth of writing. You'd have to follow the hearings.
If you look at this report, there's something else that comes into it, and that is that the opposition asked to file a minority report. Now, being a good fellow and all that and wanting to do parliamentary procedure I said, sometimes against advice: "Go ahead, let the opposition do a minority report." So if you look carefully at their minority report, you can start to see their policy, which has been hidden and hidden and hidden. If you look at it
The first one is, in their minority report, that they talk about certainty and finality. And you know what they want? They want language that says "cede, release and surrender." They want the aboriginal peoples to put in the words "we surrender." Well, I gotta tell you something: they ain't gonna do it. We can find other language, and we did in Nisga'a. The member for North Coast knows that. He helped on that. We have it. But they're not going to sign it. And that's what they wanted. That's what they want.
The next thing that they want, and I quote from page 97 of their minority report: "Treaties should be settled
They don't want to give land. And native people told us constantly, especially in the rural areas -- we're not talking of the cities in the lower mainland, but we're talking in the regional areas of the province: "Land is basic to our life. We live on the land. The land is holy to us."
Ask any aboriginal people in the regional areas of the province. It's not on. If you just try and buy 'em out, they ain't gonna do it, because they know that the cash is here, gone tomorrow, but the land lasts. The land can be used, and you can have a viable, sustainable economy from the land -- right? You can get a piece of the forest, or you can get a piece of the mine, if you're aboriginal. You can get a piece of the fishing. So that's not on.
And finally they say on self-government: "Treaties should not include the constitutional entrenchment of a third order of government for aboriginal people; rather, a municipal style of self-government
And they know that's not on either. So if you take their minority report, and you take what they said, you're not going to have land claims settlement. You're going to have what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said: you're in fact going to have chaos, and you're not going to have settlement. And it's all here.
The final thing is that they talk about the Nisga'a AIP. They voted against Nisga'a. You know, they voted against Nisga'a.
So, hon. Speaker, I offer this as evidence to the House. The fact is that we had extensive hearings, extensive consultations. The people of B.C. were consulted. They had a part of shaping this. We followed some of the things they said in Nisga'a. We followed it in changing the treaty process. So there you have it.
Secondly, I want to make this other point. That is the issue of minority rights. You know, the Premier in his speech talked a lot about minority rights in this debate, and there's a reason for that. The great philosopher Martin Niemoeller -- I can't get the exact quote, but this is just a general quote of what he said about the Holocaust. He said that first they come for the Jews, and then they're going to look for the gypsies. Then they come for the gays and lesbians, then they start coming for the Catholics, and then they start coming for the
[1545]
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Now, the hon. member should listen to this. I know you don't care about minority rights, but you should listen to this. Listen. The fact is that we should all care about minority rights, because some day they could come for us.
In the gallery yesterday, you will recall that I introduced some francophones; the head of the federation of francophones and his assistant were here. And they commented afterwards
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, members.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: If the member listened
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: North Vancouver-Seymour, come to order, please. Minister, would you take your seat for a minute,
[ Page 17436 ]
please. Every member has the opportunity to rise in this debate. The minister has the floor at this time. It's the members' orders; it's the members' rules. The members should respect them.
Hon. I. Waddell: I invite the member to get up and speak. I'll draw my remarks to a conclusion so he can get up and speak, if he really wants to speak.
My point is this: that the members opposite are dealing with more than
But I ask the hon. members to realize that when they start doing this to first nations
I think it's scary, and I believe that in this upcoming election, the voters are going to have another look at what the Liberals' real policy is. And some of it is revealed in the report that I referred to today.
Hon. C. Evans: When I was a kid, my dad was a lawyer. He was a public defender, and he had the opinion that the law was a wonderful thing. It could be used to defend the poor. In spite of the fact that I just wanted to play baseball, he wanted me to go to school and become a lawyer too. I kind of wasted my youth and then went to work.
And until yesterday, I always felt kind of bad that I didn't go to law school. I always kind of thought that maybe that was a higher calling. Then yesterday I watched what lawyers could do to common sense and to my understanding of the truth, and I started feeling not so bad for all those years of driving a bulldozer and all those wasted hours as a kid throwing baseballs.
What seemed to me yesterday was happening in here, and with all due respect, I would say from both sides
I'm not a stupid person. I've been working here for ten years, and I've voted on lots of laws. It's not like I'm completely unfamiliar with laws or with parliamentary language. But they turned it into something that made no sense to me. It was gobbledegook. And it started making me feel like this venerable place was being defamed a little bit. That notion, you know, that you see on television sometimes, where they say the white man speaks with forked tongue or something
[1550]
Then yesterday motions started going back and forth. I heard words that made it sound like night was day and day was night, and I must be confused. When the sun's up it's really time to go to sleep, and when it's dark you should all get up and go to work. When I think it's Monday, it's Tuesday, because legal language turns night into day, right into wrong. It started to feel like maybe we do speak with a forked tongue. And I worried because sometimes young people come and sit in the public galleries. They sit up there, and they look down. They want to believe that whatever's going on down here is understandable. It's probably the truth as we understand it, and whatever we say, we mean.
I thought, well, what if they're up there watching us use language to turn common sense into nonsense, truth into fiction and maybe to break our word? And it seemed to me that maybe we ought to take this debate away -- with due respect -- from the lawyers and put it back where I kind of thought it was, which is a really simple question, in case there's anybody out there at home who doesn't get what's going on here. What it's supposed to mean is: do we intend to keep our word and make treaties? Or are we going to throw it into some other process that maybe makes it go away or maybe even has the people vote against it or that obfuscates it or, as the hon. member said yesterday, creates such trauma and struggle in the communities that we can't even get to the point of coming to agreements anymore? That's what's going on. We're trying to decide how the other side feels and how we feel about keeping our word.
Never mind all the legal language, that mumbo-jumbo that tries to turn it into something you'll never understand, because I guarantee you, I don't. It's about: do we keep our word or not? It seemed to me that one of the lawyers -- a good gentleman that works over there and was up on his feet yesterday -- was kind of saying, "Oh, don't worry, native people. This will make it better in the end." There were first nations people in all the galleries yesterday, and he was saying: "No, no. You don't actually know what's good for you. We who work down here know, because we went to law school -- see? And law school teaches us how to figure it out for everybody. So never mind what you think. Trust us down here. We're going to make it better by making it strange and putting it to a vote by a whole bunch of other people."
And it seemed to me that it might be legalese, but it's plain patronizing where I come from. Then you stand up on your feet and use the fact that you got the job. You have the chair. You're sitting down here in a room. You've got the right to speak, and you've got the vocabulary. You went to school. So you use that to say: "I know better than you how you should live your life."
And never mind the fact that five or six years ago, on both sides, all the people down here stood up and voted for a treaty process. That's a fact, and anybody who missed that
[ Page 17437 ]
-- you and me, the back bench, you over there? We got up; we stood up and voted for it. Six years later, maybe we're going to use the power of law to say we didn't mean it.In the meantime, in those six years, what happened? First nations people all over the province -- 50 or 60 different groups of them -- went out and said: "Okay. Never mind 139 years of trouble that went before. Maybe we'll believe them this time, because they all got up and voted together, the hon. members over there and over here. Maybe we'll believe them."
Interjections.
[1555]
Hon. C. Evans: Just ignore them. Just let them heckle. Let the people upstairs see who wants to heckle this debate -- okay? Watch.
Since we all voted a few years ago that we're going to sign treaties, first nations people around the province went out and took us at our word. They said: "We've got to get some advice. We've got to do some research. We've got to build some capacity. We've got to go to the table." As the hon. member for Skeena was talking about yesterday, they had to build the wherewithal to have these negotiations in the towns and villages where they live. They had to spend money to do it. I'm not talking about 15 cents or the lousy amount of money you make in your wages down here. I'm talking thousands and millions and tens of millions of dollars in order to negotiate with us because we voted.
They went out and borrowed the money against the conclusion of the treaty, because they believed it. Now we're going to have a vote down here, and the lawyers are going to say: "Oh well, maybe we didn't mean it." Who's going to pay the bill that the first nations borrowed to get the capacity to negotiate with us because we claim we tell the truth?
I want to ask the question, but it's kind of rhetorical, isn't it? Nobody's going to get up and answer the question. This isn't even really a debate; a debate takes two sides. Somebody over there has got to get up and say something. But for two days they haven't. They just heckle the speaker. They want to say that we're going to have referendums on treaties, but they won't even stand up in the room where they're getting paid and say why. Who's going to pay the bill if the referendum says no, we won't keep our word?
Hon. Speaker, I've got a couple of other questions. Maybe you'll debate with me, eh? Maybe you'll help me out. How do you have a vote? Who votes? We're going to have a treaty in the part of the world where I live, Nelson-Creston -- okay? So do the people of Vancouver get to vote, do you think? What if we all want peace where we live? Does his constituency get to vote it down if there are more of them?
Three-quarters or four-fifths -- or some -- of the people of B.C. live in one corner. They don't know the first thing about what's going on out there on the land. Do they get to vote? I'm sorry that I'm hollering. Do they get to vote, sir? Is that what a referendum means? If the treaty that we're negotiating is in the Peace River, do the people of Vancouver get to decide what your people are going to do?
I was kind of wondering: if you have a referendum
Or as the lawyer sort of said to me -- and I didn't quite get it, but maybe you folks will -- "No, we're not going to put the individual treaty to a referendum. We're going to put the idea of treaty to a referendum." And then what, if you vote no? Do they all go down? I just don't get it. It's lawyer talk. What are they doing to the truth, to the simple
I'm sorry for hollering. My dad told me that the law meant something, that civilization was dependent on this thing that is based on justice and formulated in law. And people like this write it, and then courts determine it.
I kind of operated that way until yesterday, and it all started to bend like a mind-warp. Lawyers got up and said to me that the law isn't really the law, that we can have a vote on whether or not we meant it when we made the law. We can take a law and pass it today and say that what we said was the law five years ago isn't really the law, that we were kind of kidding. We can use the power of words in this place to
And that's exactly what native people said about us, isn't it? For 130 years we said to them: "The law says you don't have the right to be here. You don't have the right to vote, and you don't even have the right to hire a lawyer and fight the law." And then we said: "Okay, we're changing. We're going to come in here and -- watch us -- both sides are going to stand up and make a law that says you've got a right to be here."
[1600]
And then five years later, we're going to use lawyer talk to say we didn't mean it? Hon. Speaker, my dad is dead, but if the things he believed in and a whole lot of other people fought for: to say that we were telling the truth when we made laws in places like this
There was some talk yesterday that suggested that maybe we had to have referendums because this thing turned out to be a bigger deal than some people thought it was, five or six or ten years ago. Hon. Speaker, we just made land use plans where I live. We took 13 percent of the land, and we put it into parks. That changed economics and how we live in the Kootenays more than any treaty could ever do. And not a single member here, not even our lawyers, said we had to put that to a referendum. They said the power to govern was enough.
So it can't really be about their fear of changing our lives, because we didn't do that with the land use plans, and we didn't do that when we managed the rivers. I think there must be something else going on here. If I were watching it at home, I'd be wondering: well, what is going on there? What are those lawyers trying to hide in their words? How come the loyal opposition that voted five or six years ago that we ought to do treaties is now bringing this position into this place?
Some of the people are actually political. They actually think about this stuff enough to come down to visit. And they
[ Page 17438 ]
might be wondering: how come, as we get close to the next election, the folks on the other side
A whole lot of people out there are watching. They know it ain't the lawyer talk. It has nothing to do with the blah-blah that's being put on the record in this joint. It must have to do with something that's going on that, to somebody, is bigger than justice and the law and telling the truth and the stuff we're doing down here.
I would submit that some of us think that what's going on here is that the hunger to power that some people in this room feel has led them to believe that they've got to move over and occupy the ground of Bill Vander Zalm and wipe out the ground of the Reform Party so that there will be only one party on ballot day.
I know this is cynical, but it makes more sense to me than the lawyer talk I heard yesterday. I think the right wing has said to these people: "On one issue you can't move. There will be one right-wing party on election day on one condition, and that is that there be referendums on land claims. We're willing to move on all that other stuff, but we don't want those Indian people getting treaties in British Columbia."
As cynical as it makes me feel, I actually think there are people sitting over there who meant what they said the day they stood up and voted for a treaty commission. I think they meant what they said when they participated in the hearings, and I think they meant it even when they applauded -- and some of them even cried -- the day the Nisga'a walked in here.
But I think the hunger for power has overcome the sense of justice and law and the desire to participate in history that we built this room for. I have no idea if we can beat this thing in this room, but I want somebody who's visiting here today to go out and talk about it. You can see this end of the room. This is where the press would sit if they thought treaties were interesting. You observe that the seats are empty. You folks that are here and a few people watching at home, you might be all there is to talk about it. Tell the story that the battle that's going on in here today is between lawyers obfuscating honesty and people trying to do the things they said they'd do five years ago, and don't let them win.
[1605]
R. Neufeld: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Neufeld: I'd like to introduce to the House a councillor from Fort St. John, Brian Churchill, up in the galleries watching what's going on down here. As I read in the paper today, in Fort St. John, Brian will be the NDP candidate running against me in the next provincial election. Welcome, Brian.
G. Clark: I haven't spoken in the House much in the last while.
Interjection.
G. Clark: Thank you, Dan.
I didn't plan to speak on this debate, but the member for Matsqui, my friend from Matsqui, provoked me when I was listening yesterday to his remarks. I could feel a speech coming on; I could just feel it building up in me that I had to make a speech. But then I realized that I'm rusty because I haven't spoken very much, and I'm really, you know, past it. I'm not running again. I'm not a practising politician. In fact, I'm no longer one of those bottom-feeding, scum-sucking, vote-grabbing politicians. I am now, or am soon to be, a pundit. I have joined the landed pundocracy. Now, when I look up and see Vaughan Palmer and Michael Smyth and that -- what's his name? -- pudgy guy from BCTV, I realize that I am on their side. I have joined them.
Interjections.
G. Clark: I did say I was not a scum-sucking bottom feeder.
I have joined the pundits, so I am no longer partisan. We all know that the gentlemen I have just named are not partisan. We know that they are intellectuals.
An Hon. Member: Rafe Mair as well.
G. Clark: I didn't mention Rafe Mair -- Rafe Mair as well. I have joined them -- or am soon to be joining them, at least for a few weeks on the campaign trail.
And so I thought today that I should speak not as a practising politician, which I am soon not to be, but rather in my new capacity as an observer of political events in British Columbia. I want to seriously talk about why it is a very dumb idea for there to be a referendum on aboriginal land claims and why the Liberal Party is wrong.
When I listened to the member for Matsqui, he made several remarks. One of the things that stuck in my mind was, and I've heard it from other Liberals and from the Leader of the Opposition
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Having been in this House for almost 15 years, I have seen a few things, and as former colleagues of mine have mentioned to me -- oh, maybe not quite yet -- in their speeches
[1610]
More recently -- when I happened to have more influence than I do today -- in the last election campaign, the issue
[ Page 17439 ]
of referenda on land claims was a subject of debate and discussion. The leader of the Liberal Party, who is currently the leader of the Liberal Party, took a position against the referendum. And so did the critic, the member for Matsqui. The only politician on the campaign trail, and the only party that supported a referendum, was the then Reform Party member and current member for Peace River South.
They supported a double referendum: a referendum provincewide and a second referendum in the region affected. You have to have a double majority. That was their position. To his credit, he argued that passionately and aggressively. I debated him on that very point. I debated the leader of the Liberal Party on this point, although he supported me on this issue. It was only after the last election that the Liberal Party changed their position on a referendum.
Now, I said I've been around here a long time, but usually if it's a matter of principle, it's not something that only lasts for a couple of years. Usually, if it's a matter of principle, it's something deeply held and, around this business, might last for half a dozen years or so at least, if not longer. So it is not a matter of principle for the Liberal Party, because they took a position against referenda repeatedly and consistently every year until just a couple of years ago, after the last election.
What was it honestly, hon. Speaker? It's not racism. Nobody on the opposition side is a racist as far as I know, and I would not ever say that to any member that I know in this House. I know that people come to this chamber with good intentions and with very strong beliefs and want to do a better job. I see no evidence of racism in this chamber, on the other side of the House or this side of the House. It's not racism that made them change their position, and it's not principle that makes them hold this position. The only reason that they support a referendum on aboriginal land claims is the lowest form of political opportunism. It is the only explanation that rings true.
The members of the opposition, the Liberal Party, support a referendum because they are opposed to the Nisga'a treaty and because they want to see something different. I say that, because if you were in favour of the Nisga'a treaty, clearly you would not be standing in the House calling for a referendum; you'd be supporting the treaty. So the only reason for supporting a referendum is to try to stop that treaty or other treaties like it. They have not been saying that, but I think it's obvious to any student of politics or anybody who observes the scene in British Columbia today. They are opposed to the Nisga'a treaty. They're going to court to stop the Nisga'a treaty. They disagree with elements of the Nisga'a treaty.
Before this next election, and I gather there is kind of an election sense in the air, it behooves the Liberal Party
As I said earlier, the land claims process is not about principles; it's not about racism. It's about political opportunism, in my view, and I think anybody watching would agree. The member for Matsqui also said that this would not be a referendum on minority rights. In that he's wrong as well. It's sophistry -- or weaselry, to put it in more pundit-like language. It is sophistry, because -- and let's be clear about what land claims negotiation is -- the constitution of Canada confers aboriginal rights under section 35. So in the constitution, there is protection for aboriginal rights, for treaty rights and for treaty rights that will be acquired.
The members opposite say: "We have no quarrel with that." They say, or pretend: "We don't propose a referendum on treaty rights." Therefore they say they can vote in favour of the original motion presented by the government.
[1615]
Why it is weaselry, hon. Speaker, is because those rights in the constitution are undefined. It is precisely the definition of those minority rights that is the substance of the treaty process in British Columbia. We are the only province in Canada that did not sign treaties with aboriginal people. That puts aboriginal people in a powerful legal position to pursue their rights. The treaty process was designed in such a way that aboriginal people in this province were asked to give up their right to pursue the codification and definition of their rights in court and exchange them for agreed-upon rights between the federal government, the provincial government and themselves.
If you respect the constitution, as the members opposite say they do and say they support aboriginal rights, the treaty process is designed to define those rights. If you suggest that a referendum will restrict the mandate dramatically with respect to the mandate of the province in terms of negotiation of the definition of those rights that are protected by the constitution, then you are directly affecting minority rights. You're directly affecting them because you're saying to aboriginal people that no longer is this a question of negotiating what those rights are.
If the mandate is such that whole elements are excluded from that -- that's the basis of a new government, a potential new Liberal government -- then aboriginal people will have only one choice -- or two choices, really. One is direct action, and one could hardly blame them for taking direct and more militant action, or secondly, choosing not the negotiation route, which will be closed off prematurely by a referendum, but rather the legal course of action: to have the courts define their rights.
We should be clear, and the Liberal Party should be clear, that if they pursue a referendum on the question of the negotiating mandate of the province, and if that mandate is less than the current mandate or the Nisga'a treaty, then we will have no negotiated treaties in British Columbia. Aboriginal people will quite rightly, I believe, choose the courts as a way to try to define their constitutional rights in this country. They will end the negotiation process. It is weaselry in the extreme for them to pretend to be in favour of aboriginal rights in the constitution -- for them to pretend to be in favour of negotiations to settle those treaty rights and, at the same time, erect a type of mandate-limiting move with respect to a referendum which would forestall those negotiations. That was a long sentence.
Let me try that again. I want to be clear. A referendum which restricts and limits the provincial government's negotiating mandate is a prescription for either chaos or, at the very least, paralysis with respect to the land claims process. That is the clear and, I think, objective analysis of everybody who has looked at this question. It is sophistry. It is not really telling the truth to say that you're in favour of a referendum on an aboriginal mandate for the provincial government and not admit that it means the end of negotiations and a more confrontational approach when it comes to aboriginal people. The member for Matsqui said, in fact, that this actually will expedite the treaty process. "You people aren't doing a very good job", he said. "You've only got a couple of agreements-in-principle and one treaty. This will expedite."
[ Page 17440 ]
Why have we not made more progress with a government committed to progress on aboriginal rights? Because aboriginal people feel that the mandate that this government has given the negotiators is not broad enough to encompass their rights under the constitution. Aboriginal people feel that we have been tougher than we should be -- not as generous as we should be -- in negotiations. It's their right to feel that way, and it's our right to have a tough mandate.
And, by the way, I want to acknowledge that it's the right of a future government to have a tougher mandate. But don't pretend that by having a more restrictive mandate, you will expedite the process. You clearly will not. Having a more restrictive mandate from the provincial government by way of referendum or otherwise means that you will not have negotiated treaties in British Columbia. You will have conflict, confrontation, and you will have court action. That's the prescription that we see from members opposite.
[1620]
I want to talk just a little bit, as well -- not as eloquently, certainly, as the speaker before me -- about a process of referendum. When I used to have influence in the caucus, I had a rule which was never to follow the member for Nelson-Creston in speeches. I now am in the position of following the member for Nelson-Creston.
I want to say this: what would the question or questions look like? The members opposite and the critic have said that up to 20 questions could be put to the people of British Columbia. So think about how we have a debate and negotiations where we put to the people a bewildering series of questions for them to answer, which would a priori restrict the ability of the provincial government then to act. Is this negotiation, I ask you? Is this negotiation for the government of British Columbia -- one of the three parties to a treaty -- to lay out before them the bottom line of the province in every area as set out by referendum and then say to the aboriginal people: "Here, take it or leave it"? How can you negotiate, then, if you have set in stone a mandate approved by referendum? You can't do it.
Secondly, how do you have a fair discussion on a referendum? Aboriginal people in this province, as we all know, live 12 years less than non-aboriginal people. The alcoholism rate is extremely high; the poverty rate is even higher. We are taking marginalized people who have been abused by the state for years, and we are in the process of negotiation with them. Somehow we are going to have a referendum -- if you listen to the opposition, remember this -- with no limits on spending. We're going to have a referendum debate that allows powerful interests to spend millions of dollars on advertising and discussion of their points of view.
We're going to decide what the fate is, really, of the treaty-making process for 3 percent of British Columbians who have substantially fewer resources in every way to debate and discuss in the forum of public opinion during a referendum. It is patently unfair, because of the fundamental and dramatic and explosive imbalance of power that exists between aboriginal people and the rest of the province. To think that we can have a fair referendum -- even discussion -- in that context is preposterous, and they know it. They know it; they must know it. Everybody in British Columbia must know that.
Hon. Speaker, I'm going to end my brief discussion by giving some advice to the opposition again in my new capacity as a non-partisan pundit on the provincial scene. If, God forbid, the Liberal Party were to form the government, they would be very busy. They don't realize yet how busy they will be. They will not be able to read a novel again -- those in cabinet -- for five or six years. They won't even be able to read all of their briefing books.
They have a radical agenda. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be partisan; I think it's obvious they have a fairly radical agenda. It's going to involve changes to the Labour Code, which will be confrontational, I predict. It will involve cuts to taxes, which will involve significant cuts to services. But that's not a bad thing
This is not partisan. It is obvious to anybody that a conservative government, in the guise of a Liberal Party, that has the agenda they have will be very busy people. They have a 90-day plan, they say, if they win. And it's an ambitious plan. I applaud them. Go for it. Do your thing. Cut taxes, cut health care, cut education, raise tuition fees, do what you have to do. But whatever it is you're doing, I guarantee you that it will be confrontational. There may not be chaos. Governments in Ontario had hundreds of thousands of people protesting against them, and they even got re-elected. So go ahead. Maybe it's the right way to get re-elected in Canada in the year 2001; maybe that's the right prescription for election success. Go ahead.
[1625]
But think about it. In the midst of the commonsense revolution that they say they're going to bring about in British Columbia, in the midst of fighting with public sector unions and labour unions and laying off thousands of people and protests
In the context of that, they're committed now to bringing in a referendum on aboriginal land claims which, like it or not -- even if there is goodwill and good intentions -- will bring a racial element to the debate which surely will not be productive or constructive. Surely that debate is one which is not going to advance the interests of British Columbia. It certainly is not going to advance the interests of aboriginal people, but it will not even advance the interests of our province.
It will even -- to use the right-wing language -- scare away investments, because the instability that is caused by not settling land claims is very significant indeed. Some people say $1 billion a year now. That's now. What happens when aboriginal people decide that the treaty negotiation process was in bad faith and the millions of dollars they spent on that process is squandered? What happens when they decide to take direct action to try to assert their rights, as they have from time to time in British Columbia and no doubt will -- emboldened, I might say, by successive Supreme Court of
[ Page 17441 ]
Canada decisions which have sided in their favour? What happens when the treaty process collapses and the debate becomes acrimonious and the referendum degenerates into the debate about the rights of minority people in this country, who have rights under the constitution and are now prepared, frankly, to exercise those rights? They're not going to sit back quietly -- we all know that -- in the context of a Liberal government that already has an agenda of divisiveness and, I think, will breed the kind of confrontation we haven't seen for some time.
The Liberal Party has backed off from many of their positions. I don't really think they've backed off, but they've said they've backed off from them, and the media has applauded them for that. This is a case where almost every media outlet has said it's dumb to do a referendum. Even Barbara Yaffe, one of my new colleagues, has begged the Liberal Party to change their position on referenda. Even Rafe Mair has said it's a dumb idea, and we all know that they do everything that Rafe Mair asks. Even though all those people have asked them to back off, they have not.
Hon. Speaker, this is my advice to them. If they back off, it might actually help them win. I wouldn't say that as a partisan politician, but I say that as a pundit, and I say that honestly as someone who cares deeply about British Columbia and the future of our province.
This referendum cannot happen. It is a bad idea; it is a divisive idea. It is one that is only there because they were desperate to try to seek political gain. It is not one founded in any kind of principle; we know that. It's not one founded even in racism or those base motives. The only reason that the Liberal Party proposed a referendum was to assist them politically.
The time has come for them to recognize that it no longer assists them politically. It will hurt them in this election campaign coming up very shortly. But more important than the politics of it -- and I know that all members of the House should agree with this, but certainly the members on the government side do -- it will hurt British Columbia if they pursue this morally repugnant idea of a referendum on aboriginal land claims. And they should take the opportunity now to change their position and be applauded for it.
[1630]
Hon. G. Robertson: I rise today to support the amendment to Motion 1. I'd also like to report that this province is making great inroads into treaty-making, and we are moving forward as a province.
I can remember when I was elected in 1996 and we were at one of our first caucus meetings. I was appointed to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I have a large riding; it's about 20,000 square kilometres. So I went up to the member for North Coast and asked him: "Well, what do think about me being on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs?" He put his hand on my shoulder and said: "Glenn, how many first nations bands have you got within North Island riding?" I said: "Fifteen." He said: "Well, you know, Glenn, you might want to go out on the road and check this province out. It's a great opportunity to see what makes it work, to understand it better and to find out more about first nations people and their role and their history in this great province of ours, and their culture and their heritage."
I did that, and I learned a lot. I still have a lot to learn. We've got 15 first nations bands in our riding. And they're making progress on treaties. They're negotiating in good faith, and they're doing a good job.
Recently, a week ago this past Saturday, I went to Port Alberni for the initialling of the Nuu-chah-nulth agreement-in-principle. It was a great day in Alberni. It was a great day for the Nuu-chah-nulth people, and it'll be a great day when that treaty is concluded, not only for the Nuu-chah-nulth people but for every man, woman and child on North Island and the west coast of Vancouver Island.
We're not negotiating treaties across the province because it's necessarily the right thing to do -- it is the right thing to do -- but also because there is no reasonable alternative other than negotiating treaties. The Supreme Court of our country and the Chief Justice at the time, Antonio Lamer, was very, very clear that first nations have aboriginal rights, that those rights have not been extinguished and that those rights are rights to the land itself. And the treaty negotiation process in this province basically defines, through negotiations, what those rights are.
What are the alternatives? There are really only two alternatives. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke about that eloquently. He spoke about not wanting to speak after the member for Nelson-Creston. Well, I never thought I'd be speaking after the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, but he spoke very eloquently. He spoke about the future of this province and said that an important part of the future of this province is negotiating treaties in good faith.
There are no other alternatives. I talked to people in my riding. They say: "Glenn, why are we negotiating treaties?" I tell them, and they say that they don't understand. I talk to them for a while, and they understand that there is an alternative, and the alternative is the courts. It's not one that is fair to first nations, and it's not one that's fair to this province. Even if you did go to the courts, you're going to have to come back and negotiate specific elements of a treaty. So this is a process that I'm proud of.
I don't think we should go back to the days when there was a war in the woods, and there were blockades all over this province. It was absolutely intolerable. The opposition often speaks about our resource communities and about forestry in this great province of ours, although a lot of them have never had anything to do with it. Well, on the North Island I worked in that industry for 25 years. It's always been cyclical, and it's always been tough. It's a tough life working in the forest industry.
[1635]
A big part of what we're doing in British Columbia right now and what the corporations are doing in this country
Without those components we're not going to gain market access; we're going to lose market access. It's happening today as we speak. I talk to loggers up and down the coast, and they say: "Glenn, we're concerned. We haven't got enough wood to log." Well, it's a five-million-cubic-metre
[ Page 17442 ]
undercut today on the coast of British Columbia -- five million cubic metres. There are a predicted 11 million cubic metres under harvest as well, for a grand total of 16 million cubic metres. Our companies and our communities are having difficulties accessing markets. Treaty negotiations and finality and certainty with respect to land use are going to be key to maintaining and enhancing those markets and solidifying our resource sector.
When we look at the problems that we had back in the eighties before we got engaged in a treaty-making process, I think a referendum would definitely take us back to those days. The Liberals with the referendum plan will destroy the treaty process and move us back at least a decade in time. A referendum is not quasi-evil. It's not semi-evil; it's absolutely evil. After negotiating with first nations in this province for ten years in good faith and with honour, we must not go back to those days ten years ago.
You know, I was looking at what the opposition had to say with respect to referenda. I was talking to some people last weekend, and they said: "Glenn, what do you think of that?" And we've all heard what I think of it: not much. But I said that what they're suggesting for first nations people in this province is not a whole lot different than what they're suggesting for trade unions, for child care, for our environment, for the poor, the destitute and the despondent. It's just an opportunity. I would strongly suggest that the Liberal opposition really consider their position on this. It is not a good position. It is not good for our province; it's not good for our communities; it's not good for our children.
I remember when the Nisga'a agreement was finalized, and Joe Gosnell walked through the door in our Legislature. The Bar was lifted, and he came in. I believe it was the second time in the history of this Legislature that that had happened. It was a great day when that treaty was finalized. We have to do more. We're moving ahead with the Sechelt agreement-in-principle, the Sliammon agreement-in-principle and the Nuu-chah-nulth agreement-in-principle. There have been over 70 interim measures in this fiscal year alone, and that's progress. There have been over 25 treaty-related measures this year also and 33 tables in agreement-in-principle stages.
In respect to certainty, equality and finality, the opposition say they would put the principles of certainty, equality and finality to a referendum. Hon. Speaker, let's talk about where the government stands on these issues. In respect to certainty, the Nisga'a treaty. Currently the Nisga'a certainty model is the best approach to achieving both provincial and first nation goals. It's a treaty that will be a full and final settlement of first nations land claims. Treaties provide everybody -- the citizens of British Columbia, the government, first nations people, as well as investors and workers -- with the certainty that they need to get on with building our province and creating jobs and prosperity for all first nations families -- all families in this province.
[1640]
We've heard the opposition talk about the economy of our province. Last year, I believe, we had 3.4 percent economic growth, which is good. Look at Europe, for instance. They're down around 2.5 to 2.8 percent. So we've had good economic growth. But you've got to ask yourself: without treaties, where are we going to go in this province with economic growth and development?
Back about three years ago the B.C. Business Summit commissioned Michael Goldberg, an economist and tenured professor at UBC, to do a report before the B.C. Business Summit. He said in his report -- it was a report that thick, and there were a lot of things he covered off -- that the number one thing we can do in this province to stimulate economic development, growth and diversification, particularly in the outlying and rural areas, is to settle treaties as per the B.C. treaty process -- the number one thing.
We need certainty on our land. Whether it's shellfish tenures, logging, mining, resource development or tourism, it doesn't matter. We need finality, and we need certainty. We're not going to get it without doing treaties, and a referendum certainly won't be making any treaties. This province will be in total chaos.
Look at the treaty-making process in British Columbia in respect to equality, the Criminal Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meeting or beating environment standards, laws of general application -- they're all there. Finality. A treaty will exhaustively set out all the rights of the first nation and will have all the geographical extent of those rights and their limits incorporated in them. Those rights will then be protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Let's be clear: this government's principles of treaty are clearly spelled out.
In respect to principles of treaty negotiations, the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to apply equally to all British Columbians. The Criminal Code will apply equally to all British Columbians. Continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed. Jurisdictional certainty between first nations and local municipalities must be clearly spelled out. Provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection will continue to apply. The federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained. Private land is not on the table. This means that the government will not expropriate land to use as treaty settlement lands. And it goes on and on and on.
These principles are balanced, and they're fair. They were well publicized in the Nisga'a agreement. In fact, they have been on the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs web site since 1994 -- for over six years, well before the last provincial election. When the citizenry took to the polls in 1996 and re-elected this government, our principles at the treaty tables were clear. They were extremely clear. The public supports these principles. I have to ask: why doesn't the opposition?
The public wants treaties. Go and talk to our mayors on the North Island or any rural area in this province where they have first nations people; it's basically every area. They want treaties. They want settlements. The first nations want treaties. The business community wants treaties. They're telling me on North Island: "Glenn, move the treaty process ahead." Our government has done that, and our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has done that.
The opposition, I believe, just doesn't want treaties. Why else would they try to weasel out of agreements-in-principle that even their own lawyers tell them are agreements in good faith? Why else would they have been spouting about treaties for three years and not have a question in respect to referenda? Why would they not have thought about what constitutes a majority? Why does the opposition not listen to their friends in the media?
You know, Barbara Yaffe, the Vancouver Sun editorial board and Vaughn Palmer said that it's a bad promise. It's
[ Page 17443 ]
morally wrong, and it's impractical. It's a dangerous thing to go back on the whole process and start over again with a referendum. Why won't the opposition listen to the people at the table?
[1645]
I've got a quote for you: "One year is a long time if you have been negotiating for five or seven years, and then you have to slow down for a referendum." Archie Little, the Nuu-chah-nulth negotiator, said: "We want to get on with our lives."
Miles Richardson, chief commissioner for the B.C. Treaty Commission, said the Treaty Commission is warning that changing the fundamental principles guiding negotiations right now would spell the end of negotiations as we know it.
Hon. Speaker, I'm concerned. What would the point of a referendum be? What would you do afterwards? When you ask questions so broad that they apply provincewide and will last three years, what use can the answer be at the table? Are they going to ask something so broad and pointless as: "Do you believe in equality?" Or are they going to ask questions so specific that you have to hold another referendum in a couple of years?
The opposition claims that it wants a referendum to increase participation in the process. How will a referendum do that? In my own paper, the first nations people on the North Island
I see that the Liberal candidate for North Island is in the paper and has made some comments: "This isn't the majority lording over the minority. That's not what it's about." Well, excuse me -- that's exactly what a referendum is about. Referendum is, by definition, an absence of leadership. It's an abandonment of the process.
He goes on to say: "
You know, the people have spoken. Even the Vancouver Sun on March 16 of this year, in an editorial, says: "If the Liberals are sincere in engaging all British Columbians in the treaty process, they must dump their referendum plans. There are far less divisive ways to accomplish this than referendums." Mr. Visser -- that's the opposition's person in North Island riding -- goes on to say: "It's about bringing people into the process so we don't have treaties that can't be sold or understood."
Sold to whom? There have been 143 consultations and public information sessions for the Nuu-chah-nulth treaty negotiations -- 143. And this guy is saying: "Well, we have to have a referendum so that we can sell them, and people actually know what's going on." Everybody's participating in this treaty process: regional advisory committees, treaty advisory committees, local governments, resource corporations, environmentalists -- everybody.
Hon. Speaker, treaties are about honour. This is about a commitment to first nations to live up to our word, to negotiate treaties in good faith. This is about making progress, not making cheap political points.
The opposition talks about principles. The member preceding me spoke about principles that change. The opposition was clear, going back a number of years ago, that they would not entertain referenda; they would negotiate treaties. Now those principles have changed not only for first nations but, I would submit, for working people in this province, for trade unions, for working groups, for students, for our kids, for child care -- and the list goes on. It is about principles, it is about honour, and it is about integrity.
[1650]
I don't know how many people have had the honour to sit down with first nations people and talk to them face to face about their communities and their children, and about what place they want to have in this great province of ours. But when you talk to them, they talk with honour, they talk in good faith, and they talk about the future not only for themselves but for all British Columbians.
Referendum is reactionary. It's about the abdication of responsibility and the abandonment of leadership. We on this side of the House are prepared to live up to our principles. Quite frankly, that side of the House has no principles to live up to, which is why they are now prepared to pursue, really, a course of bad faith. Referenda have no place in the settlement of land claims or treaty rights, or any other kind of rights.
I want to finish up. I believe British Columbia is on the right track with its treaty process. I believe we are moving ahead with treaties, agreements-in-principle and negotiating good treaties that will benefit every man, woman and child in this province. We are on a course to build a better province than when this government took government almost ten years ago -- a province that's better not for us but for those who come after us and their children. A province that reflects the needs of today's families
Our government wants to see treaties settled equitably. We want certainty in respect to our lands. We want certainty with respect to the land base. We want social justice for aboriginal people. And we want to build economic opportunities for today's families and communities in really the greatest province of all provinces and the greatest place in the world to live today. Treaties are about common sense. In the final analysis, treaties are about honour, and treaties are about dignity.
Hon. H. Giesbrecht: Let me start, since this is the first time I've had a chance to address this chamber for about a year
I want, first of all, to extend a thank-you to members for the kind words during my recovery, especially to the members opposite. I said to one member opposite that I was recovering and lying in the hospital thinking about all the barbs that I was going to hurl across the way when I next reappeared in this House, and they did make it rather difficult to come up with any with very sharp edges. So I did learn something in the process. I hope that my remarks are tempered with a little bit of remembering the kind thoughts that you sent my way. I think the reason that I'm back is probably because of many of those.
I want to extend good wishes to anyone out there who's facing a health challenge, because some of my friends are as well. It's my experience, anyway, that when you don't have
[ Page 17444 ]
good health and good health care services, it can be very devastating. I also want to extend some thanks to the members of the first nations communities in Terrace, who treated me with very warm kindness during my recovery. I'm glad to be back.
I was going to speak on the budget yesterday. Members opposite wouldn't debate their position, so I was denied the opportunity. Imagine my chagrin when I turned on BCTV news to discover that the budget debate had stopped because the government ran out of speakers, which was sort of news to me. But then most of what I hear on BCTV news is news to me anyway, so I didn't find that particularly unusual.
[1655]
Anyway, the purpose of this particular debate, I don't think, is not to convince the members opposite. That happens on such rare occasions. I'm not so sure that my persuasive powers will influence even the three members that are still sitting opposite. I thought I should express my opinion, because in the riding that I'm in, I have a very substantial first nations population, although I'm inclined not to talk about percentages, because I don't want to treat them any differently in terms of the service delivery than I would anyone else. I certainly value their support for me, so that's the reason I thought I should get up and speak.
Anyone that watched the first few speakers yesterday when the motion was introduced, particularly first nations, would probably have breathed a sigh of frustration. And I think the reaction to the motion itself and the need to amend what should have been a fairly clear statement to close a legal or political loophole that the opposition was going to use must have really caused some frustration out there to anyone watching. After more than 100 years of struggle, first nations are going to have yet another obstacle thrown in the path of their attempt to seek justice and fairness.
The issues around treaty negotiations are fairly complicated, and they have to address such things as years of exploitation of their lands, residential schools, small reserves, confined living space in terms of reserve lands, years of oppression and limiting their economic and political power. I just can't understand why one would throw up another obstacle in their path. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Now, it seems to me anyway -- and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think, expressed it very well in terms of why
If they don't get up and debate this motion and say what's on their minds, then it's really rather difficult to say. One can only guess in terms of the evidence that's there, in terms of the people that support them and what their positions are.
Now, in my riding of Skeena we don't include
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
During the course of that and in various campaigns I visited homes of first nations folk, and I've enjoyed the warmth and hospitality in their homes. I've sometimes looked around and seen the very subtle and sometimes not too subtle signs of poverty, and I've listened to the comments from elders about the lack of hope in terms of the youth in their community. I don't know how anybody could throw out another obstacle in the path to justice and fairness and reconciliation. It is really hard.
[1700]
Maybe this is a rural issue more than it is anything else. Certainly members opposite don't have too many members from rural ridings, and perhaps they don't experience this. Perhaps they never confront someone on the doorstep in one of the villages who has a very passionate opinion about the need for justice and fairness.
I've never supported the notion of having a referendum when it came to the issue of human rights and minority rights. I think it's a copout myself. Yes, there are people, of course, that would say we should have the right to have a referendum on everything, and it doesn't matter what it is. I'm not of that opinion. There are certainly cases where you would engage in a referendum -- in the simple cases municipalities have, where if you want to built an edifice like an arena or a statue to the local mayor, maybe it requires a referendum -- but certainly not on minority rights.
Up north and in the interior -- and I think you'd say that for all of rural B.C. -- there is an appreciation of the need to work with our first nations, the need to share the resources that are out there, the need to engage in reconciliation. If you're going to make this province better and if you're going to make it stronger, I think you have to have everybody participating. You can no longer exclude a segment because you put them on reserves a hundred and some years ago and you kept them there in a state of dependency.
I witnessed the public meetings that were called by the former Reform MP in the Skeena riding, who basically advocated the idea of referendum. I remember the discussions that took place. The same old negative stereotypes of first nations were all trotted out at these meetings by the same people all the time. I remember the divisive exercise, the destructive nature of the process and how unfair it was. It was frequented by the same people so that if a first nations person got up to speak, they were generally shouted down or ridiculed. It was a very divisive process.
What troubled me more than anything, hon. Speaker, was what I heard from some parents about the experiences that their kids were going through at school. Strangely enough -- and it shouldn't be any surprise to anybody -- kids repeat what they hear at the dinner table, and they hear what's repeated in homes. Some of the first nations students were harassed, and some of them had to defend themselves. And I
[ Page 17445 ]
don't know how anybody across the way can consider that and say that, yes, we should go through this process all over again.
So I support this resolution 100 percent. I also want to remind people -- people across the way, for example -- that there was a lot of support for the Nisga'a treaty from community leaders, from business leaders and even from the Terrace council.
Ironically, one of the Terrace council members wanted to run for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Skeena recently. He was rejected. The Leader of the Official Opposition wouldn't sign his papers because the council member took a position in support of the Nisga'a treaty. Now, ironically of course, when I watch the TV once in a while, the Leader of the Official Opposition is on there about electoral reform and how he's going to allow free votes. I just can't get over the hypocrisy of that statement, when you would deny the local Liberal constituency the right to select the person of their choice to represent the party.
That's the extent that it has come to. I guess that sort of explains why members opposite who are well-known federal Liberals, and some of them support the treaty
I don't know. I think it's incumbent upon governments -- it's always appeared to me that way -- to show some leadership on those issues rather than appeal to the worst in human nature. The future is far too important for us to resort to referenda on issues like minority rights and what fairness we provide.
The risk of what the opposition advocates is just far too serious for me to even think about supporting something like that. I can't imagine what the members opposite are going to do if they go to the villages during an election campaign and they talk to some of the first nations folk out there. I don't know how you could look some of those folks in the eye and tell them that, once more, we are going to resort to a referendum where 97 percent of the B.C. population will determine what rights you get and whether or not you finally reach that position where you have fairness and justice and you become an equal partner in the economy of the province.
[1705]
I want to appeal to the members opposite. If there was ever an opportunity to change your position -- and I know you've changed it on a whole lot of other things that are even less important than this one -- and ever a cause to change your position, I think this is the time to do it. I appeal to the members opposite to do just that.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment to the motion.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Amendment approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Lali |
| Kasper | Goodacre | |
| NAYS -- 33 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
[1710]
Motion 1 as amended approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Lali |
| Kasper | Goodacre | |
| NAYS -- 33 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
[ Page 17446 ]
[1715]
Hon. G. Janssen: It is at times like this, when I look into the press gallery and I see no one there, that we truly miss our good friend Andrew Lynch, who I know would have been up there at this time.
I call second reading of Bill 9.
ACCESS TO EDUCATION ACT
(second reading)
Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the Access to Education Act be read for a second time.
This act will reduce current tuition fees for approximately 200,000 students at B.C.'s 28 public colleges, institutes, university colleges and universities by 5 percent, effective September 1, 2001. This legislation will freeze tuitions at their current level between April 1, 2001, and August 31, 2001 and will also freeze mandatory ancillary fees from March 31, 2001. This legislation will also provide funding for an additional 5,025 student spaces at our post-secondary institutions in 2001-02.
This legislation is building on the commitment we have made to B.C.'s families to keep education affordable with our five-year tuition freeze. This legislation will see average university tuition in British Columbia drop to $2,166 per year. That means that B.C.'s university tuitions will be $1,805 less than in Ontario and $1,675 less than in Alberta. These figures mean that there will be no further tuition increases in those provinces this year.
Because we've held the line on fees and are now taking an important step forward to cut them, the cost of a four-year university degree in this province is $7,220 less than in Ontario. That's $7,220 more in the pockets of our families and young people than is available to their counterparts in eastern Canada. That's a real impact that's available to all British Columbians who elect to pursue higher education.
Because our fees are low and now getting lower, more families than ever before can realistically consider sending their children to university or college so they can get the benefit a higher education provides. That couldn't be more important than it is to the families that come from, particularly, and live outside of the lower mainland area. The university colleges and institutes around the province provide much greater opportunity for access to young people no matter what part of the province they come from and, as a result of lower fees, make it even more affordable for the families that live outside of the traditional university locations in the lower mainland.
[1720]
This government is firmly committed to the principle that access to education is the cornerstone of a society that presents true equality of opportunity to all of its citizens. High fees make education a perk that's only available to the rich. In the world-view of some, it's all right that education remains a privilege for the few. But in a global, knowledge-based economy, education is a requirement for all of those who want to benefit from the great transformation that our economy is undergoing. The more people who have access to learning, the better off we all are.
Because lower fees do increase access and enrolment, our tuition cut is helping to position B.C. as a world leader in high-tech and information-based industries. The record shows that our policies are working. B.C. has been a national leader in enrolment growth, posting a 12 percent increase between 1993 and the 1998-99 year, while national enrolment during the same time period declined by 3 percent.
Our low fees have been a big part of this trend, but our ample support for our institutions has enabled steadily growing enrolment as well. This year we will create another 5,025 student spaces and provide a $116.5 million increase to our colleges, institutes, university colleges and universities. This funding provides compensation for our fee reduction and ensures that the already excellent quality of education available at our institutions will continue to improve.
This excellence continues to be recognized nationally, as our three universities continue to rank near the top of their categories in the Maclean's university survey year after year. This continuing excellence is a result of the more than $500 million in increased funding support we've provided to create 45,000 new student spaces over the last decade. We've also created three new universities in the past decade -- the only new universities to be established in the past 25 years. That's including all of Canada. We've expanded the availability of degree-level learning across the province with the development of the university college concept. Those of us who are served by university colleges across the province know full well the new opportunities to access they have created for families, students and adult learners in our regions.
We're also taking firm steps to increase the number of trades training positions and apprenticeship opportunities, because there have been a number of reports in recent years to indicate that there will be a very significant shortage in trades and skilled and high-tech workers in the future. It is imperative that we take steps now to create the spaces necessary so that those skilled workers can be available to contribute to B.C.'s strengthening economy in the years to come. All of these resources are more available than ever before to British Columbians of all backgrounds because of our efforts first to control and now to reduce tuition costs.
Hon. Speaker, I must say that I really take a great deal of pride in British Columbia's efforts to make education affordable. We are beginning to be recognized far and wide as a leader in this area. In fact, we're being copied, and sometimes copying is the greatest form of flattery, I guess. Manitoba reduced fees last year, and I'm told that other provinces, including Newfoundland, are considering following our model and reducing tuition as well.
If you look south of the border, you can see that our American cousins are grappling with this very same issue. As an example, in California, the leaders of that state's Republican Party are demanding tuition cuts of as much as 50 percent. Clearly British Columbia isn't alone in recognizing the wisdom of lower fees.
[1725]
This legislation moves us closer to our goal of creating an education system in British Columbia that will remain available to all. Our comprehensive measures to increase access to affordable, high-quality education are an investment in our future prosperity and the future of all British Columbian families. It's because of this government's commitment to quality, affordability and access that B.C. is better prepared to face the challenges of the knowledge-based economy of our future. And it's because of this commitment that British
[ Page 17447 ]
Columbia has earned the reputation as Canada's education province. It is a reputation that all of us should be proud of.
Thank you, Hon. Speaker. I yield the floor to other members who wish to engage in this debate.
J. Weisbeck: My comments will be very brief today, because we have had five other opportunities to speak to this bill. This is the sixth time we've had a similar bill introduced to the House. On previous occasions this was called the Tuition Fee Freeze Act. There are some differences in this bill. They made some allowances to compensate for the decreased revenues to the institutions. There's also a reference to the increased number of spaces, to a total of 5,025 for all post-secondary institutions. This bill also allows for a 5 percent decrease in tuition fees for the programs provided after August 31, 2001. Once again, for the sixth time, we will be supporting this bill, as we have done on other occasions.
I made the comment that there were some allowances for compensation, because I think this has not historically been the fact. The universities actually say that there's been a $40 million shortfall -- the difference between tuition fees that would not be collected and the amount of revenues. In this bill they've accounted for some of that compensation, to the tune of about $7.5 million. This certainly is still a very, very large shortfall, and this has had some major impacts on the institutions being able to carry out their business of educating students.
The government has always taken credit for increasing participation rates in British Columbia because of this policy. In 1996, when I asked the then minister what sort of reasoning they used to bring in this policy, he told me that it was the Orum report. Now, the Orum report states that institutions should be allowed to set their own tuition rates. But nevertheless, the participation rates are now approaching the national average, so I think that we should be giving more credit to the youth of our province. The fact is that we're moving away from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based economy, and the students of this province are recognizing the importance of post-secondary education and are lining up to get into our institutions.
The Advanced Education Council of B.C. recently did a report called "The Access Challenge." Their opening remarks talk about the looming access crisis: "British Columbia is at the verge of a socioeconomic crisis that results from insufficient access to post-secondary education and an impending drop in the quality of post-secondary education." What I contend is that the students of this province realize that fact, and the need for more spaces will increase significantly, not only because of demographics but also due to the trend towards lifelong learning and skills upgrading. The new economy makes it necessary for many workers and professionals to upgrade their skills and knowledge constantly.
[1730]
So while I agree that tuition fees have been a barrier and any financial help is a great help to decrease these barriers to education, I don't think that the government can take full credit for increasing participation by this policy.
You know, the government has had ten years to plan for the increased need, ten years to be proactive and ten years to study the change in demographics. And still we find ourselves with lineups to get into programs. We find ourselves well below the national average for producing university degrees.
These degrees, in some areas, are particularly apparent. And once again, I read from the study that shows that doctors, for example, are being educated at 40 percent of the need for this province. Engineers are well below the national average.
So the debate has never been about decreasing tuition fees. I said that of course finances are a barrier to some students to complete post-secondary education, but without an impact study, we will never know how much impact tuition cuts have had on participation rates. One thing we know for certain: less tuition has decreased the debt loads of those students that have been able to get their course load in the four years. For others, it has meant more money in their pockets to help pay for moving costs as they are forced to move away from the worst economy in the country to find a job.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to rise to make a few remarks about Bill 9. It is an act that I support firmly, and I want to just reflect on why I feel it's important for my own community. I first moved to Prince George in the mid-1970s. The great challenge for educators in the community then was to trying to convince young people to finish high school, and it was a tough sell. It was a very tough sell, because at that time you could leave school with a grade 9 or grade 10 education, get a job in the woods or the mill and make more than the teacher who was urging you to stay in school.
Times have changed. Many, if not most, of those low-skill and good-wage jobs have disappeared. Our young people know it. When I visit high schools in my community today and talk to classes about what their expectations for their future are, 75 to 85 percent of the students say they know that their future has to involve a college or university education. They know as we in this chamber do that learning is going to be the key for a successful future, both for themselves as individuals and for their communities -- for all of us who want to be part of today's global and knowledge-based economy.
I spoke about this in the budget a little bit, about the link between education and our economy, and I think that's a crucial key. But I also take this issue very, very personally. As I think most know, I entered politics after a long career as an instructor and administrator in the post-secondary system. In fact, I entered politics because of my interest in education and my desire, as clichéd as it may sound, to make a difference for our province at least in that area. That's also why I got into teaching, I must say.
I believed then, and I still believe, that education can make a fundamental difference in people's lives. And I wanted to see our education system emphasize not just the lessons and the skills that are laid out in curricula -- not just facts and formulas -- but the larger, and I think more important, goal of teaching young people how to think for themselves. Those are the ones who can help us move forward as a society. Today in our province those thinkers are more important and more needed than at any other time. We need them to build our economy; we need them to build our society.
[1735]
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
As I said in the budget speech, we have a strong resource sector, and forestry and fishing and mining are going to be part of our provincial economy and our identity as a province.
[ Page 17448 ]
But the rapid changes in the world around us, the huge impact of technology that even some of our brightest innovators simply can't imagine, means we need more. Our new natural resources that will build our future prosperity in B.C. are more than trees and minerals. They are the ideas, the knowledge, the skills, of our people. And the source of those ideas -- the incubator -- is our post-secondary system.
We have a very high-quality system, and I'm continually impressed with the quality both of the educators and the students. It is a good system, and students are well satisfied with it. The opposition critic and I have debated this at times. There is a recent survey he may be aware of done by universities. It found that 85 percent of university graduates said they were either completely or mostly satisfied with their education. I can't think of many other areas of activity where you get an approval rating that high. It's equally high -- this is important for me in the north -- among aboriginal students and folks with disabilities, and that's a real reflection of our success.
If we're going to maintain those rankings, it will require government investment. It will require a different approach to higher education than we've had in this province in the past. We simply have to get on board with the idea of education. I say this because we can't afford to be left behind again. That may seem a strange word to use -- "again" -- but I use it, I think accurately, because we've failed in the past. For much of the past century, British Columbia had a policy out of this Legislature, out of the government that sat in this chamber, that said we don't need an educated workforce. That attitude continued to prevail right up into the 1980s. Government policy said implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, that we're not going to train our own citizens. If we need people with skills, we'll import them, and someone else can pay for their education.
That policy held back the potential growth and development of higher learning. What it spawned were the policies of increasing tuition and its restrictions on access that were the rule. Bill 9 is the clearest stance I've ever seen that says that is not the way to build a system. It says we must take a lead and actually start recognizing that tuition should be lower. It takes the lead and says we must continue to graduate more and more post-secondary students.
We had a lot of catching up to do when we came to government in the nineties -- a huge amount. We were one of the wealthiest provinces, but we were not trained in educating our own people, and we were falling behind. I listened to the opposition critic. I think he would acknowledge, in spite of some of the selective use of facts that he trotted out there, that participation in B.C. has grown more rapidly than anywhere else in the country. In fact, right now, we're ten times the average rate. In the last part of the nineties, participation in Canada actually fell across the country. It fell. The rest of the country had walked away from post-secondary education. We were the only province that continued to fund, that made up the federal cuts, that invested more and kept our participation rate growing.
The commitments in Bill 9 to continued expansion of the system and to increased openness to its doors through lower tuition is exactly the best investment that government can make, both for the individuals in the province and for the economy. Hon. Speaker, this bill makes a huge difference in our post-secondary system. When I contemplate Prince George now compared to ten years ago, this is the way we build our future in that part of the province and throughout the province. I'm very pleased to be able to support Bill 9.
Hon. H. Giesbrecht: I rise in support of the bill. I wanted to say that I'm the first member of my family to receive a university degree, which in those days was probably easy enough to do because the costs weren't quite as high. You could earn enough money during the summer to practically pay for your expenses, depending on how far away you lived from one of the educational institutions.
[1740]
But I do have to say that I ended up with a degree virtually debt-free -- except owing a debt of gratitude to my parents and, of course, my big brother. That's what big brothers are for, I guess. I lived in the Fraser Valley close to Vancouver, so it wasn't as hard for me as it was for many others. Of course it's harder now. It doesn't matter too much where you live, because it's very difficult, under conditions of minimum wage and lots of employers hiring casual labour, to make the amount of money it requires to live during the six, seven months that you go to university. It's particularly hard for those who live in rural parts of the province. Educational access and educational opportunity, therefore, are not the same for folks in the larger urban centres as they are for those who live in the rural and remote parts of the province.
I have this experience, of course, with my own children, now that I live in the far north. Sending them to college was, for me, not too much of a sacrifice. But I try to imagine what it would be like for other less-fortunate families to do the same. It really becomes a barrier. In my capacity as counsellor of the junior high in Terrace for many years, I occasionally ran into the kind of situation where a perfectly bright and eager student was denied the chance to go to a university or a post-secondary institution simply because of the costs involved. So I don't want to see that happen. My vision, of course, for the folks in Skeena is that they increase the capacity of the Northwest Community College to deliver those kinds of services and therefore make it easier for people to access an education.
Notwithstanding the comments of the member for Okanagan East, I think this bill shows the government's commitment to families. I think it shows a willingness to invest in future generations. We're the education province, and I'm proud of it. We've opened up the only three new universities in the country in the last decade, and we've created 40,000 new post-secondary spaces or new positions.
The member for Okanagan East says that this government can't take the credit. Hon. Speaker, I just can't disagree more with that particular notion. It may seem advantageous for them to say so. The tuition freeze, though, has been in effect for five years. This is the sixth year. Everywhere else in the country, the post-secondary population is declining, and in B.C. it's increasing. Nationally, the enrolment decline is 3 percent, and ours is on the increase. The increase is about 12 percent. I don't think you need to say more than that. So, for anybody there to suggest that we can't take some credit for this, I think they're wrong, and I think it's just part of the spin from the opposition.
The issue of course is that when you graduate these days
[ Page 17449 ]
$13,000 a year to get an education, so it's a barrier to folks that live in places where they can't live at home and go to a university.There's one statistic which is kind of interesting that says that the B.C. university tuition fees will be $1,805 less than Ontario and $1,675 less than in Alberta. So for an Alberta family that has a student in an Alberta university, the Alberta advantage disappears completely, and in fact there is a B.C. advantage. So if you want to look at it that way, in terms of dollars and cents, the advantage is in B.C. as the education province.
The other thing I wanted to mention too is that, in the debate -- and, of course, we're not going to hear anything more from the other side than what we've heard from the member for Okanagan East -- it's interesting to think about what the reckless tax cut proposal from the opposition would do to the advantage in B.C. as the education province. Clearly there will be a deficit. They've said so. And clearly the public pressure will be to get rid of deficit; this has to mean a cut in services, which means education is on the block, as well as health care and everything else. So we return back to those days when a university education was only for those that had the money, and we deny the people that don't quite have the means. Even though their students are just as equal, just as bright and just as deserving of a bright future, we will deny them the opportunity. So I urge the members opposite to support the bill.
[1745]
E. Walsh: I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill. And I just wanted to go over the college I represent a little bit: the College of the Rockies. The college serves many communities in our area and many students. In fact, we see about 1,500 full-time and part-time students. These students come from communities such as Creston, Invermere, Cranbrook, Elkford, Sparwood, Kimberly -- as far away as Golden. I see my hon. colleague from Columbia River-Revelstoke waving to me there.
So our college in fact serves many, many students. Many of the students that come to College of the Rockies come to British Columbia because of the decreased tuition costs and because, too, of the courses and programs that they can actually take at the college.
I'm really pleased to stand in support of this bill. The reason that I'm so pleased is because I live next door to a province that has seen continued increases in tuition. In fact, their tuition in Alberta has risen just over three times, I think, from what it was just a matter of a couple of years ago. When we see a reduction in tuition in British Columbia, I know that we're on the right track to ensuring that the students in this province start out life with as little debt as they possibly can. That is our future. That's my future, and that's their future, and most importantly, that's all of our grandchildren's future.
The College of the Rockies, too
When we look at tuition across Canada and we look at the increases in Alberta, in Ontario and in Nova Scotia and some of these provinces
For students today it's almost an unreal dream for them even to continue on with studies, through whatever courses and programs they wish or desire to continue, whether to graduate from or to be certified in. Last year they were talking about universities in five provinces -- Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick -- which saw dramatic increases in their tuition fees. While we are decreasing our tuition fees, while we are rolling back the tuition fees 5 percent, these other provinces are increasing their tuition. That's a shame for students that live in those communities and those provinces.
Many students that live in our communities -- communities such as the ones that I represent -- have to move to Vancouver, Victoria or the larger communities in order to continue or complete their studies. By ensuring that students have access to education in their colleges, in their universities and in the communities in which they live, we can also ensure a much more stable economy.
Also, we talk about the new economy. We talk about economies of the province, and we talk about economies of communities in which we live. In order for students today to meet those needs of the new economy -- of the new world tomorrow, the global economy -- they need to be able to access education.
I believe that in what we are doing, we are in fact looking forward to the future. We are addressing the needs of those students that would otherwise be saddled with debt for many years to come. I know that talking to some students that were attending the University of Alberta last year
[1750]
I'd like to say that with the tuition rollback of 5 percent
Talking about the tuition reduction, the reduction will affect over 2,000 students. What a great way to realize the results, to see the effects of this tuition fee reduction. What we're going to see, as my hon. colleague from Skeena has said earlier
[ Page 17450 ]
it's even gone up since I've had these numbers. It's $2,166 per year, and that's not even close to the $3,820 -- and like I say, I think these figures have gone up -- in Ontario. These provinces seek increased tuition fees. I am proud that we don't, that we have put students first, that we have put their lives first, their future first and the future of our province and our economy.
Also, the university degrees in our province. As my honourable colleague has said, after our cut, the cost of a four-year university degree in this province is going to be $7,220 less than in Ontario. And why can we do this? It's because of our priorities. It's because of those choices that we've made in this province to continue to fund students and to ensure that universities and colleges will not be saddled with extra costs, that they will in fact receive funding in order to meet these needs. I think that this 5 percent reduction in fact does present a true equality for all students to attend university or college and any program which they so desire.
I'm proud of this bill, and I look forward to the opposition voting in favour of this bill, because I do believe that this bill does address the needs of students today. It addresses the needs of our future and our province. I would encourage anyone from the opposition to also get up and speak to it if they so desire, as I haven't heard too much other than the member from the Okanagan. I would, as I say, encourage everyone to get up and speak and vote in favour of the bill.
P. Calendino: It seems today is my day to make my voice heard, and this is probably the fittest topic that I could speak on, since it's on education and I am an educator.
I have to say that I'm proud that the minister has introduced this bill in the Legislature today. I'm proud because in my community -- not necessarily my constituency but my community -- we have two of the biggest post-secondary institutions in the province: Simon Fraser University and the British Columbia Institute of Technology, which are attended by, I imagine, if I add the two, about 40,000 students. They're not all from Burnaby, but a great number of students from Burnaby attend those institutions.
As well, across the water there is Capilano College and in New Westminster we have Douglas College, which are also attended by thousands of British Columbians and lower mainland people -- and from Burnaby. I'm happy to speak on this, because this is the investment in the future that we all talk about, and I would like to know from that side whether they are prepared to maintain that investment.
Almost five years ago, in 1996, those people over there were talking about a 14 percent cut in post-secondary education. In fact, they didn't even mention post-secondary education in their big red plan. This time they're coming out with massive tax cuts, with reckless tax cuts, which undoubtedly will result in cuts in health and in education, just like the Fraser Institute put out in their report yesterday, which I think will be the Liberal election plan. I thought until now that the Leader of the Opposition did not have a plan, but thanks to the Fraser Institute, we now know what their plan is.
[1755]
On this side we believe that an investment in education is an investment in the future of our young people. And that is exactly what we're doing here with a reduction in tuition fees.
I am a language teacher, and because of that I've studied and lived in different cultures in Europe. My own country of origin has not had tuition fees at the post-secondary level. And you know what? The participation rate of young people into the university is almost 90 percent. And we've seen that in British Columbia in the last five years. We've frozen tuition fees. Our tuition fees have become the second lowest in the country. They are half of what they pay in Ontario and more or less half of what they pay in Alberta. The participation rate in this province has gone up from the second-lowest to the second-highest participation.
The member for Matsqui is looking at me with perplexed eyes. But I tell him that if one makes university accessible for young people by maintaining the cost of going to university as low as it can be, the participation rate will increase. Now we are into a knowledge-based economy, and what this does is allow students to not only gain knowledge but to access knowledge. This is a great bill.
I notice the time, and I think I can't speak any longer. I would like to continue on this. I remind people: lower tuition fees allow more young people to access post-secondary education, which is preparation for their future, for the future of this province, for the future of this country.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- I guess, in the vernacular of Joe Pesci, the "yoots."
Hon. C. McGregor: With reluctance, I rise to close the debate. It's unfortunate the members opposite don't choose to state their support for this important bill. I think this is a very important occasion, because despite the view of the members opposite that this is more of the same, in fact it's quite different than what has been done in this House before. It's the first time we've talked about a tuition reduction. It's a decision to move in the right direction.
As the member for Burnaby North spoke to it the international trend in this matter is to continue in a move towards increasing participation rates and decreasing tuition costs. In fact, in many European countries they actually do not charge families for access to post-secondary education. I think that that day will come in North America as well. And I'm very proud -- and what the Premier has said in the past on this matter -- to suggest that our priority is, as we can afford it, to continue to drop tuition for students, because it is the right thing for us to do. It's the best investment a government can make in its economy and its young people. I'm proud to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I'd urge all members to support this at second reading.
[1800]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Speaker: The question before you is second reading on Bill 9.
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 9, Access to Education Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 17451 ]
Private Members' Statements
The Speaker: We'll take a moment for members to go to their other duties before we recognize the first speaker.
[1805]
MAKING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
AND YOUTH A PRIORITY
L. Reid: The children's advocate in British Columbia has written her sixth and final report. She has entitled this last report of her tenure: "Get On With It: Make Services for Children and Youth a Priority." In this report she makes the case that her recommendations of the last six years have been virtually ignored by this government. Last fall the children's advocate, Joyce Preston, wrote to each member of this Legislature asking us for our positions in three key areas: adequacy of resources for children and youth, early intervention and the need for a stable delivery system. The Leader of the Official Opposition and I responded to Ms. Preston on behalf of our caucus. The following is our response.
These are the questions she posed. Do we support implementation of timely access to essential social services? We responded yes. Second question: will we demand development of a needs-based budget by the Ministry for Children and Families? Again the answer was yes. Do we support the creation of an early intervention fund? Again the answer was yes.
She had a follow-up, a supplemental, if you will: what actions are we prepared to take to assist with the creation of such a fund?
We noted in our correspondence that we would have supported an initiative by the government to do so, should they have demonstrated leadership on that question. If we form government, we will create an early intervention fund. Prior to implementation, we would consult with public and private sector professionals, examine other jurisdictions' responses and other early intervention programs, define the results that we are seeking and the measurements that are appropriate to track progress -- the success or failure of those efforts. Frankly, we said that we would be pleased to hear the children and youth advocate's suggestions in this regard.
Her next question: will we commit to stable leadership for the Ministry for Children and Families? We responded yes. Will we demand a comprehensive long-term staffing strategy that is publicly reported with annual updates? The answer is yes.
Page 8 of Ms. Preston's report cites the government's response to these questions. I note: "The government responded by referring to earlier correspondence that discussed ongoing work in these areas and the various constraints impeding this work."
I would make the claim that that does not entail a ringing endorsement for making children and youth in the province of British Columbia a priority.
The interest I have in this area is enormous. The commitment that is required in this area is equally enormous. There are many, many opportunities that I believe have been missed for more than a decade. Again I will quote from Joyce Preston's report:
"Over the past decade much has been written about the needs of children and youth who require government services. Extensive research has been conducted, substantive reports produced and recommendations made about the need for real change. Despite all of this, British Columbia has made little progress in ensuring that these young people's needs are met. For the most part it has been all talk and no action."The advocate's annual report, called "Get On With It," proposes a six-point plan to improve service. Point No. 1 is stable leadership. The Ministry for Children and Families has been through three major organizational changes, six ministers and four deputy ministers in five and a half years. Her recommendation: "Ensure that the Ministry for Children and Families has stable leadership and develops a long-term plan to be implemented over the next three years."
[1810]
Her second point is needs-based budgeting:
"There is inadequate information about how the Ministry for Children and Families' budget is spent and whether it is actually sufficient. Ministry officials state only that it is used to provide programs for children and families, program delivery and corporate services. These categories make little sense. They do not tell us, for example, how much is spent on mental health services, alcohol and drug programs or foster homes."She makes the point very plainly that without clear, detailed information on how much is spent in which areas and how much more is needed, there can be no public accountability. She makes the recommendation that the Ministry for Children and Families publicize clear, detailed information about how current resources are being spent and that the ministry institute a new budget allocation process based on need and an implementation plan that includes a commitment from the Legislature to provide adequate funding.
Her next point, community-based services:
"The ministry's actions of the last few years have undermined Judge Gove's vision of community-based service delivery structures. The current structure is highly centralized, rather than community-based, locally designed and locally accountable. It is clear that individual communities must have local control and governance of local services. Agencies must abide by provincial principles. An independent body that includes young people should set and monitor practice standards, and staff must have the skills and abilities they need to do their jobs."Frankly, not a point in this report can anyone disagree with, from a sound basis. Her recommendation that the ministry establish community-based boards for each region and devolve to communities the responsibility for governance, design of service delivery and day-to-day management of services for children and youth that the ministry review its present 11-region structure and consider moving to 13 regions, by dividing the north into three regions
The Speaker: Member.
L. Reid: I will continue, hon. Speaker, after the break.
The Speaker: Thank you.
And in response, the hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.
J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this statement from the member opposite.
When I was first running for office over 12 years ago, I was in the process of putting together a child poverty forum in Nanaimo, where I lived at the time. I was doing that because during the 1980s, we saw the gap between the haves
[ Page 17452 ]
and the have-nots in this province widen faster than at any other time in our history. And that gap was the direct result of the kind of policies that we see coming from the opposition today, which in fact favour the most privileged among us at the expense of the most marginalized among us -- notably our children.
For the last ten years and as I move to leave politics, I can say that I have watched the struggles to put together systems, brand-new systems that don't exist anywhere else, and to put programs in place that support children and families in a way that they have never been supported before in British Columbia. And I have to say -- as one who was a single mother living on the edge for many, many years when my son was young and at home, and as one who's been involved with kids in a number of ways -- that that commitment of our government means a huge amount to me, as I know it does to all members on this side of the House.
[1815]
We have accomplished a very significant amount in the last decade. But let's be honest in this House. When you're caring for more than 12,000 vulnerable children in care and over 7,000 families -- and there's more than one million children in this province -- if we're going to be absolutely honest, we will admit that it is not possible to serve every need. It is not possible to prevent every problem. It's not even possible to prevent every tragedy, much as we would like to. It's a sad reality of life. And I want, on behalf of the government side of the House, to commend all of those people who have taken so much abuse in the Ministry for Children and Families, all of those front-line workers who have been subject to political football games from the opposition, and thank them for the outstanding work that they do and the caring that they have put into trying their very best to protect those children.
As the member opposite pointed out, one of the challenges in terms of protecting our children, especially the most vulnerable ones, is resources. Where there are loud and insistent demands for massive tax cuts and a balanced budget, it makes it very, very difficult for the voices of those poverty groups and children's groups who are speaking up on behalf of children, and especially vulnerable children, to be heard. I know that the members opposite have made it very clear that they have one priority, and that's tax cuts. On this side of the House, I'm very pleased that we have put kids and families at the top of our agenda. Let's just take a quick measure of where we are ten years later in our mandate.
First of all, we have a $1.7 billion budget this year for Children and Families. That's $1.7 billion, close to a $200 million increase again. You know, we hear about shovelling money off the backs of trucks, but we forget that that money goes to health and education and that it goes to our kids. And that is very, very important. I'm pleased that we've made that priority. There's more money for school meals and for programs that the opposition, when they were wearing Socred hats, refused to put in place, and kids went to school hungry. This year there's $3.5 million more in a program they refused to implement.
We have reduced child poverty by one-third in this decade, all from things that have been voted against and spoken against by the opposition -- things like a better minimum wage, like pay equity for women, like the B.C. family bonus, the Healthy Kids program and now the child care program, which will save families, especially lower-income families, up to $600 a month for one infant. We have done huge amounts, and there's an enormous amount left to do.
But let's be very realistic here. If we're going to cut $3 billion out of taxes, as we hear the opposition saying -- all of their promises add up to $3 billion -- as a top priority, anything about putting children and families first is just a mythology. Cutting minimum wage, weakening employment standards, getting rid of pay equity, eliminating child care, cutting programs -- does that help children? Absolutely not. We see Socred after Socred after Socred, including those who objected to a school meal program for kids
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
J. Pullinger:
The Speaker: Just before recognizing the member, the Chair feels compelled to remind members about the guidelines for the private members' statements. I know that people feel strongly about this subject, but we really must try to be in a non-partisan environment during these statements.
L. Reid: I appreciate those words, but the member opposite will know that this position was the result of an all-party committee of this Legislature. So I think it certainly qualifies as material for a private member's statement. Child, youth and family advocate Joyce Preston reports no substantial improvement to services for the thousands of children and youth in British Columbia who need support from government. I think that contradicts very clearly the comments of the member opposite.
Her next recommendation: a stable and experienced workforce. The recommendation is that the Ministry for Children and Families create a provincial strategy to recruit and retain social workers and dedicate the necessary resources to ensure success; further, that this strategy be publicly reported and annual progress reports provided; and that the ministry provide comprehensive training for all.
The next one speaks very strongly to me: an early development fund. Recommendation: facilitate the creation of an independent early development fund managed as a trust or a foundation through a public-private partnership. To complement the work of existing foundations and children's funds, this early development fund would focus on early development services. And the work in this area is well known. If you're going to intervene, you do it when the interventions will be the most effective. Frankly, that is when children are between the ages of zero and six.
[1820]
The last recommendation that I will touch on today is support for comprehensive aboriginal services. Services for children, youth and their families must be developed within appropriate cultural contexts, and capacity must be built within each aboriginal nation to take on this necessary work. Further, sufficient resources must be provided so that all aspects of this critical development work receive appropriate attention. Finally and most importantly, the rights of aboriginal children and youth must be respected and their current needs met while transition is underway.
It has been my pleasure to serve as critic for the Ministry for Children and Families. We have put together our thoughts
[ Page 17453 ]
as well. We do believe that children are our future and that upholding our children's right to a secure and healthy upbringing is one of the most important and precious legacies we can give them. Healthy families are key to revitalizing our communities and our province.
I want to spend just a moment
The Speaker: And for the second private member's statement, I recognize the hon. member for Surrey-Newton.
IT'S AN ISSUE OF FAIRNESS
P. Priddy: I'm very pleased to rise before the House today to speak about an important issue which faces our province, which is addressing the gender wage gap through pay equity legislation.
In 1967 women in full-time, full-year employment in Canada, on average, earned 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 1997 this gap had been reduced to 72.5 cents for every dollar earned by men. So over 30 years, hon. Speaker, the gap closed by exactly 14.5 cents -- over 30 years.
While the closing of the gap has some significance, the mere existence of this gap is still far from acceptable. The government of British Columbia is committed to working towards reducing the wage gap based solely on gender discrimination. Justice will only then be achieved when women and men receive the same pay for work of equivalent value. Pay equity legislation already exists to protect the rights of women working in the public sector in this province, and it's about time that those same rights are extended to all working women and men across British Columbia.
By introducing pay equity legislation, our government is setting out to correct an injustice in the existing legislation. We, like the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, believe all workers, irrespective of gender, should be paid a fair and just wage. Across the country, legislatures and legislators are finally waking to the fact that women deserve a wage that reflects the true value of their contribution to the workplace and society in general.
The federal government and six other provinces and territories indeed have pay equity legislation. Quebec and Ontario and the federal government already support pay equity in the private sector. It's time that British Columbia did as well. The federal government and the Yukon have enshrined pay equity in their human rights legislation, while other jurisdictions have stand-alone pay equity acts.
In British Columbia this government has worked hard to ensure that all women are fairly compensated for the valuable work they provide. And since 1991 the government has invested $388.5 million to bring the salaries of women in B.C.'s public service in line with those of men. This investment in pay equity represents just over 1 percent of the total payroll. However, through the introduction of pay equity, the public sector wage gap has been significantly reduced by 8 percent, from 81 percent to 89 percent.
[1825]
I want to speak for a moment, if I may, to dispel some of the myths around pay equity, because I believe that members opposite -- and many of the comments I read in our media -- have some concerns about pay equity. And I think, in fairness, we should then dispel or speak to some of those myths.
What I've heard is that some people believe -- the opposition and people in the media perhaps -- that there should be some kind of fact-finding mission about pay equity. It seems to me that what British Columbia and British Columbia women don't need is more study about the gender wage gap. What women require is a proactive government willing to move forward and introduce legislation for fair and equitable wages for all.
So to ease some of the concerns that people have expressed, let me speak to those. Some people believe that the introduction of pay equity is somehow
Let me address a second myth, which is that pay equity means creating another huge bureaucracy. I think in some provinces that have gone to stand-alone legislation, that may be the case. There's probably some proof to that. But I want to remind people that what we've said here in British Columbia is that we want to set up a public management of programs to administer pay equity that would be efficient and honest and that would be supportive of the principles and values of pay equity. To increase the budget of the Human Rights Commission by half a million dollars to provide five extra staff is hardly the bulky and lumbering bureaucracy that I've read in many places that people believe it to be.
The other myth that people talk about is the sort of economic disaster that will come about as a result of pay equity. Fairness in employee wages is not about declaring some kind of war against the business community in British Columbia, no matter what members of the opposition or perhaps the media or others have expressed their concerns to be. I want to address that concern.
While we do know that pay equity may marginally increase the payroll costs of some businesses -- and I think studies across the country have said it's about a 0.6 percent increase for businesses of over 500 employees and about a 1 percent increase for businesses under 500 employees -- look what happens as a result of that. Pay equity puts more money into the pockets of female workers. It reduces their dependence on social programs. It increases their consumer spending, and it enables them to support their families.
Furthermore, it ends the wage discrimination that has been faced by women for a very long time and allows them to escape that grasp -- for many women truly, even though they are working -- of lifelong poverty and allows them to perhaps even contribute to their retirement at the same rate as their
[ Page 17454 ]
male co-workers, which they haven't been able to do before. So rather than harming the economy, pay equity will serve to bolster consumer saving and spending and put some money back into the economy.
People are concerned that there haven't been consultations to date. There have been consultations and work done around pay equity certainly since November of 1991. Some of that work resulted in the initiatives which actually were begun earlier and expanded by this government for pay equity in the public sector. I referred to those statistics earlier. So an introduction of the legislation will bolster both the confidence and the paycheques of working women throughout the province.
The Speaker: For response, the hon. member for Langley.
L. Stephens: B.C. Liberals support the principle and the practice of pay equity. Women and men doing the same work should receive the same amount of pay. This principle is already enshrined in the Human Rights Code and within the equity provisions of the Charter of Rights, and we support both wholeheartedly.
[1830]
Broadening this principle to include equal pay for work of equal value or, in effect, comparative worth is a challenging, complex and potentially costly goal that requires extensive consultation to determine the most appropriate process. If the government's plan is to hand over this assignment to the B.C. Human Rights Commission, then I have a question. Has the government considered how it will meet this mandate when the Human Rights Commission is struggling to properly fulfil its existing responsibilities?
What strikes me the most is the sheer lack of thought that has gone into this process. You can tell it was a rush job by the amount of time this government gave the public and other stakeholders to respond. Two weeks to submit views and opinions on a concept which has taken the federal government 15 years to work through is simply much too short a period to effectively gauge the impact this legislation will have on British Columbians.
In fact, this government has had ten years to bring in pay equity legislation. They haven't done it. If they believed it was such a great idea, why didn't they bring it in last year or the year before or the year before that? If this government is so committed to this idea, why did the Premier say last year: "We've decided that it is not necessary to do legislation to deal with pay equity issues within government and the broader public service sector"? The Premier also said: "There's going to be no legislation on pay equity, private sector or public sector. That's a decision that's been made."
So what's changed? Could it be that an election is weeks or days away, and this government is desperate to find some issue, any issue, to divide British Columbians? The truth is that this proposal has nothing to do with creating a level playing field for working women and everything to do with pure politics. People have told us that they have a number of concerns with the discussion paper. More consultation is required. We know that small businesses are already struggling under mountains of red tape created by this government during the past ten years. There are more rules and more paperwork than ever. It's no wonder that entrepreneurs are heading for the border.
Any government implementing a mandatory private sector comparable-worth plan has to ask whether this will help us all meet the stated goal. Or will it just bury small businesses in more red tape and eliminate jobs for women and men alike? Comparable-worth plans are extremely complex. While large businesses may have the resources to address the compensation system, most small and medium-sized businesses do not have the specialized resources or technical ability whatsoever to analyze and implement new edicts from the government. The last thing small businesses can afford right now is thousands of dollars in new costs associated with hiring outside consultants. In some cases these costs would be greater than the wage increases required in order to comply with the plan.
Given the implications of such regulations on small business, one would think that government would have consulted extensively with the people affected. But they have not. In fact, this government completely ignored its own business task force that it set up as a part of the streamlining initiative to review this kind of proposed regulatory burden.
The B.C. Liberals support pay equity. We support any endeavour to end discrimination in wages. It is not fair that some people are paid differently for doing the same work just because they are a different gender. Most private sector companies are already pursuing a goal of pay equity in the workplace. Any government that attempts to implement a comparable-worth scheme has to ask itself: "Will this legislation cost jobs? Will it harm small businesses? Will it create a massive bureaucracy? Will it achieve what you want it to achieve?"
These are questions that have to be answered before we go any further down this road. This important initiative deserves much more input and discussion than has been allowed by this government. Should we earn the support of the electorate during the next election, the B.C. Liberals will appoint a task force, to be chaired by a judge, to review the economic impacts, various models and options of pay equity. Unlike the present government, we will consult with all British Columbians throughout the province.
[1835]
The Speaker: For the reply, the hon. member for Surrey-Newton.
P. Priddy: As I move to close, then, there are a few comments that I would like to make and remind people of. You know, I have read comments from members of the opposition -- at least one member -- that say that pay equity legislation is irresponsible, that it's dangerously irresponsible. It's difficult for me to understand how paying equal pay for work of equal value could possibly be dangerous and irresponsible to women in British Columbia who are underpaid for the work that they do.
I've also read comments in the media, from others, that say this is pandering to special interests. Given that women make up 52 percent of the population in this province, I don't think they constitute a "special interest." It seems to me that as long as businesses in this province treat their employees with respect and dignity and fairness, which they rightly deserve, then the Human Rights Commission in its legislation will simply be fostering a supportive environment for them to do so.
There's no question that the legislation covers people who do the same work, getting the same pay. This is very
[ Page 17455 ]
different. This is equal pay for work of equal value. So I want to say that and to assure people that pay equity is a right that should be extended to all working women and men in the province. It does affect men as well, including those who work for Crown corporations, social services, private sector office buildings or factories throughout this province. We are committed, hon. Speaker, to entrenching this right to equal pay for work of equivalent value to all citizens in the province. I'm concerned that a judicial review means that all of those rights and gains of pay equity gained by people in the public sector would somehow also be open to this judicial review of pay equity.
So to close, the amendments to the Human Rights Code do entrench the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. The working women of British Columbia deserve nothing less than full and complete acknowledgment of the value of their work. It is not acceptable that women earn 73 cents for every dollar that a male in a similar kind of position makes, and the government's protection of working women's rights through the introduction of private sector pay equity, complete with an appeals mechanism through the Human Rights Commission, is a valuable step in reducing this gender gap.
Indeed, in businesses across this province where there is private sector pay equity, they have figured out ways to do that assessment. I know it's complex, but they have figured out ways of how you do that kind of assessment and carry it through. Full and complete pay equity is both obtainable and a desirable goal, and these amendments will ensure that we, as citizens of British Columbia, work toward this very important goal for families in this province.
The Speaker: For the third private member's statement, I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.
BULLYING IN THE SCHOOLS
T. Nebbeling: I would like to talk about bullying and the impact on the life of people that live with the consequences of bullying. It was well over three and a half years ago when British Columbia woke up to a horrendous drama, and it was the death of Reena Virk. Reena Virk was a young lady, 14 years of age and living on Vancouver Island, who had been teased and bullied verbally and physically for quite a while by her schoolmates. Ultimately, it led to a confrontation that caused her death.
I would certainly not want to speak tonight on the details of this tragedy. I think most British Columbians remember this particular horrendous death and the circumstances under which her misery came to an end. What I would like to focus on is that at that time, with the passing of Reena Virk, we suddenly saw the whole province stop. I think it was the first time that many British Columbians actually took the time to realize that there was indeed a problem in our schools, in our playgrounds and wherever young people come together. Up to that moment, I don't think many people gave it much thought -- that indeed this kind of abuse, and horrendous abuse on many occasions, was going on.
[1840]
One of the consequences, of course, that came out of the Reena Virk tragedy was that people realized something had to happen. Not living with the consequences of what was going on was no longer an option. Up to then, it was the victims who often stayed silent in fear of retribution, who did the suffering. The families who lived with the victims and who did see horrendous changes in the personality, the way they would draw away from society, how they would not want to go to school
Since that drama, the tragedy with Reena Virk that happened in 1997, we have seen a fairly big debate develop in British Columbia on the subject, in part driven by people who believe that there are still too many people in the system who work with these children who are in denial -- not really willing to accept that indeed the problem is as serious as it is.
More important, even with some of the programs that have been introduced by the provincial government, by the Ministry of Education, we still see more and more serious cases coming to the surface. I'll talk about two in particular. One is the Dawn-Marie Wesley situation: a young girl, 14 years of age, just like Reena, who lived in fear that she would be killed by her schoolmates if she dared to speak about the bullying that she had undergone for quite a long time. And at the end, all she felt she had left was to take her own life. She just had more fear for the bullies than for losing her life -- getting it over and seeing no other way out. That was a case that recently happened.
The second one that I think again made us stop and understand that we just have to do something in this province on this issue is Hamed Nastoh. This was again a 14-year-old person who was bullied, who was being physically and verbally threatened, who was totally distraught inside, who was made out to be queer, gay -- everything that he just fundamentally couldn't handle. And one day this kid said: "I can't live with this any longer." He wrote a five-page letter to his parents, walked to the Pattullo Bridge and jumped off.
Two weeks ago I attended a forum in Surrey that was organized on the first anniversary of the day that Hamed Nastoh took his life. I drove through New Westminster and over the bridge. I had left early on purpose, so that on the Surrey side I could actually get out of my car and walk to the point where he jumped. There were six or seven bouquets that were put there that day to remember him one year after that incident happened. I just stood by the railing, Mr. Speaker, and I looked down.
It's maybe 120, 130 feet of a drop, and there's that cold, miserable river. All I could think of was: what can people do to another person that they become so desperate and live with so much despair for a long period of time that they actually can overcome the fear of that jump, the fear of touching that water, knowing they can't come back? It must have been a horrendous and terrible state of mind that no person should ever have to go through.
So when I attended the meeting, I listened very carefully -- not just carefully, but emotionally -- to the parents of Hamed and the parents of Dawn-Marie. And the one thing that I got out of that meeting was the fact that these parents, who have grieved for a long time now, have actually used that grief to turn it into an energy form that is powering their determination to go out into schools and speak to students, letting them know what some of them are doing to others and what the consequences are. And I know that what these people are doing when they're on the road is making a real difference, I believe. The reason I wanted to speak tonight was that I believe we not only have to continue to talk about bullying but also to honour these parents.
[ Page 17456 ]
[1845]
The Speaker: To respond, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.
M. Sihota: Certainly those are touching words by the member opposite. I think all of us, as parents, often wonder what possibly transpires in children who would keep a whole range of thoughts in their heads, go to a school in an environment of fear and then make a decision that it's in their interest to take their life rather than deal with the consequences of the environment they find themselves in. I think that as a parent, you often find yourself just probing the minds of your own children to make sure that everything is fine at school. And the terrible tragedy of watching these parents who have experienced this personally, and how you deal with the loss of a child, is something that it's hard to find words to explain. It's incomprehensible, the experience that the parents must feel.
I know the Reena Virk situation that the member alluded to happened just down the street from my house, at the school just down the street, maybe a five-minute walk from my home. As I drive by that school, I am often still haunted by the events and what transpired.
I don't want to talk at all about what we've done as a government to assist in those kinds of settings. I want to talk about an element of violence in our society that causes me concern. I don't mean to say that this in itself explains the behaviour of bullying and the propagating of fear and violence against young people, but I want to focus in on one element of what's happening in our society that causes me great concern.
You know, a child spends as much time in front of a television as in front of a teacher right now. By the time a child is 18 years of age, that child will witness 200,000 acts of violence on television and 16,000 murders. A 1986 study, I believe done by the American Pediatric Society, indicated that television violence contributed to juvenile crime and aggressive behaviour -- that it was the most salient factor in terms of contributing to that kind of behaviour. More of a factor than poverty, race or parental behaviour was the watching of television. And stunningly, when people look at what happens on television
A study by a society called Mediascope found that 73 percent of all violent scenes on television involve situations where perpetrators go unpunished. A child watching a television drama or acts of violence becomes sort of insensitive to the consequences of violence because of the repetitive nature of violence on television.
The American Pediatric Society, in a study that it most recently released, indicated that the single most significant thing that we could do as a society to reduce bullying, aggressive behaviour and violence among teenagers is to reduce the quantum of violence on television. Of all of the things that we can speak out about in this chamber, of all the things that can unite us in the chamber, of all the things that ought to disturb us in terms of our personal lives and what we see our children going through, it's got to be the kind of violence they're exposed to every night. There's a need for society finally to stand up and deal with it and say that it's entirely unacceptable to have violence on our televisions and to expose children to that kind of repetitive behaviour -- which they, as we all know as adults, start to mimic.
Now, there are many ways to do that. But one way that I'd like to suggest before I wrap up is to go after those people who advertise on those shows that repeatedly show gratuitous violence. Just like we put out the list of worst polluters every year, we can easily, twice a year, put out the list of worst television shows in terms of the quantum of violence on television. Then we can say to those people -- who often don't even know, because they buy their advertising in bulk, that they're advertising on these shows
That kind of market-driven as opposed to regulatory solution, in my mind, would have more impact, because after all, which company would want to advertise on the shows that have the highest level of gratuitous violence on them?
There are many ways that we can attack violence in society, and this, in my view, is one of them.
[1850]
T. Nebbeling: I listened to the words of my hon. colleague on the opposite side, and I truly appreciate his statement that indeed, at times when we are often divided on issues in this House, there are also certainly issues that bring us together. I think this aspect is one that clearly falls in that category, because when it comes to the well-being of our children, I don't think that at any time should we be even allowed to be divided on how we can reach some solutions to take as much as possible of this problem, this hate, out of the system.
As I finished my statement, I was talking about what these parents that are living with consequences of bullying are doing. I have so much admiration for these parents who are on the road on almost a daily basis to visit schools, to share their experience. Again, I'm just amazed at how people who were just living a good, ordinary life up till the tragedy that they experienced suddenly have so much energy and power developed within themselves that they then use to, indeed, do what they think is right -- that is, let others know how much pain this particular problem is causing, how much hardship it is causing and how many good lives are being lost because of it.
I think that we, as government, as community leaders, not only owe it to these parents and organizations to let them know that they not only have our support and our admiration, but we should start looking as legislators at how other jurisdictions are dealing with this particular problem. Ontario just introduced legislation that is a step in the right direction. I don't know if it is the whole works to solve this -- if it ever can be solved just by legislation. I think many other aspects have to come into the fault, including maybe the suggestion made by the member opposite.
I think we should start looking at how we as legislators can come up with programs that become mandatory for those that are identified as being involved with bullying, so that the bullies know there are consequences to being a bully. I don't think that is necessarily the case today, in many instances. We've seen the fights in Comox and Courtenay recently on TV. Some of the people involved in the school system still deny that what happened there was a problem, that it was more just young men having a good time together. I think that as long as that kind of reasoning or explanation of the problem is there, we will continue to have the problem. We should be involved in changing that.
The Speaker: For the fourth and final private member's statement, the hon. member for North Coast.
[ Page 17457 ]
LIVABLE WAGES
D. Miller: I rise to speak on the issue of a livable wage -- and indeed it's a broad topic. I intend to try to cover a little bit of territory in addressing the question. First and foremost, I want to talk about the minimum wage, and I want to say that clearly the policy of governments to establish minimum wages and other employment standard conditions is one that has existed in this country for, I believe, about 100 years. It is clearly an intervention in the marketplace. It's a longstanding tradition, particularly in Canada and perhaps other European countries, where government has consciously said: "We can make a difference to the lives of our citizens." And in the case I'm talking about, minimum wage, essentially it's a redistributive effect. The government orders that employers cannot pay less than the minimum wage.
That debate, when it happens -- and it does happen from time to time -- is always characterized by those who support raising the minimum wage. There's ample evidence to support raising it, if you look at statistics in terms of who benefits. Forty-eight percent of workers earning the minimum wage are over 25; 65 percent are over the age of 20; 36 percent are women. So, clearly, we're talking about people who do not have the ability, in a pure marketplace economy, to earn a wage they can survive on. Governments have accepted over the years that it is their responsibility to address that situation by having a good minimum wage policy.
[1855]
I recall that when I was the Minister of Labour some years ago, it was my pleasure to raise the minimum wage, in two stages, by a dollar. There was a great hue and cry against that from some sectors. The most vocal critic was a well-known -- but I'll leave it to others to decide whether he has any credibility -- purported economist named Michael Campbell, who, I vividly recall, went on television and predicted the demise of industry and business and, generally, economic malaise. That didn't prove to be the case, and we continued with that. We did increase the minimum wage in two fifty-cent tranches, and with that, benefited greatly the people who rely on minimum wage.
But minimum wages are only a tool to redistribute. The fundamental issue is the economy itself, the structure of the economy. And I'm particularly mindful of at least the one Liberal promise that I seem to think is still extant, and that's the promise to cut the income tax rates in the bottom two tax brackets. I did some work, and in fact I got some work done by the B.C. Business Council, on the structure of our economy. And I think there are some interesting statistics that we ought to consider to realize that, in structural terms, cutting personal income tax will not alter the fundamental structure of our economy -- the three basic pillars, if you like.
And it's remarkable that the resource sector, which is so important in this province, comprises about 25 percent of GDP. Seventy-five percent -- and I think this is a very, very dangerous situation -- of our economy is in the service sector: real estate, financial, etc. Yet that resource sector, the goods sector, if you look at the percentage of receipts -- in other words, the value they bring to our economy -- it's about $45 billion in 1999 dollars, out of a $104 billion GDP. So, clearly, the smallest part of our economy -- both in employment and GDP -- produces the greatest revenue.
We've had three distinct events, I guess, particularly over the last decade. The resource sector
We had a wonderful great period of in-migration that produced lots of house construction, real estate, financial, construction -- all of that fuelled by in-migration. And now we have new clusters of our economy: film, high-tech, tourism. I'll leave tourism aside; again, it deserves its own debate. And yet those new sectors of our economy constitute a very small part of the GDP. High-tech was about 2.5 percent when I was minister. I suspect it has grown; it may be 3 to 3.5 percent.
So in terms of really stimulating the economy and providing that sound economic base, where people can freely find employment that pays a decent wage and the rest of it, cutting personal taxes will not make any fundamental difference in the structure of our economy. We are a small, open economy of four million people. Consumer spending does not drive our economy.
[1900]
You could argue it does in a country like the United States, with 200 million people, where consumer spending and the issue of confidence, which is very much to the fore these days, is a critical factor. But in a small, open economy it does not, and will not, change the fundamental structure of our economy.
You have to deal with the basic industries -- particularly the export industries -- if we're really going to experience some economic growth in the province and provide opportunities for British Columbians. And I submit that the oil and gas sector is a perfect example. The film sector, I think, is another very good example. And I think that the work we've done in the high-tech sector, which is focused, which is targeted, produces far more in our economy than, I think, a rather specious argument that a cut, even a dramatic tax cut
Now, my government is committed to continuing to try to redress the issue of the imbalance for workers who do not have that kind of bargaining power, who can't command the kind of wages that you require in our society for a living wage, and will continue to use vehicles like the minimum wage to address that.
The Speaker: Thank you, member.
To respond, the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.
K. Krueger: Thank you hon. Speaker, and I thank the member for his remarks. The official opposition and surely every member of this House wants to see every working British Columbian earning a good living. Sadly, over the past decade the take-home pay of working British Columbians has diminished by more than $1,700 on average. That is an event which none of us had ever seen in British Columbia prior to the dark decade. Up until 1991, British Columbians knew it was only natural that if they worked hard and applied themselves, every year they were likely to earn at least as much and very likely more than the year before.
[ Page 17458 ]
To our utter astonishment, British Columbians have seen the economy of Alberta grow larger than that of B.C., and the average wage of Albertans rocketed past the average wage of British Columbians by $2,200 on average during that dark decade. Alberta has a million fewer people than British Columbia but a larger economy.
In fact, B.C. has been a North American anomaly for years now, an island of economic despair in a continental sea of prosperity. Many British Columbians have responded by leaving. Families have been disrupted. Young people have left the province to start careers. Lives have been unwillingly changed.
The official opposition is convinced that we can turn that around by cutting unnecessary regulation, cutting British Columbians' taxes, beginning -- yes -- with a dramatic personal income tax cut and restoring balance in British Columbia's legislation. The way to create employment in an economy is to create a welcoming environment for job creators, and that is what we need to do. The rest of the continent is well ahead of us in that approach. For years there has been a shortage of human resources in many of the other provinces and states of North America. Employers are competing for labour and bidding one another up in wage and benefit packages in that competition. Employees are able to command starting wages well in excess of jurisdictional minimum wages in much of North America.
Instead of setting a goal of the highest minimum wage in Canada, our goal should be the lowest unemployment rate, the best jobs and the highest wages for all of us. Our goal should be to create a prosperous economy that has so many jobs that everyone is working at a higher wage. In growing economies we know many employers are forced to pay younger and unskilled workers wages that are above the minimum, because labour is in such high demand.
We can change the situation in B.C. for the better by correcting the mistakes of the past, specifically the mistakes of overtaxation and overregulation. B.C. is the province of choice for people preferring our beautiful climate, geography and natural assets. The province has huge natural advantages that draw people here, and it is only by a concerted effort that government can and has negated those advantages.
So let's correct the mistakes of the past and create a new environment where employees and employers alike can prosper, a new era of hope and prosperity in the province that we love.
[1905]
The Speaker: To reply, the hon. member for North Coast.
D. Miller: I want to make what I think is an obvious submission. I think it takes more than rhetoric to improve the economy of the province.
Let me make three points. Number one, the member is wrong in his facts. In fact, it's either in 1999 or 2000 that for the first time not just in B.C. but in Canada and probably in the United States, there has been a real increase -- I think 6.8 percent -- in workers' incomes, take-home pay. This is not a B.C. phenomenon, Mr. Member. It's a Canada-wide -- in fact, it's an industrialized world-wide -- phenomenon. Workers have lost ground. For the first time, including in B.C., they have finally started to improve their standing.
Secondly, the statistics that were put out two weeks ago, I think, compare the average wealth of British Columbians versus the average wealth -- I'll use that term loosely -- of Albertans. B.C. is still higher, Mr. Member. By the way, as I was saying to someone three days ago, when you go get your job in Alberta
Finally, Mr. Member, I detect a note of criticism about using minimum wage to redress the inability of some workers to compete in that marketplace environment. All I ask, really, is: if you fundamentally believe that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy, then how can you disagree that increasing the minimum wage of the lowest-paid workers will also have the same impact? You're doing the same thing through different means. Mr. Member, I fully intend you to support any initiatives by this government to continue to increase and improve the minimum wage, which is one of the very best in Canada. Having said that, I will sit down.
The Speaker: I thank all of the members for their statements and recognize the House Leader.
Hon. J. Kwan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada