Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 18 -- Wednesday, August 15, 2001

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1405

Parental Responsibility Act (Bill 16). Hon. R. Coleman
	Introduction and first reading	1410

Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 17). Hon. G. Plant
	Introduction and first reading	1410

Oral Questions
	Government action on U.S. decision on Canadian softwood lumber exports	1410
	J. MacPhail
	Hydroelectric power services in Nelson	1420
	B. Suffredine
	Policing in SkyTrain corridor	1420
	J. Nuraney
	Government action on U.S. decision on Canadian softwood lumber exports	1425
	J. MacPhail

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18)
	Second reading	1430
	Hon. G. Bruce
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Bond
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. G. Bruce

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Health Planning estimates. Hon. S. Hawkins
	Vote 32: Ministry operations	1640
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hawkins
	Ministry of Health Services estimates. Hon. C. Hansen
	Vote 33: Ministry operations
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. MacPhail
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. G. Cheema
	I. Chong

Private Members' Statements
	Burnaby Board of Trade and the Burnaby Business Excellence Award. J. Nuraney	1800
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Whalers shrine at Nootka Island. R. Visser	1810
	Hon. G. Plant
	Skeena Cellulose. R. Harris	1820
	B. Belsey
	Kootenay land resource management planning. B. Bennett	1840
	W. McMahon

D. MacKay: Finally, today I have some guests visiting from my riding. I'm pleased to introduce to the House my wife, Edith — it's nice to see you again, dear — and her friend Eileen Brackenberry from Smithers. Also visiting with my wife and Eileen in the House today for the first time is my wife's sister Patricia Prior-Kraft and her husband, Doug. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm pleased to say that finally, today, at long last I'm able to introduce someone from Vancouver. We are joined today in the legislative precincts by Myrna and Peter Kitchen, by their daughter Leanne and their son-in-law Jeff Campbell and by her granddaughter, who obviously is going to be an active participant in these chambers sometime in the future. I hope you'll make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I have great pleasure in introducing some of my friends today in the gallery. There are two visitors from London, England, Peter and Nasim Manuel, who have come to visit beautiful Victoria this afternoon, accompanied by Nuralla Jeraj, a very good friend and the person who made sure that all my campaign expenses were in line and filed his papers well before the deadline. Nuralla Jeraj's wife was recently appointed a Senator in the Canadian senate. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It's my pleasure today to introduce a young man from Prince George. His name is Nick Cotter. Nick's family is very well known in Prince George. I'm pleased to say that Nick is a student at the University of Victoria who is currently on a work assignment with the Ministry of Management Services. Would the House please make him welcome.

L. Mayencourt: I have the pleasure of introducing Ms. Alison Daem from my community. She's a volunteer on the Robson Business Improvement Association Safety Committee. Her name is Alison Daem, and she is here visiting her second store, Moose Magnets, in Victoria. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'd like to recognize in the galleries today the leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, Adriane Carr. Ms. Carr has been a regular attendee of our open cabinet meetings. I hope you'll all make her welcome.

B. Suffredine: I've waited as long as the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine to introduce somebody from my riding. I have the pleasure today to tell the House that the mayor of Nelson, Gary Exner, and the city administrator, Victor Kumar, are seated in the gallery. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: There are two people I'd like to recognize in the House today. The first is a very bright, objective, incisive reporter from a great local newspaper in Surrey, the Surrey Now, Ted Colley, who is no doubt here to see how his hard-working members from the Surrey area are doing.

The second is a constituency assistant for the member for Surrey–White Rock. I want to say that Verna Logan is here, and she is a great CA to the member for Surrey–White Rock and a questionable volleyball player. Welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Parental Responsibility Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 16, intituled Parental Responsibility Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 16, the Parental Responsibility Act — another new-era commitment. The purpose of the bill is to hold parents accountable for property loss or damage intentionally caused by their children. It allows those who experience property loss or damage as a result of the intentional act of a child to take action against the parents of the child in small claims court for financial compensation.

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 16 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.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2). This act arose in part out of a joint submission made to the judicial compensation committee by the office of the Chief Judge, the Provincial Court Judges Association of B.C. and the Ministry of Attorney General.

This act creates a pilot program for senior judges to elect to serve on a part-time basis while receiving their pension. The salary for a part-time judge will be the difference between a salary of a full-time judge and the part-time judge's pension, up to a maximum of 40 percent of the full-time salary. The program is intended to allow the Chief Judge of Provincial Court more flexibility in scheduling judges' sitting days, especially in smaller centres. It's a pilot program and will continue until March 31, 2005. It will be reviewed at that time.

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 17 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.

J. MacPhail: The government has said that the number one file of concern to them is the softwood lumber tariff. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would consider the option of issuing a provincial bond to assist companies that cannot secure a bond as a result of the softwood lumber tariff, and he waffled. So today, after the meeting that the Minister of Forests had with his colleagues and the federal minister, I'm going to try the Minister of Forests.

It's all very well and good to say that the government will do what it can to fight this decision, but that does absolutely nothing to help communities now. So, to the Minister of Forests: why is the Minister of Forests not prepared to assist companies now in securing bonds?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm not going to underestimate or try to diminish the potential impact of last Friday's U.S. decision on forest-dependent communities. That's why we're doing everything possible, through every available channel, to have that order set aside.

But I do have to wonder at this. I wonder how much better equipped forest-dependent communities and forestry companies might have been to deal with this challenge if they hadn't spent the better part of the last decade under assault by that member's former government, whether it was tax policy that made this province an unattractive place to do business, whether it was growth overregulation or maybe the big forestry daddy of them all, the jobs and timber accord that lost jobs instead of creating them.

I know that the notion of working cooperatively is as foreign to this member in opposition as it was in government, but that is what we are doing. We are working to have this draconian, unfair, unwarranted order set aside. In the meantime, we will consider every available option, along with the federal government, for assisting those communities that are going to be negatively impacted.

The choice really is up to this member. She can assist the American side by continuing to try and sow division in Canadian and British Columbia communities, or she can get on board and work with us and provide a united front on an issue of primary importance.

J. MacPhail: I know that the Minister of Forests is new to his portfolio, but what the opposition is offering is potential solutions, and these are solutions that the industry itself is asking for. So he can obfuscate with smoke and mirrors. He can follow up…. I guess that's what happens when you attend an open cabinet meeting: more smoke and mirrors for the public to be thrown off the most important agenda that's facing them.

Let me ask again, and let me advise again. A provincial bond can neutralize the effects of a duty. Communities are worried, and layoffs are happening as we speak. These layoffs are occurring directly as a result of the tariff that's being imposed, and all the government of the day — the Liberal government — feels like doing is saying: "We're going to plead with the Americans to do whatever we can."

The minister and the Premier have to show leadership. Now, again to the Minister of Forests: helping secure bonds is a solution. It's a solution available right now, and it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that's necessary on this most important file, to quote his own words. Why won't the Minister of Forests demand that his Premier and the federal government take strong action immediately and issue provincial and federal bonds to help and assist companies through this time before a final decision is made?

Hon. M. de Jong: I wasn't here yesterday, and I read Hansard. I think the member opposite revealed her true understanding of the issue when she asked the Finance minister why British Columbia hadn't applied for a province-specific exemption. Do you know why? Because we are the province under assault. We are the target of this action by the Americans. I have to assume that's the kind of question you get from the opposition when the brains of the operation are out of town.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure what part of the previous response the member didn't understand. We are working actively, as we speak, with the federal government. We are exploring all options, including the one she has mentioned, and (a) we are going to ensure that the Americans understand that this order cannot be allowed to stand, and (b) we are going to do what we can to ensure that communities and companies and, most importantly, forest-dependent families are somehow shielded from an order that shouldn't have been made in the first place.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with one further supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: It's clear that the minister doesn't have any plan to help the companies or protect jobs. Companies are having to go it alone without any help from this government. I have here a copy of the Weyerhaeuser application to the U.S. commerce department for an exemption on western red cedar — the question asked exactly: a western red cedar exemption from the tariffs. So to the Minister of Forests: could the minister explain why neither he nor the Premier has joined companies like Weyerhaeuser in advocating an exclusion for the high-end coastal products that would save the hundreds of jobs that are being eliminated now and would actually help save communities from the punishing effects of the tariff?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the member is learning her job as well, but you know, maybe the House would have the benefit of well-thought-out, informed questions if the member had taken advantage of the offer we made to her to have a briefing on the file. Then maybe she would understand that the government has done everything within its power, and continues to do so, to facilitate the exemption applications that are being made by companies right across this province. Yet here she is, purporting to disseminate information that is inaccurate, ill-informed.

I'll tell you what. Let me make the offer right here in this House. If the member wants to have a complete briefing on the entire file so that she won't embarrass herself the way that she is today and yesterday, please call my office and you'll get that briefing.

B. Suffredine: My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. My home community of Nelson began generating power at its own power plant in the late 1800s. When the Kootenay Canal project was built, some of the power plant's licences and capacity were taken for the benefit of the provincial grid. Since that time the city has had to purchase power in the winter to supplement its needs. The taxes of Nelson residents have risen accordingly. Will the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management commit to helping Nelson solve this problem?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, I want to assure the member, all the members of this House and the citizens of Nelson that we are committed to having an open and fair process in dealing with questions revolving around water licensing issues — very important questions. In the case of Nelson, we're more than willing to explore the options that are available to improve hydro services. I know it's a big issue up there. I look forward to meeting with the member and the mayor later on this afternoon. We will carefully consider whether the flow of the Kootenay River is sufficient to permit an increase in licensing for Nelson.

J. Nuraney: My question is to the Solicitor General. In recent years the citizens of the lower mainland, and in particular, of Burnaby have been very concerned about the criminal activities going on in the SkyTrain corridor. The concern is because most of those criminals carry on their activities in order to evade the police, since there is no police force existing right now in the SkyTrain stations or its corridor. My question to the Solicitor General is: what steps is he taking to protect the public and to curtail these kinds of criminal activities?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing we should realize is that in policing, we can't deal with any particular issue in isolation. We need an overall policing strategy for the province and for the lower mainland. That is why this Premier had the vision to create a Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General who would pay attention to those issues for the people of the province.

The important thing to remember about SkyTrain is that what we've done…. I asked the police services division to review the plan relative to policing along the SkyTrain corridor and take into consideration a number of issues. One of them is the limited funding that SkyTrain has available. The number of criminal offences along the SkyTrain corridor is actually lower than originally estimated, and therefore we think we can look at a strategic policing model that may work differently. They are going to be meeting with the different municipal and RCMP forces, like I already have myself and look at a way to integrate and make the system work for everyone.

J. Nuraney: The question, Mr. Speaker, is: at this moment TransLink is engaging security guards to protect the SkyTrain corridor, but these security guards are not empowered to carry out their duties effectively because of the lack of jurisdiction. Could the Solicitor General please tell us whether he is contemplating

taking any steps to empower the security guards to effectively carry out their duties?

Hon. R. Coleman: The people that are doing SkyTrain security now have limited special constable powers in their jurisdiction. The concern in and around special constables and their performance and any police complaint process will come under review when we do the police complaint commissioner review, coming up shortly. In addition to that, there has been concern raised by the various police agencies along the line. They are concerned about a separate entity being set up without the information, the data, the intelligence moving back and forth from police agencies in an efficient manner so that crime can be combatted. All of those parties are going to be brought together by the police services division to come up with a strategy for SkyTrain.

J. MacPhail: We now know that this government won't do anything around helping companies with provincial bonds. They won't do anything to assist companies with their exemption applications. But we do know that the Minister of Forests is contemplating a trade war with the United States. He's threatening a trade war with the United States. He said the price of energy exports to the United States should be hiked in retaliation to the softwood lumber duty. But if he had bothered to ask for a briefing from the previous Forests critic, he might have seen a press release that was issued by the Liberals — that was prior to them actually assuming office — demanding that the former government not link energy exports to the softwood lumber dispute.

To the Minister of Forests: did he get a briefing from the previous Forests critic? And if using energy exports as a bargaining chip was such a bad idea in March for the Liberals, why is floating that idea such a good one now?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know where the member is getting her information from, but I am first of all inclined to repeat the offer that was made previously. This one has demonstrated yet again that being relegated to a very small opposition has done nothing to decrease her ability to be economical with the truth.

We as a government are pursuing — on this most important, the most important, economic challenge we are facing — a strategy that will employ the following: first of all, an absolute commitment, along with every other jurisdiction in Canada, to pursue the obvious and available legal challenges to have this order set aside. At the same time we are going to marshal forces in Canada, along with the federal government, with the assurance from the federal minister that this is the single most important bilateral issue between Canada and the U.S. We will marshal public opinion and political pressure to have this order set aside. And Mr. Speaker, we will challenge the Americans to state upfront whether they are genuinely interested in finding a long-term, policy-oriented, principled solution to a trade dispute that has gone on for too long and too often.

Hon. G. Collins: I call, in this House, second reading on Bill 18, the Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. Should we complete that, we'll be moving into Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Minister of Health Planning.

Hon. G. Bruce: I am pleased to open this discussion of Bill 18 in the context of our campaign pledges. For our government it continues the progress of honouring the commitments we made to British Columbians in our New Era platform document. We laid out a comprehensive program to the voters, and they responded by giving us a mandate to initiate those measures. The people have spoken and we are acting.

The bill delivers on four specific commitments we made to the citizens of British Columbia for labour law reform. All of them are aimed at fostering better working relationships, stimulating investment and job creation, and treating all workers fairly. We know that to enhance the competitive playing field upon which our economy will grow, we must restore common sense, flexibility and rights in the workplace for employees and employers alike.

Restoring flexibility will encourage innovation and productivity without undue government intervention. It will help to free our economy to achieve the growth needed to fuel jobs, pay for services and give choices to our citizens.

We also know that where public services are involved, we must act in a measured way to balance the needs of workers, employers and the public. This is because the public are not at the bargaining table; yet the public bear the costs of disputes. As a customer they lose the services, and as a taxpayer they bear the monetary costs of settlement.

The three changes to the Labour Code and the change to the Pension Benefits Standards Act included in Bill 18 will do these things. It will restore education as an essential service, it will restore workers' rights to secret ballots, it will eliminate sectoral bargaining in the construction industry, and it will restore pensions to workers where these have been withheld.

This bill fulfils our campaign commitment of putting students first. Over four million student-days have been lost over the past ten years, two-thirds of those days due to non-teaching disputes. This change

will now reduce the anxiety many teachers felt when faced with the prospect of picket lines due to these other disputes. Bill 18 restores education as an essential service under the Labour Code, as it was until 1993.

The bill does this by including the provision of educational programs to students and eligible children under the School Act, under section 72. Thus, if a labour dispute threatens the delivery of education programs, the Labour Relations Board will have the authority to designate services that would need to be maintained if their disruption would pose an immediate and serious threat to the delivery of educational programs.

Bill 18 does not take away the right to strike by teachers or other school employees. It does mean, however, that in the event of a strike or lockout, education must come first, learning must continue, and students must be able to complete their school year regardless of age or grade level. This is a way of ensuring that the right to education, which is compulsory under the School Act, is not denied during disputes. It is a way of ensuring that safe, reliable access to schools is maintained.

Another new-era promise kept by this act includes restoring the democratic right to a secret ballot on certification under the Labour Relations Code. This makes sure that the same voting rules apply for certification as for decertification.

In 1992 the Labour Code was changed to allow a union to apply to the Labour Relations Board for certification without a vote if more than 55 percent of employees in a bargaining unit had signed union cards. The changes to the code under Bill 18 improve democracy in the workplace by requiring a secret ballot vote in all union certifications in the same way that decertification of a union requires a secret ballot vote.

We have also promised to restore all employees' rights to negotiate contracts by outlawing sectoral bargaining. In 1998, through Bill 26, a new part 4.1 of the Labour Relations Code was introduced. It imposed sectoral bargaining in industrial, commercial and institutional construction. Part 4.1 required that all craft union employers and all craft unions in the sector operate under a single master agreement. Any newly certified employers would automatically come under the master agreement. What Bill 18 does is repeal part 4.1 of the Labour Relations Code, eliminating the provisions of Bill 26 and restoring the unionized construction sector to as it was prior to the 1998 legislation.

The fourth commitment of this bill that we are addressing represents a matter of fairness and equity for retired individuals. This bill restores individuals' rights to their pensions. It does so by repealing the law that allowed some pension plans to suspend pension benefits for early retirees who chose to continue working in their previous field of employment. A 1999 change to section 74 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act allowed administrators of multi-employer pension plans to suspend the early retirement benefits of members who return to work for non-contributing employers in the same trade. Bill 18 repeals the relevant section of this act.

Bill 18 will also ensure that all people who had their pensions suspended while the provisions were in force receive reinstated benefits quickly. Unfortunately, this will not be retroactive.

These are measured and reasonable changes that restore balance and democracy in the workplace and ensure that we are able to provide a strong, reliable education for our children, putting the rights of students first.

J. MacPhail: Well, I certainly understand the heavy workload that the Minister of Labour is under. I think he's risen to give the government's point of view on the state of business and the economy more than any other minister. His workload is showing; the heavy workload under which the Minister of Labour finds himself is showing. Here we are today debating yet another piece of legislation where the target of the government's heavy hand is clear once again.

The labour legislation that we're…. Well, we're probably not going to be debating it, because I was informed that no one else in the government is even going to address this piece of legislation — no one. But if there are others that have a view on this, I hope they do rise and speak to it.

Parts of this piece of legislation were promised in the election campaign. There's no question about it. However, in any situation I found myself there was absolutely no discussion of it, so now is the time for this to be discussed. Now exactly is the time for the members of the Liberal government to stand up and explain to the public why this is necessary.

John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said over a year ago: "It's time business and labour got together and began to pull in the same direction. We have to knock down the walls of suspicion." That's the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. But how do you knock down the walls of suspicion without an open and transparent consultation process on Labour Code changes that allows union members, other workers and small businesses to have their say before a decision is made? How do you get labour and business pulling in the same direction when every single action that this government has taken to date…? It actually seems like an eternity, but it's been less than 90 days, and this government has already introduced several pieces of legislation that indicate an extreme agenda that's hostile to working people and favourable to business.

The 1992 Labour Code review panel had respected management lawyer Tom Roper, noted labour lawyer John Baigent and veteran

mediator Vince Ready undertake public hearings and make recommendations on a revised Labour Code. Those three people, a balanced review representing all aspects of our economy, agreed on 96 percent of all of the issues they discussed. Contrast that with the experience of the current government's Labour Code amendments: no hearings, no consultation with the public, no consultation with the workers directly affected or their representative bargaining agents. The one consultation that has taken place is one that happened behind closed doors between the Liberal government and business leaders.

I'll tell you something. When there was open discussion during the business summit, business leaders said something very different when they were subject to the open scrutiny of the public and the media. They said something very different about cooperation and balance. So there must have been a different meeting, a closed-door meeting, a secret meeting between this government and business leaders.

Let's talk about one area where business and labour actually do pull together successfully, and that's in many areas of the economy. Let's look at some examples of how business and labour have worked together on stimulating the economy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. I would remind all members to address their remarks through the Chair.

J. MacPhail: Let's look at pension fund investment. In this province we have the B.C. Investment Management Corp. That corporation manages $40 billion — that's B as in Bob, billion — in public sector pension funds and another $18 billion in trusts. That's $58 billion — more than double the size of the B.C. government's operating budget. It's the third-largest public sector capital pool in Canada, and its funds come from the pension plans of unionized government workers. Another example: the IWA-Canada pension fund. That alone has investments of nearly $2 billion. More than 650,000 people in British Columbia are enrolled in pension plans, and most are union members.

Just as a side statistic about the benefits of unionization, in Canada 78 percent of unionized workers have pension plans, compared to 26 percent of non-union workers. I'm sure this government won't stand up today and say: "Oh my God, it's awful that working people have pension plans." Working people in a unionized workforce have pension plans at more than thrice the rate of a non-unionized workforce because of free collective bargaining and the right to organize. That's why our economy is doing so well, and that's why we have pension plans that flow from collective bargaining and collective agreements and have a huge positive impact on this economy. It's a direct line; it's not complex. It contributes to the economy. Yet this government refuses to listen to any voice on the economy except its business backers.

So the question is: why are workers so thoroughly disrespected when it comes to Labour Code changes that will affect their daily working lives, but so valued for their pension fund investments? How will a government that disrespects workers with its legislation encourage pension funds to invest in this province to create prosperity and jobs? That question has to be answered, and it has to be answered by this Liberal government. They're cloaking this legislation in being good for the economy. They just state it. They just think that it'll become a truism, that British Columbians will say, "Yes, sir, three bags full" because our Liberal government is saying it's good for the economy — that we'll all just accept it.

Yet here we have a direct attack on the ability of working people to organize into unions, to create benefits for their families, to get decent working wages, to have pension funds that invest at thrice the rate in this economy, of the government's own operations, and somehow that means nothing. Somehow the voice of its corporate CEO backers is a bigger voice. Well, I'll say this to the Minister of Labour and the Liberal government: the only reason that this province has a good, solid investment is because of working people investing their pension funds in this province and that corporations have directly benefited from it. The unionized pension funds invest in the companies in British Columbia. The reason they're able to do that is because they have a negotiated pension plan as a result of the right to organize. Somehow, now the threat…

J. MacPhail: …to the right to organize is supposed to be good for the economy. That's the point, hon. member. That is the point.

But because this government is so blind — so blind — to a balanced approach to the economy, they want to completely set aside working people's investments in the economy. For any member to have to say, "What's the point?" shows a deliberate and wilful disrespect of working people's investment in the economy.

Let's talk about how this piece of legislation is going to bring balance and fairness to the British Columbia public. Let's talk about what this government is really doing, which is provoking chaos in the province unnecessarily. When the government could actually resolve problems facing the economy around, for instance, the softwood lumber tariff and take direct and concerted action on behalf of the resource-based economy in the province, they choose to stand up and obfuscate. They choose to stand up and actually mislead on how they're doing nothing for the lumber industry. But they manage to stand up and introduce a bill that they claim would bring economic stability to the economy. In fact, it's exactly the opposite.

Essential services for education. I ask any member of government to stand up and tell me, first of all, how essential services legislation in education is going to work. They can't refer to any other area of the country to help them. They can't refer to that great mecca of B.C. Liberal envy, Alberta; they can't refer to that great mecca of B.C. Liberal envy, Ontario. In fact, they can't refer to any area in North America to provide them guidance on how essential services designation will work, because it doesn't exist anywhere else.

Let's just look at the history of essential services legislation to see what the intent of that is. Essential services legislation exists to ensure that workers continue to have their rights democratically guaranteed, their democratically guaranteed right to collective bargaining. That includes taking job action, while making sure the services to the public that are critical to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia are protected. Even though essential service levels were in place, even though the Labour Relations Code contained essential service rights for the employer and the public, those weren't respected when the nurses and health sciences workers took legal strike action. Those weren't respected. This government just trampled on those essential services designations.

There was free collective bargaining in the context of the provision of essential services designation. Every single essential service designation was met during the period of bargaining that the health sciences professionals and the nurses were taking. What happened? What did this government do? This government now says that essential services is going to take a fair and balanced approach. This government trampled on those designations. This government said: "Oh yes, we have essential services, and the nurses and the health sciences professionals are meeting those designations."

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Please continue.

J. MacPhail: The nurses and the health sciences professionals were meeting the test of the law on essential services. Yet this government said: "Gee, we don't have a strong enough hammer still. We're going to take away their right to strike, even given that they were providing complete essential services." So now we have a situation where the government is saying: "Oh gosh, let's see. We've got teacher bargaining coming up, and we don't have the beginning hammer of essential services. So let's put that in place for teaching, and then let's see whether we actually need to take away the full right to strike, as we did with nurses and health sciences professionals."

The legal right to strike under essential services provisions was immediately outlawed by this government when it was legally complied with by nurses and health sciences professionals. So why should teachers and education support workers believe that they will actually get the right to undertake job action under new essential services legislation, when in fact we know that the Liberal government couldn't even live within the law of the land of decade-old legislation that worked effectively?

Why doesn't this government just admit to its true extreme agenda — that they're banning the right to strike in the public sector and that they want an end to free collective bargaining? Why don't they just stand up and admit to that?

We'll look at the specifics of this now. Let's just examine some of the specifics. Let's look at the secret ballot certification. The members of the Liberal government take great pride in…. Well, I guess they take great pride. We'll see today how they speak to the issue. We'll see how these proud Liberal government members stand up and defend their legislation, take their place in the debate and defend their actions and explain to British Columbians how this is good for the economy.

For 40 years, under W.A.C. Bennett and other B.C. administrations, there was certification by majority of signed membership cards — for 40 years. The only place now where your signature on a declaration is not a valid legal test is on a union card. It's a signature that, on a declaration, is good enough to get a mortgage on your house. It's good enough to purchase a car. It's good enough to get married. But this government is reversing a tried-and-true test of a substantial majority wanting a particular action. They're reversing that now, and they're saying to working people: "Sorry, your legal signature, in a substantial majority, is not good enough."

No other occupations require votes to determine workplace representation. There's no vote to belong to the B.C. Medical Association. The B.C. Medical Association negotiates with this government each and every day, and this government accepts it as the doctors' legal bargaining entity — or the professional engineers' or the Bar Association. All of those organizations that bargain wages and benefits on behalf of their members determine their own membership and the legal proof of that membership, and this government turns over money to those organizations each and every year and recognizes them for all sorts of input into the government.

So it's only for workers wanting to join a union and exercise their collective bargaining rights that this government says that your legal signature isn't good enough in a majority, in a substantial majority. That's what the legislation said: you had to have a substantial majority and a legal declaration, a legally subscribed card. And that wasn't good enough.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I hope that people will rise and take their rightful place in debate when their opportunity arises. I wait for them to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Thank you.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Roper, Mr. Ready and Mr. Baigent reported that after the introduction of secret ballot votes in 1984, the rate of employer unfair labour practices rose by over 100 percent as employers intervened to avoid unionization.

Here's what their public hearings determined: "Unions would sign up a clear majority of employees as members, and a vote would be ordered. Then key union supporters would be fired or laid off, while threats of closure dominated the campaign and the vote itself was viewed as a vote on whether or not to continue with employment rather than as a vote on redefining the employment relationship." It substantially shifted the grounds on what was actually being determined.

To continue the quote: "It is not acceptable that an employee's basic right to join a trade union be visited with such consequences and illegal interference." The report concluded: "The simple reality is that secret ballot votes and their concomitant representational campaigns invite an unacceptable level of unlawful employer interference in the certification process." Now, that was real consultation.

I know that perhaps this government doesn't like to hear this information, because those comments came from three people representing employer, union and a neutral — a well-respected neutral — and they all agree on those comments. That's one reason why — in addition to B.C. — Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and all the territories accept union certification by majority of signed membership cards. They all accept certification by the majority of union membership cards.

So here we have, again, this government in its 90-day extreme agenda going against the tide of the rest of the world, going backward to the old days of unbalanced, unfair treatment of workers that almost every other economy has discarded.

Let's talk about the real effects that this change will have in the workplace. Let's talk about the human face of the changes that will occur as a result of this. Cory Murphy was hired by a glacial water company on Vancouver Island as a lab technician in 1999 — a real person here that we're talking about. Workers at the firm were unhappy with the way they were treated and with the discriminatory wages, so they joined the Brewery, Winery and Distillery Workers Union.

They signed up a majority of workers, but when the company contested the certification, the Labour Relations Board ordered a vote. For nearly two weeks workers were subject to anti-union propaganda. Workers were laid off. There were threats of assault. Ms. Murphy personally experienced direct physical intimidation outside her home and verbal abuse on the job. Fortunately, the union was certified. But how many other workers in similar circumstances would be unfairly and illegally deprived of the right to union representation?

Attempting to hold the vote in a workplace that's demonstrably not a democracy on workers' fundamental right to union representation is simply wrong. The reasons for government taking this action without clear consultation are abundantly clear. It will make it harder for workers to join unions, and that's the absolute fact. Pure and simple, it will be harder for members of the workforce to join unions.

Let's look at another section here. Let's look at sectoral bargaining in construction in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, called the ICI sector. I think we should actually just call this the Phil Hochstein Independent Contractors and Business Association amendment, because even amongst the business community this one is very controversial. This government, this business-friendly Liberal government, has chosen a winner and has invoked a loser. The winner is Phil Hochstein, the head of the Independent Contractors and Business Association. The losers are other business people in the construction industry. It's clearly a payback to one of the B.C. Liberals' largest contributors — over $83,000 in donations from the Independent Contractors and Business Association alone from 1996 to 2000.

There's no crisis in the construction industry, and there's no evidence whatsoever that these provisions have had any negative effect on our economy. What these provisions have done is ensure that workers in the construction industry who wish to join a union have a reasonable opportunity to do so. These provisions have been in operation in Quebec for more than 20 years without problems at any level.

Let's just think about this in terms of a useful expenditure of the legislators' time. Perhaps it would be a more useful expenditure of time to take action on a real crisis in construction, and that's the crisis of leaky condominiums that this government refuses to do one thing about. Of course, I guess that's because the independent contractors and others really want to avoid their responsibility for that action.

In this legislation this government has put in place provisions that somehow, they say, will bring balance and will restore the economy. Well, I ask the Liberal members to stand up and tell us about the job action statistics in the 1990s compared to the 1980s. Let me just help a bit with that. There have been the fewest-ever days lost to job action in a decade, in the 1990s.

Yes, I know this government likes to stand up and say four million days of school time were lost in the last ten years. The public rightfully says: "Oh my gosh — four million days? That's unacceptable." Well, I guess the public has to weigh this. I merely ask the public — families, parents and working people in this province — to consider when they say, "Yes, four million days of school time is lost," that's given a population of 600,000 students. Over a decade, 600,000 students lost four million days. That's a little more than a half-hour a year.

Maybe the government could figure out ways of saying it in a much more balanced way: "How do our children spend more time in the classroom?" Maybe

that would be a good approach. But no. What do they do? They put out this statistic of four million days lost to labour disruption, as if somehow that's a statistic that stands without examination in the context of what it means in terms of time for our children in the classroom.

What's happened in the private sector in terms of days lost to labour disruption, the lowest ever in the 1990s? Was there labour disruption? Yes. Was bargaining resolved? Yes.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that you might want to look at even the statistics in the public sector for the 1980s compared to the 1990s. Again you will see a positive trend toward labour peace with the Labour Relations Code that was brought in. Why? Because that Labour Relations Code was brought in after wide consultation and extensive debate in this Legislature, debate that went on week after week after week, where MLAs took their place in the debate and met with people affected by the changes and adjusted and made recommendations for change. That's the debate that took place, and it proved to be very effective, because the Labour Relations Code changes that were brought in brought about economic stability to this province.

What is the essential services legislation that we have before us? What purpose is it going to serve? Why is it that the Liberal government brought in the application of essential service legislation to our children's education in kindergarten to grade 12? What does the government expect to achieve?

The government has two responsibilities in our education system. The government is responsible for making sure that our children get the best education possible, and they are responsible for making the policies so that our children get the best education possible. It turns out that they're also the employer — or the funder of the employers, the school boards. They have two roles here, and it is with a fine, fine sense of fairness and equity that a government must bear out their responsibilities in those two areas. It is reprehensible for a government to use its legislative arm to bring down a big hammer as the employer and shift the balance solely to the employer's rights in a free collective bargaining situation.

What has this government done? They've said: "We don't give a whit about being fair and balanced and making sure that we don't abuse our role as a legislator to give the upper hand to the employer in free collective bargaining." That's exactly what they've done in this essential services legislation.

Again, let's look at how this government talks to people in British Columbia. They use statements like: "No child's education should take second place to adults fighting, adults not being able to agree." Who wouldn't agree with that statement? Who wouldn't agree with that? As a parent I agree with that. My neighbours agree with that. I'd ask anyone to stand up and challenge that assertion. But is that what this is about? The arrogance of this government, the arrogance of the members sitting opposite.... Is that what this is about? Of course it isn't. Children's education is paramount to teachers, it's paramount to school trustees, and it's paramount to parents. Of course it is.

As a parent I have had an experience with teachers that is unparalleled. Has it been smooth sailing? No, it hasn't. I live in the real world. But I will tell you that every single teacher that I have had the pleasure of dealing with in the system has had my child's education as their first and foremost consideration — their first and foremost consideration. The teachers who've taught my child meet with me at 8 a.m. as a parent, and at 6:30 at night they're at the neighbourhood kids' baseball game to see how the school team is doing. Then they use that baseball game the next day in math to teach the kids. That's the dedication of teachers in the system.

Somehow that government, the Liberal government, is isolating teachers as being a group that doesn't care about children's education. They're being subject to legislation here that says: "Your legal right to bargain collectively is going to interfere with children's education." Stand up, Liberal members, and tell me how that's going to occur. Stand up and cite examples of where the teachers that you know have put their students' education second. Stand up and tell that.

How will this essential services legislation contribute to better education for our children, which is the cover that the Liberal government throws over this legislation, the cloud of obfuscation that this government throws over this legislation? How will it work? We have school board trustees sitting there. Stand up and say how what's happened in the past has been so awful and how this will make it better.

How will the Labour Relations Board deal with essential services designations in our classrooms? How will it deal with it logistically? How will it deal with the incredible increase in workload that will result from any major dispute involving teachers or support workers? We're in bargaining right now; the collective agreement for teachers expired June 30. So this government can't stand up and say: "This happened in the past, and it's the responsibility of the past, and isn't it awful what happened in the past." This collective agreement expired on their watch, well into their new-era mandate.

Already well into their new-era mandate, with brand-new collective bargaining happening, they've brought down the hammer of essential services legislation because it's going to make our children's education better. So I can hardly wait for the members opposite to stand up and tell me, come September, how my child, their child, his child will have more stable and consistent education in the classroom.

Let's think of the questions that the LRB will be forced to answer under this legislation. Let's just look at it. We're three weeks away from school startup. Three weeks away from school startup, I don't even know whether this government, as an employer, has deigned to meet with the teachers to bargain yet. I don't even know. But if they have, bargaining certainly

Let's see what's going to happen in September when our children go back to school. What are the questions the Labour Relations Board will answer? I hope the members take note so that they can help answer these questions for the public. Are teachers essential in May but not in October? Are shop teachers essential to students pursuing a technical trades education? We had a nice, soft-lob question to the Minister of Advanced Education yesterday, asking what she is going to do about the skills trade shortage. She said: "Oh, it's of serious concern to me." That's it; it's of serious concern. Maybe she can stand up today and say: does that mean shop teachers are essential? Is that how this government chooses priorities? Maybe it is. Just let us know.

Do essential services differ from school to school, from district to district, from classroom to classroom? Every classroom's different. There's no question about it. In one classroom there are special needs students that are unique. In one school there is a focus on first nations education that doesn't exist in other schools. One school has a band program; another school doesn't. Physical education is treated differently. There are differences between elementary schools and middle schools. There are differences between middle schools and secondary schools.

Are we going to have essential services designated on a classroom-by-classroom basis? Maybe we need to have essential services designated on a student-by-student basis. I know this government likes to pretend that there's no choice in our education system now and that they've invented choice. But let me tell you that when this government gets into having to determine essential services, they will see the wide range of choice that exists in our education system. They will see the wonderful programs that our children are taught each and every day. They will see the choice that parents have, and they will see how important the choice is to parents when they try to answer the questions around essential services and try to distinguish.

I'll tell you something. Every single aspect of the education of our children is important, and every single aspect of the importance and value of the education of our children is rooted in the commitment of our teachers and our support workers to that education. No one can claim credit alone, or singly, for the wonderful education system that we have in this province. It has been brought about by the dedication of teachers, parents, school trustees, and, yes, officials in the Ministry of Education as well.

So here's another question for the Minister of Labour. This is going to put a huge burden on the Labour Relations Board. Lawyers will benefit. There's no question that lawyers will benefit, because there will be lots and lots of time spent at the Labour Relations Board determining essential services. There's no guide. We don't have any guide for this, because this government, once again, made a promise not based on anything to do with reality — but made a promise. They're delivering — have no idea how it's going to work. But I can tell you, lawyers will benefit. I can tell you that.

This government spent $360,000 just in the last round of nurses bargaining to determine essential services, and that's after years of experience. That's after years of board decisions on essential services — last round, almost half a million dollars on just determining essential services in a well-established sector, where it's very clear what health and safety and the welfare of people mean and who is in danger. Yes, lawyers will gain — there's no question about that — but there's going to be a very big burden on the Labour Relations Board.

Does the minister expect to add extra resources to the Labour Relations Board to do this? They're cutting everywhere else. They're making cuts to programs. They've given away all of the money that's available to have a smooth running of operations in government. They've given away that to tax cuts for corporations. How is the Minister of Labour going to manage the huge pressure the Labour Relations Board is under? I wonder whether he would stand up today and say whether he's contemplating the introduction of user fees for the LRB.

As people decide whether this legislation is the right way to go, stand up and let people know that user fees are on their way, that those attending the Labour Relations Board — school trustees — are going to have to pay at the Labour Relations Board to have those services provided. Stand up and tell teachers, "Sorry, you're going to have to use your resources to pay user fees at the Labour Relations Board," because that's the next shoe to drop. That is the next shoe to drop — Labour Relations Board user fees — because this government is adding such chaos to the labour relations system, and they don't have any money to actually provide the services. That will be the next shoe to drop in this legislation.

Believe you me, as a parent and as a person who represents some of the most dedicated schools and school staff in all of British Columbia, I'm anxious to hear the answers to those questions, because I know this legislation is going to pass. I know that there will not be one Liberal MLA who will stand up and dare ask these questions. Instead, they'll throw soft lobs with no answers back. Not one Liberal MLA will stand up, ask these question and get real answers. I know the Minister of Labour won't give the answers to me. I know he won't.

I know that the people in East Vancouver who operate within an inner-city school want to know what it means for their children, whose lives are made better by school activities, by education activities in the community and by education activities in the community centre where the whole community looks after the children, not just the time in the school. I am sure they want to know how their children's life in the community and education time is going to be affected by the turmoil that will result from this legislation. I

know they'll want answers to these questions as well. They'll want answers now, because school startup is in three weeks and bargaining with teachers is ongoing.

The turmoil isn't coming from the teachers. It's not coming from the teachers at all. The turmoil that will be created in the education system is coming from this Liberal government, just the same way that the turmoil and chaos in the health care system came from this Liberal government as well.

Before I finish, I want to talk about this issue in terms of this legislation, in terms of other parts of the legislation. Let's go back to the question of certification votes. Let's go back and talk about the certification vote process. Here's some more questions then. Here's some more questions for the Liberal MLAs. They're so anxious to have their voices on record about what really happens with secret ballot votes for union certifications. I would put it to the members that the harsh reality of secret ballot votes for union certification is that employers continue to attempt to deny workers the right to union representation.

Let me just review a study. Now, who did this study? I know the members opposite always want to challenge me on my labour background. They somehow think that's to be denigrated because of my family history and my workplace history in the labour movement. They think that because I have amongst my colleagues people who have dedicated their lives to making the wages and working conditions of working people better, somehow that's bad. Well, I'm very proud of my labour background, but I've also moved on. Unlike some members opposite who haven't moved on, who still see that they have to be captured only by those who donate to their campaigns and have to deliver only for the corporate CEOs, I've moved on.

In ten years of representing British Columbians, I understand that all people in British Columbia have to be fairly represented, whether they be from a community in the north, a domestic worker in Surrey, a taxi driver, a forest worker, a young person who cares passionately about the environment, a small business person or a CEO of Weyerhaeuser. All those people have to be represented fairly in my role as an MLA.

Yes, I do bring the experience of the labour movement. I bring the experience of my education, my church and my family, and not one of those life experiences is more important than the other. Yet members in this chamber, from this Liberal government, have not yet understood that their role as a government is to represent everybody — not one of them.

J. MacPhail: I hear the comments of people surrounding me, the comments of the Liberal backbenchers. They denigrate union activism each and every day. There is not one Liberal member — I guarantee it — who will stand up today and say that this government made a mistake in excluding union activists from consultation — not one. Or if you are, do it. Stand up and say why you decided to exclude union activists from consultation.

J. MacPhail: Actually, the members' constant referral to the election proves the point that I'm making. This government is so arrogant about the election results, so arrogant that they think they don't have to consult with anyone. The fact that the members constantly say, "The Liberals won and you lost, and we don't have to worry about anyone else," proves their arrogance and proves the point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker. It exactly proves the point. Their actions prove exactly what I'm saying, which is that they think they have a right to ignore working people in this province. If they didn't ignore working people, they'd pay attention to some of the effects of their legislation on working people.

Let's look at a recent study that researchers at Queen's University did. Queen's University examined 420 responses from employers — the group that this government has chosen over and over again to side with — who dealt with a certification application between 1991 and 1993. Let's look at it, because this Liberal government has said: "We choose employers. That's who we're going to listen to." That's what they say. "We won an election, so we have a right to just listen to employers." That's basically, unalterably, what this Liberal caucus has said each and every day, in their arrogance, since May 16.

Well, that report found that 94 percent of employers actively opposed union certification applications; 88 percent engaged in actions to frustrate union access to employees; 68 percent used direct communication with employees to oppose certifications; 29 percent tightened work rules or monitored employees; 12 percent admitted to other unfair labour practices during the organizing drive. The study also found that certain types of employer resistance during the organizing drive erode employee support for the union and increase the probability of early decertification. That's what the report said.

Is that perhaps what this government intends — to make sure that if, by chance, the secret ballot leads to certification, it will prepare the ground for decertification, as this study showed? Is that what this government's real intent is? I suspect it is.

We can look to other fair and balanced reports on essential services. The 1992 Ready, Roper and Baigent report…. As the members may remember, they did a report on labour law reform. They also looked at

essential services provisions and recommended that essential service be more narrowly defined as those necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious danger to the health, safety or welfare of the residents of British Columbia.

The report also stated that the designation of essential services should not "unduly interfere with the right to strike or lockout." How, then, does the Labour minister expect to meet the standards of this esteemed panel of experts by introducing essential services legislation that goes far beyond the reasonable limits that they have suggested? In fact, let's just actually look at the language that the legislation has. I bet you I'm reading it for the first time to people here.

It says: "The minister may direct the board to designate as essential services those facilities, productions and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate and serious disruption to the provision of educational programs." Whereas every other jurisdiction in North America that has essential services designation talks about danger, because that's what essential services is about — so that it doesn't interfere with the right to strike or lockout says it has to be immediate and present danger — this government has changed that to say immediate and present disruption.

What that really means — and why doesn't this government come clean with its extreme agenda? — is that if there's a disruption by virtue…. How can a teacher or a support worker exercise her right to strike, or an employer exercise his or her right to lockout, without there being disruption? So of course the real intent of this is to ban the right to take any job action. That's exactly what this legislation is about.

Let's look at what other experts have said about the changes that this government is making in its obfuscation of saying this legislation is good for the economy. Another study, by two Montreal management professors, illustrates the problem with certification by secret ballot in the workplace. They found that captive-audience speeches by employers to workers have a consistent negative and significant effect on certification. Yet another study, from Cornell University in 1997, found that union support and certification probability also declines as the number of captive-audience speeches increases. It's sort of like the same negative effect on a member of the captive audience in this assembly, I might say — that same deleterious effect that this audience has on legitimate debate.

A second British Columbia Labour Relations Code review took place in 1997, and there was another esteemed panel. That esteemed panel consisted of Jim Matkin, the former president of the B.C. Business Council; mediator Vince Ready; former LRB Chair Stan Lanyon; and labour lawyer Miriam Gropper — again, another open, balanced, consultative approach to change, something that has yet to occur under the Liberal government. It again looked at the secret ballot vote on certification, and it again reached the same conclusion five years after the 1992 panel — same balanced approach, different people, same conclusion: "We continue to believe that the risk of increased incidence of unfair labour practices during certification outweighs any advantage in using the secret ballot during the certification drive."

Mr. Speaker, the reason I'm quoting all these studies and these reviews is because I'm waiting for the Liberal government to present their own studies and their own independent reviews and their balanced approach in consultation to indicate why this change is necessary. That's why I'm going into such detail to suggest that there's been an academic review and a practitioners' review in a balanced way to say that these changes are not only unnecessary but will be harmful. I await the members rising and contributing to the debate in a way that justifies their actions.

The use of the secret ballot vote to determine certification in the United States has had a terrible effect on workers. American labour leaders estimate that each year 10,000 workers lose their jobs simply for trying to exercise their rights to join a union. I wonder if the members in the Liberal government would stand up and say that a doctor who wants to join the BCMA should have to risk losing his job. I wonder if a member on the Liberal side will stand up and say that a lawyer who wants to join the Bar Association should be subject to the risk of losing their job simply because they want to associate with their colleagues. I wonder if the government members will stand up and say that.

Even though our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians the right to join a trade union and even though all the evidence indicates that an unfair vote on certifications will reduce that right to join a union, this government continues to push forward with legislation that clearly detracts from the spirit of the Charter. They're breaking new ground. They're not joining the majority of Canadians here on the secret ballot vote. They're going backward; that's what they're doing.

Now just a couple of final comments about what's going to happen in the coming weeks with this legislation. This government will pass the legislation. There won't be any protests in the street. There won't be rallies on the lawns of the Legislature. There will be letters to the MLAs. There will be concerns raised. The business community may have sober second thoughts about what has really occurred here, but the real effect of this legislation will show up in our classrooms.

The real effect of this legislation will affect our children, the very people this government says it's trying to protect from chaos and disruption, the very people this government pretends to care about. Schools start up in three weeks. This government has said that this legislation is absolutely necessary because of the millions of days of labour disruption in the last decade, but the reality of education labour disputes is far different from the scare-tactic numbers that the Minister of Labour throws out.

The reality is that since 1992, our children in kindergarten to grade 12 have lost only an average of 27 minutes per student per year to teacher job action.

Children have fire drills, a very important exercise, that last longer than that — and more than once a year. Somehow this government uses that as justification for bringing in this legislation, which incredibly strengthens the hammer they hold as an employer in teacher bargaining.

I know all sorts of people are saying that this is about support worker bargaining as well. Perhaps the Liberal MLAs can actually check to see when support worker bargaining takes place again. It's years away, so let's not kid ourselves. This isn't necessary for support worker bargaining. Support worker bargaining reached a collective agreement that's lasting, well, for the next couple of years. Teacher bargaining is happening now.

Twenty-seven minutes per year per student. I mean, I don't say that's good. I don't say that's okay, but I do ask: is that enough? The same time it takes to have one fire drill.... Is that reason enough to completely tilt the balance of teacher bargaining that's ongoing? Is that reason enough to change the rules midstream?

Is that the kind of discussion this government had during the election? Is that the kind of discussion you came clean with during the election campaign? Did you meet with teachers in your community and say that's what you were going to do? Well, I must say, Mr. Speaker, this government gave no indication….

J. MacPhail: No, there's no question it's in black and white about essential services legislation. There's no question about that and no explanation. Not once did they say that their essential services legislation would redefine essential services as a disruption. Not once did they say that. Not once did they cloud the discussion to say: "Really, our essential services legislation is taking away your right to strike." That's what this legislation does.

The 27 minutes per year lost to labour disruption, which is unacceptable, has not had the same negative effect that covers the definition of essential services existing everywhere else in North America — that it's a danger to health, safety and security or the health, safety and welfare of British Columbians. Of course, because it doesn't meet that test, this government changed it so it doesn't have to be a danger; it just has to be a disruption. Why didn't you just come clean and tell teachers you are taking away their right to strike? Why didn't you have that honest debate? Why didn't you stand up and say: "Oh, by essential services we don't mean the definition that applies everywhere else in the world. We're going to change that definition to say that if you disrupt the education, that's reason enough to take away your right to strike"?

In fact, let's look at exactly what did happen to the education of our children during the last ten years. What did happen to the education of our children? The completion rate of high school students has gone from the second-worst to the second-best in the country. That's what's happened in the last decade. Teachers have worked with parents and students and administrators and community members over the last decade so that now we have the second-best record in the country of students completing high school.

It was the second-worst at the beginning of the decade, when some of these members were in government — under a different party label, of course. It was a different party label, but they were still in government. It was called the Social Credit government. When the Social Credit government lost office, we had the second-worst rate of completion of students in all of Canada. Oh, by the way, that Social Credit government had essential services legislation in place.

Then the law was changed, and we had labour peace. We had improvements in education, so now our children complete high school at the second-highest rate in all of Canada. Stand up, members, and enter the debate and tell me how this essential services legislation, turning the clock back to the 1980s, is going to be good for students. Tell me.

Let me leave some questions for the members as they enter the debate. Just how well thought out are these plans of the government? The current Education minister said on June 30 — it was on tape — that the government had not yet decided how to distinguish between essential and non-essential teachers. I know the members say that these issues were thoroughly discussed during the election. "Oh, we discussed it, yes. People voted on this." Now, let me see. The election date was when? May 16. On June 30 the Minister of Education, the person responsible now, said: "We haven't decided. We don't know yet how we're going to distinguish between essential and non-essential teachers."

I'm very interested to hear what the member for Langley told her constituents when she said: "We'll be invoking essential services." She probably should have informed the Education minister. She should have talked to the colleague responsible for the education system now. It's a Liberal policy that will be in effect for years and will affect our children's education in three weeks, and this government had no idea what it was talking about. They had no idea what it meant when they were espousing essential services legislation. Gee, that should fill British Columbians with confidence about the due diligence used in this legislation.

I look forward to the members of this government rising and answering all of the questions raised. Let them take their rightful place in debate and explain to British Columbians, explain to students, explain to teachers, explain to parents what they mean when somehow they say: "These legislated changes are necessary (1) to improve the economy and (2) to improve our children's education."

You know what, Mr. Speaker? I know they'll stand up with all of the rhetoric out of their New Era document, which explains nothing in this area — absolutely nothing in this area, and they will give no comfort to British Columbians in this matter.

I will be voting against this legislation for this reason: this legislation is bad for the economy — it's bad; it will have a deleterious effect on the economy — and it will contribute absolutely nothing to the well-being of our children in their education. I speak as a parent, I speak as an MLA, I speak as a person who represents a community of inner-city schools, and I speak as an MLA who represents the views of all British Columbians, not just the employer corporate donors and backers of this Liberal government.

Hon. S. Bond: I want to just speak briefly about the word "arrogance." I am sorry that the member opposite, first of all, didn't stay to hear us debate, despite the fact that she challenged us to do that, and that she would suggest that the people of this province chose 77 men and women who are sitting in this House today, are going to represent their interests and, much more importantly, represent a broad spectrum of people who live in communities, whose children attend inner-city schools, who are teachers, school trustees, school board Chairs, ex-mayors — people who care about the issues in their communities…. Let's talk about the arrogance of suggesting that the people of this province didn't choose men and women who are going to represent their interests in this House.

In addition to that, I would like to point out that the member opposite contends that we didn't consult with anyone. I want to suggest and to remind her, even in her absence, that each piece of this legislation was clearly articulated and laid before the people of this province, in addition to the plan of the member opposite, and the results were clear and obvious. And it is time to deliver on this promise.

This is absolutely about what's important for students. I'm disappointed that we continue to hear that there's some other motive behind this legislation. Our Premier speaks passionately about how important education is to us as government. I know that the individual members and we as a group believe it is our top priority. It will help us improve the economy, and it is essential that we take care of this legislation now.

You see, we believe that education is the cornerstone of our society, and it's never been more critical than it is today. That's why this government has introduced this legislation to restore — and I underline that word — education as an essential service. It was removed by the previous government in 1993. We're restoring essential service legislation.

This amendment to the Labour Relations Code ensures that educational programs are protected in the event of a school strike or a lockout. This legislation is a statement of our principles. Education must come first, learning must continue, and students must be able to complete their school year, regardless of their age or grade level.

Let's be clear. Schools are about children's and students' needs, not about adult needs. The fact that adults can't resolve a contract dispute is not a valid reason to deprive children of their right to an education. Students should not pay the price if teachers, school support staff and their employer cannot settle their differences. The member opposite would suggest that that is not our motive. It is absolutely what this legislation is about. Let me repeat that: students should not pay the price if teachers, school support staff and their employers cannot settle their differences.

It's significant that the legislation introduced yesterday designates education, not just teaching, as essential, because when you look at the number of days that B.C. students have lost due to labour disputes, two-thirds have been due to disruptions by support workers. This is not an exercise in denying anyone the right to engage in free collective bargaining. It is about recognizing that our children's right to an education must take precedence over labour disputes. Teachers and support staff will have the right to strike. That's not being taken away. Employees will continue to bargain, and they will still be able to put pressure on their employers. They just won't be able to shut down schools, because we believe it's time to ensure that the rights of students and parents are the focus of this government. Rather, they will have to maintain a level of services in schools as determined by the Labour Relations Board.

With this legislation, there is a balance between the right of workers to bring pressure on employers through job action and the right of students to receive an education. A strong public education system is key to our plan to renew British Columbia, to restore it to the vibrant, growing and prosperous place it should be. Our government committed to restoring education as an essential service in British Columbia, and this legislation will deliver on that commitment.

B. Lekstrom: I rise this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill 18. It's unfortunate that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has decided not to participate and hear what we had to say, when certainly it was part of her comments — wanting us to get up and speak. I'm not speaking today because of the comments of the member but because of what I believe in my heart.

The issue of Bill 18 is a very important issue not just when we talk about labour but to British Columbians in general. I look at the essential service...for education. To debate whether ten minutes or one hour or two hours is acceptable for our children to lose in education is not the point. Not one minute is acceptable, in my heart. I stand before this House today, supporting Bill 18 not because it was put forward by our government but because I believe wholeheartedly in Bill 18 and everything that it encompasses.

I'm very proud to have a union background. I spent 17½ years working for the British Columbia Telephone Co., and 15 of those years I worked very hard for the Telecommunication Workers Union. I worked hard for them. I represented the workers; I represented the employees. I learned a great deal, and I did it with a great amount of pride, honesty and integrity. I can tell you that the unions that support the workers do it so that they can build a better lifestyle. We provide a government that allows that openness, allows that honesty, and we are going to build a better British Columbia through the bills and the legislation that we bring before this House. That is the job we are elected to do.

Many members have spoken about the numbers we've represented here. Seventy-seven MLAs were elected to this House based on straightforward honesty, and that's what was encompassed in our document. I want to make sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Hastings understood that I'm standing here supporting Bill 18 because of one reason. I believe in it in my heart, and I believe wholeheartedly that it's here to help all British Columbians, not one sector.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's important to note the comments that have been made by all members of the House here this afternoon in respect to the debate on Bill 18 and also the aspect of what consultation took place. I think it's very important to note, and it's been stated — and I'd like to restate it one more time — that there was an election. It was on May 16. These aspects of Bill 18 were very clearly enunciated in the election platform of the B.C. Liberal Party. It was no surprise to anyone that these were the things that we were talking about during the campaign which we intended to carry through with in regards to our program as government.

We went through probably the most important consultative process that any party wishing to be government or any government then in place could go through — that is by consulting the voters, the electors of British Columbia.

I say this humbly, because it's a huge responsibility that each and every one of us has in this House: to represent the views and the wishes of the people of British Columbia. Overwhelmingly, the people elected a B.C. Liberal government — 77 of 79 seats. But more than that was the fact that 58 percent of the population supported this government. I think it has only been two or maybe three other times that a government in British Columbia has received that large a majority — in fact, a majority vote. That in itself is a huge undertaking — a responsibility that we carry here as members in this Legislature: to uphold what it was we had said and that the electors had voted for us to undertake.

What we are doing today here through Bill 18 is simply carrying forward what the voters had indicated to us on May 16. We're following through on an expression of will by the voters to make these changes. In regards to the things that we're doing and how one would quantify or evaluate each of these items, compared to what had taken place or why we would make these changes, one only needs to look at the small towns of British Columbia and what they've been through. They've been through devastating times in the last ten years. One only needs to look at the forestry industry; it's been hammered. One only needs to look at the IWA — 8,000 fewer members today than what there were a few years ago. One only needs to look at the mining industry — half of what was here years ago.

The economy in British Columbia, the labour force, the work climate and the opportunity for people in this province were absolutely thrashed by the NDP government — a province that has so much to offer and so much in the way of resources. People ought to have been working from one end of this province to the other with not just one job but the opportunity of two and three others. So it's somewhat destructive that the member opposite would start to bring forward thoughts as to why we are doing these things, when we as British Columbians have lived through the most horrendous time that people in this province have ever lived through: the past ten years.

That's why we're making these changes. We see it, and obviously the voters of the province see it likewise. There need to be substantive changes, balanced changes and measured changes so that once again British Columbia can be the leading province in Canada. Once again the people can have jobs from one end to the other. Once again the people in the communities, the small communities — all of them in the province — can feel, with some security, that there will be a better day tomorrow. That's why we're undertaking the changes that we are today through Bill 18. That's why we're undertaking the other changes that have been brought to the House already, and there'll be more to come as we rebuild the province of British Columbia.

This bill is measured. It's for all of the people of the province. I believe it's one more step of rebuilding the economy, one more step of making and returning British Columbia to its rightful place as a leading province in Canada. Bill 18 sets out four more of the promises and commitments that we made as a government, as a party running for government, which we have upheld and are implementing within our 90-day agenda. It's important to note that as a party and as a government, we said that we would undertake certain things, and we as a government are following through with those undertakings that the people of British Columbia have charged us to do.

	YEAS — 67
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Hawkins	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff

	[ Page 552 ]

Nettleton	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Weisbeck
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Harris	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Hawes	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 1
	MacPhail

Bill 18, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Health Planning.

Hon. G. Collins: In order to accommodate the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I would just move a brief recess to the call of the Chair.

J. MacPhail: Just for the information of those watching, we'll probably be just about a half-hour here, so if Health Services wants to…. Actually, I think it is Health Services next, but the ministers may have to change.

One of the areas that I'm particularly interested in from an MLA perspective — so this will be a little bit more focused in terms of planning for health — is the area of community health care, particularly the delivery of community health services in an integrated way to compensate for the pressures on hospital emergency rooms.

It was my experience, both as a person in a very high population urban area and as Minister of Health, that there was a large amount of integration necessary to deliver community health services that would then assist in alleviating the pressures on our emergency rooms. I'm wondering under what service plan the Premier directed the minister — or perhaps it's an item separate and apart from the service plans asked for by the Premier — the planning for that would take place.

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is a very important question, and it's the way that we hope to move in delivery of health care services to take pressure off our emergency rooms, as the member says. I think the member knows that the government is involved in primary care projects. There were seven. Her government was involved in setting those up, and they seem to be fairly successful. I think that those kinds of questions are better put to the minister responsible for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. She is responsible for the planning, and we will assist her with that.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, is that on community health, as well, that those questions should be directed to the minister? I'm talking about primary care service delivery in the community.

Hon. S. Hawkins: If it's public health care, then it's certainly appropriate for the Minister of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: Is there any planning element going on in those two areas now, which would be the minister's responsibility?

Hon. S. Hawkins: There is planning around community services and around the primary health care projects that I had mentioned. There are seven in the province right now. We have $19 million in federal funding to use for primary health care reform, and we plan to access that and roll out some more projects. There's a Reach clinic that we're looking at as a model as well.

J. MacPhail: I'll just make a very brief sales pitch here on behalf of community health clinics, particularly clinics that I am familiar with, like Mid-Main, Reach and Vancouver Native Health. I'd be happy to have the

minister, in her planning exercise, visit it with me if she hasn't already visited. I think the Minister of Health Services has been there anyway. There's a lot to learn. There need to be improvements made even on the current community health models. I know that support for families is greatly improved when we have services offered in the community on a daily and timely basis and on weekends as well.

While that may seem like a commonsense statement — well, it doesn't seem like it; it is a commonsense statement — it does require a lot of planning to shift services from the acute care model to the community health model. There are all sorts of factors one needs to consider that even surprised me. I do hope that is a priority in the health planning that the minister is responsible for.

There's another area where I'd like to ask the minister what her role is in Health Planning, and that's in the area of delivery of Pharmacare and pharmaceutical support in the health care model. I note that the Minister of Finance made quite a point of saying that there's overexpenditure in the budget in the area of Pharmacare. However, I also have not seen any planning about how that might be managed or changed. So perhaps the minister could speak to her role in planning for delivery of a Pharmacare model that meets the government's budget.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The member makes some good points around community care and primary care, and that is certainly a priority as we move forward in health care in this province. With regard to Pharmacare, we did make a new-era commitment — and we plan to keep it — on reviewing the reference drug program. That is something we will be planning to do. We want to make sure that patients have access to pharmaceuticals, but we also, in a very responsible way, have to ensure that the cost is sustainable. There are a lot of pressures on the health care budget this year. Certainly, when we looked at the budget planning — the budget that her government had put forward — there was only a 2 percent lift for Pharmacare, when we knew that every other year it had been anywhere from 14 to 16 or 17 percent. So we are having a careful look at that.

I think the questions around the Pharmacare program are better suited to the Minister of Health Services. As far as long-term planning, we are committed to reviewing the reference drug program.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the direction to the Minister of Health Services, but the reason why I'm asking is because I would assume that the government would expect that there would have to be long-term planning — that pharmacological treatment is an integrated part of treatment outside of the acute-care model or supports the intermediate and long term care model. I hope it is part of the integrated planning.

I notice that the Premier's directive to the Minister of Health Planning is just to consider the advisability of including Pharmacare in regional health authority budgets. I might recommend possibly to the Premier that that directive also include long-term planning for the management of Pharmacare costs.

This is one where I will brook no pushback whatsoever from the government saying that there was no action taken here, because our province led throughout the mid- and late-nineties in putting forward programs to manage the costs of Pharmacare in a way that gave best patient care, as well, as a goal. We worked with academic institutions and health boards and doctors and nurses and pharmacists to manage those costs in a way that greatly enhanced patient care but didn't give away all the health care dollars to the big pharmaceutical companies.

I think the federal government has shown a decided lack of leadership in this area. It's an area that they seem incredibly timid to pursue in terms of the pharmaceutical industry's dominance of the fastest-growing health care costs. It's my view that they do that with only their bottom line in mind and not good patient care. That is particularly so in the case of mental health delivery as well.

I've got two other areas to explore. One is capital with the Minister of Health Planning, and the other is the health goals for British Columbia. In the area of capital, there are all sorts of rumours floating around throughout the province about plans for capital spending in health. I will pursue the individual questions with the Minister of Health Services. However, I note: "Develop a framework for financial and human resource allocation, including capital and equipment." Could the minister explain what that means and what her plans are to meet that goal?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, it is in my area of responsibility to develop a capital plan for the province. This is very, very early on. We've taken some short-term strategies that we thought were a priority, one of them being the nursing strategy, the first steps of which we introduced today, a $21.4 million investment for nurses across this province. We're very proud that in eight short weeks, with a lot of planning and interministerial cooperation with the Minister of Advanced Education, the minister responsible for immigration, Health Services, my ministry worked very hard to roll that out.

These are longer-term plans. We are still assessing right now what the regions should look like and the role of the region versus the role of the province. This also ties in with that population-based formula that we talked about. So, yes, we will be developing that plan. Have we started yet? We've started the assessment.

J. MacPhail: Actually, the minister provoked a question as she was commenting there. I think her budget is $5 million, or almost $5 million. Can she give a breakdown of how that's going to be spent?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The minister's office has a budget of $580,000. There is a line item for system

innovation for $1.6 million, and that will be used for primary care renewal and for tertiary care access. That will also be used for the chief nurse executive position that we're hiring. That nurse, as I explained this morning, will be responsible for advising my ministry on recruitment, retainment and education issues around nurses and will help us plan for that health human resources plan that I'm responsible for developing. Under governance and accountability there's $2.6 million. That is inclusive of the provincial health officer's office. Also included in there will be staff that we will hire for human resource planning and capital planning. Of the FTEs that we have filled right now, we have transferred approximately 25 staff from Health Services — or we share with them — and the rest will be hired or seconded as we need them.

J. MacPhail: That information is located in the Estimates. Anyway, I thank the member for putting that on the record.

I was curious as to system innovation and the minister's responsibility for that. Is that sort of a human resource system, or is it technological systems as well?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The part of the budget under system innovation, which includes $1.6 million, wouldn't be used to buy technology, but it certainly would be used to assess it. It's also there for looking at strategies, perhaps, around technology. But it's not for purchase of technology.

I recall the Health ministers' meeting — the minister can tell me if this should be directed to another Health minister — either amongst her provincial-territorial colleagues or, also, with the federal government, to discuss a Canada-wide patient record technological innovation and the planning for that. Can we have an update on that, please?

J. MacPhail: It makes perfect sense that the provincial health officer is with the Minister of Health Planning. His role — to date it has been a he, I think — is a very important one and certainly is all about planning, making sure that the system moves in a direction that raises the healthiness of British Columbians. I have always found his reports extremely helpful in terms of putting in perspective the role of government in making sure that our citizens are as healthy as possible. In fact, it's just interesting to read the goal of the office of the provincial health officer. The mission statement is: "To maintain and improve the health of British Columbians by enhancing quality of life and minimizing inequalities in health status." It's a very eloquent statement that should capture the goals of any government on behalf of its citizens, whether they are infants, children, youth, adults, seniors, aging.

Two things could happen here. One, I could go through the goals. There are six goals of the provincial health officer as of this year, and we could ask for the plan of action on those six goals. Or perhaps the minister wants to take a general approach for this set of estimates, in preparation for the next set of estimates, about the role that the provincial health officer will play in her planning function.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The provincial health officer plays a very important role, and I have very high regard for Dr. Perry Kendall. We've been through some pretty interesting challenges, if I can put it that way, in the past couple of months, and certainly the deputy provincial health officer has been involved with some of the day-to-day stuff like the meningitis outbreak we're currently experiencing in the Fraser Valley. We are very well off, having people of their calibre advising us.

Yes, there are health goals in place, and we will be assessing them. We will be using them as targets, as goals, if you will, to help us plan what our goals are for our population. Of course, we are responsible for setting performance standards and measures for our regions. The goals that the provincial health officer has developed are very broad, and they cut across a lot of ministries.

I think we will be looking at them as ideals to reach, to strive for, but in reality we will be setting specific standards and performance measures for regions to meet. We will be getting the advice of the provincial health officer on the appropriateness of some of those as well.

J. MacPhail: I think, for the record, that what we'll do in the next round of estimates this time…. Not this time next year, hopefully.

J. MacPhail: In 2002. It's one area where I actually agree with the Minister of Health Planning. Let's do it earlier.

Just to read into the record, so we can judge by the record, the health goals for British Columbia: goal 1, positive and supportive living and working conditions in all our communities; goal 2, opportunities for all individuals to develop and maintain the capacities and skills needed to thrive and meet life's challenges and to make choices that enhance health; goal 3, a diverse and sustainable physical environment with clean, healthy and safe air, water and land; goal 4, an effective and efficient health service system that provides equitable access to appropriate services; goal 5, improved health for aboriginal peoples; goal 6, reduction of preventable illness, injuries, disabilities and premature deaths.

In conclusion of the estimates of the Minister of Health Planning, I think that from my perspective certainly, an appropriate ending of the contribution I can make to these estimates is to say that in the coming

year, these are goals by which we can judge progress. The Minister of Health Planning has a huge and very important job ahead of her. I wish her the best of all in achieving her assignment. I hope she's given the adequate resources to carry out the health planning in the province, and I hope that all of us in British Columbia — the government members, opposition members, the public, health care providers — take into account the health goals as we judge our success.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've got a lot of work to do, and we're quite excited about our future here. I think there are good things happening in the ministry. Certainly, there are some challenges ahead as we work on our service plans, work with the regions, with health providers, administrators, patients and British Columbians so that we can restore some stability in our health care system and restore confidence in it once again.

Certainly, all the members in this House are encouraged by some of the processes that have been set up to give us input on how we can make that happen. The legislative committee on Health is appointed. The government Caucus Committee on Health meets regularly. I know we're going to do good things in the coming year.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just in terms of some opening comments, when I first was asked to take on this responsibility and after being sworn in as Minister of Health Services, there were some big challenges that were put on my desk immediately. It's a ministry that at that time, with the blue book as it was tabled at the end of March, had a budget of $9.3 billion. As is obvious from the estimates that are before us now, that has increased because of some restructuring of the responsibilities of the ministry and also some additional funding pressures that have been recognized in that budget, but at the time it was $9.3 billion.

I think what really took me aback so much in those first couple of weeks was being advised of the $400 million of cost pressures that the ministry was facing over and above that $9.3 billion. I think every minister who comes into this House to present their estimates…. It's incumbent upon them to be able to say to all members of this House that they have their budget under control, that spending is set out in the estimates and is under control, and that within their ministerial responsibilities they're going to deliver programs within those envelopes.

I wish I could say that in terms of the responsibilities of Health Services, but what has become obvious to me is that spending in health care in British Columbia is not in control. We have seen it rising by significant increases every single year. There are elements of the budget, such as the Pharmacare budget, which have been rising at a rate of between 15 percent and 20 percent a year, which is clearly not sustainable. In the years that I spent as Health critic in the opposition, I remember the various Ministers of Health who many times would say that the health care system as we have it is not sustainable, that we have to see change, and yet we haven't seen that change.

I think part of our challenge in dealing with the Health ministry budget is to ensure that we do bring that spending under control and that priorities are set so that British Columbians get the health care they need when they need it. We have to bring that kind of stability, certainty and predictability to the health care system, because that's clearly the only way that our health care system's going to survive in this province.

One of the changes that has happened and is reflected in these estimates that are before the House is the inclusion of two ministers of state. Within the Ministry of Health Services there are two ministers of state: the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Certainly this is an innovation that I think is quite exciting. I know other provinces are certainly looking at this model as a way of bringing proper political accountability to a very, very large financial responsibility, which in the budget we have before us is 39 percent of our provincial budget. In past years there was one voice at the cabinet table to represent and be accountable for that huge spending envelope. I think that in this new model there is an opportunity for us to ensure that there are more voices.

I think it's also important that people understand the way it is structured. As Minister of Health Services I have overall responsibility for the ministry, and I have the able assistance of the two ministers of state to help in that task. Their roles are very much those of advocacy roles. In the case of the Minister of State for Mental Health, it is the first time that there has been a voice at the cabinet table advocating solely for and specifically focused on the interests of those who are facing mental health challenges in British Columbia.

In terms of intermediate, long term and home care, that is also an area of such vital importance. In the dialogue that we had with British Columbians last fall, it was another area where there was anxiety. There wasn't the sense, at least, that there was a strong advocate for those issues. So that minister of state is certainly filling that role.

Within the ministry it's presenting new challenges in that there are no conventions in terms of how three ministers, in essence, try to function as the political accountability for a ministry of this size. Certainly in the directions that have been given to us by the Premier, they set out the areas that he wants us to take responsibility for. There has been very good coordination among the three ministers. I'm sure there are going to be times when we will probably be saying different things in different ways, and people will

probably try to read things into that. But certainly the experience we've had to date is an excellent one in terms of everybody shouldering their share of that load to try to face some of these big challenges in health care.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has lots of issues she wants to raise in the ministry. From her experience as a Health minister in the past, I know she appreciates the complexity of this ministry and how many different staff people may be necessary to assist us in answering the questions she may have. I would welcome her suggestions on how she would like to approach this challenge, perhaps also in terms of when she may want to have available the two ministers of state so that they can directly answer questions that fall in those specific areas. Perhaps if I can turn the floor over to her, hon. Chair, we can proceed as she sees fit.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the Minister of Health Services' opening remarks. I also want to put on the record that the Minister of Health Services spent a great deal of time trying to offer me a briefing or to work out the order, and I was simply busy with other tasks. So I thank him and his staff for that, and we'll just do that business now, if we could. I think it'll come as a surprise to the minister about the approach I want to take in the form of his estimates. Let me just explain why.

I spent a great deal of time, given the context of time available here, on the Ministry of Health Planning, because that's a change since the election. I thought it important to explore the role of the Minister of Health Planning in the context of change in our health care delivery system.

The Minister of Health Services does have a huge task ahead of him, and I wish him nothing but the greatest of success. I don't think it's the most difficult portfolio of government. I would suggest that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is the most difficult portfolio. However, I do think that given the context of what is the highest priority of British Columbians, he has the responsibility for that. That's why I wish him only well, and that's why I was so interested to see the role of the Minister of Health Planning in relationship to the huge job this minister has.

I want to focus in this set of estimates on the changes that have occurred as a result of the government being elected. That will perhaps come as a surprise, because it will take far less time than in the past about estimates. I'm responsible for what went into the budget. It might be a bit of a stretch to say I know what went into the budget, because it's such a huge portfolio, but I share my responsibility for what went into the budget up until the election. I would say that the issues I want to discuss are the changes that have occurred since then, in allocation specifically. Then I will add some of my own areas on top of that, which I want to know the minister's approach to. I'll outline that now, if I may, and then we can pause just to see about order of staff or whatever, or we can start.

One is the changes since the election in budget allocation, and that means both additions and deletions. I'm interested in the change in the structure of delivery of health services at the front line — there may not be any yet, and I appreciate that — and at the executive level. I am interested to know the changes in the area of capital expenditure, if any.

I am interested in addiction services. I think I recall that being transferred to the Minister of Health Services. Sorry, Mr. Chair. This also goes for any of these categories that apply to the ministers of state as well, and we can certainly deal with them in the context of the ministers of state, one by one.

If there are any thoughts that the Minister of Health Services has on his priorities of health service delivery…. I fully understand that they've been outlined in the New Era document and were discussed during the election, but if has there been any update in the thoughts of the Minister of Health Services in his two months of experience? I mean that, honestly, with the greatest of respect.

The other area that I am interested in, one that I spoke about briefly with the Minister of Health Planning, is the area of community health and primary care delivery. Those are my issues.

Hon. C. Hansen: That's a long shopping list to start with right off the top, so we'll bite these off in manageable chunks here. First of all, just in terms of the changes in the budget from what was presented in March to what was presented in this latest restatement of the budget, one significant change was the transfer in of the drug and alcohol programs from the ministry of children and families. It's not a change in the amount that's budgeted. It's simply a transfer to reflect the transfer of the programs from Children and Family Development.

What we saw in terms of the actual budget is that there was an increase of $45 million in the Pharmacare budget. It was projected that there would be a $91 million shortfall in the Pharmacare budget from what was tabled in March. As a result of this $45 million increase to the Pharmacare budget, it still leaves us $46 million short. There clearly are going to be some challenges for us to manage within what has been allocated.

There is an increase of $19 million to the Medical Services Plan to enhance the primary care services. This is actually as a result of dollars that were provided from the federal government as part their primary care changes. Those dollars flow through to the ministry to reflect the cost that we will be incurring in delivering those programs.

There is a $6.9 million increase to the emergency health services to fund the cost increases as a result of the recent CUPE collective agreement. There's a $1.5 million increase to regional programs, adult mental health, to fund the recent BCGEU settlement to agencies such as Riverview Hospital and the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. I guess that's basically it.

The other big one is the result of a ruling from the auditor general in terms of the shift from capital expenditures to operating dollars. It was $77 million that was previously in capital that, as a result of that direction, was shifted into operating. So that's also reflected in there.

The final point is a $6.5 million reduction in the ministry's debt-servicing budget, and this is based on revised cost estimates from the Ministry of Finance.

Just to get direction from the member, I'm not sure if she wants to pursue that or go on to the other issues that she raised. Or does she want to deal with these one at a time?

J. MacPhail: I assume that's across the $9.38 billion, including the ministers of state, including Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

That explains the difference in the budget. Perhaps I should just expand a little bit on why I'm taking that approach. Some try to look at this discussion of estimates as either an endurance contest or a "let's fill in the space available." We may get to that in the years down the road. There's no question that this is one area that was explored thoroughly in the election, and the results are evidence of that exploration. What I want to do is just explore the changes that are in mind — the government has, again, spent so much time on health planning — and then watch and see. The next year around we'll have perhaps a much more detailed explanation.

The minister is quite right that this is a portfolio that's extremely complex and one that Health ministers across the country face challenges with. In fact, I think the federal-territorial-provincial debates that get the most attention are debates around health care. That's because Canadians face issues in common around the future of our health care system.

I hope the minister fully understands that I recognize the importance of the portfolio, that I fully appreciate the importance of the expenditure of $9.3 billion to the taxpayer and that I know the government needs to be held accountable for each and every one of the expenditures of those dollars. However, I also take my responsibility for what occurred up until the election. There's a new era. I see my role as one of exploring in a way that I hope — and I mean this sincerely — adds to the debate and prepares the ground for what may occur over the course of the year, in preparation for a thorough discussion of the new era in 2002. It's on that basis that we proceed. For those that are listening or that may want to view the record on this, I acknowledge that in this particular area the discussion was very thorough during the election.

Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate the member's comments. She made reference to the budgets for the ministers of state. One of the things that the Premier has been very careful of is to not create ministries within ministries. These are not meant to compartmentalize aspects of health care but rather to make sure it remains integrated, which I think is essential if we want to have a comprehensive, seamless delivery of health care at the local level. So there is no specific budget for the Minister of State for Mental Health other than his minister's office budget. It is clearly, as before, integrated with the ministry's budget.

I made a note of five issues that the member wanted to pursue. One of them was the changes in the structure of the delivery of health care since the election, in terms of both front-line and executive level. The answer to her question is that there have not been significant changes. Our goal has been to try to bring stability to patient care, what patients experience, which we all recognize is often not adequate and does not meet the needs of citizens.

Certainly our goal was not to bring more instability as a result of the change in government. We've been trying to make sure that whatever change happens through the work of the Ministry of Health Planning is done in a very thoughtful, deliberate and transparent way. We have also tried to bring stability to those who are working on the front lines. That, as the member knows, has been very difficult because of the labour actions and the collective bargaining process that was in the air at that time. Bringing stability has certainly been our goal, and that has its share of challenges today, just as it did previously when she was Health minister.

In terms of the executive level of the ministry, there have not been significant changes. In past years, as Health critic, I have been very complimentary of the executive staff in the ministry. Since the election that respect has only increased. I think the province is very well served by the ministry staff that is here now and by the ministry staff that was here under the previous government. In saying that, I would particularly like to acknowledge and pay tribute to Leah Hollins, whom I know the member had the pleasure of working with, and whom I had the pleasure of working with for the first few weeks after the change of government. She was a very capable and able servant of this province, and it's with great regret that, for personal and health reasons, she has decided to retire from that position. But I know that the ministry is going to be well served in the future in that regard.

J. MacPhail: Leah, if you're watching, I think it's a loss to the public service that you have retired. I hope it's a temporary retirement. Leah Hollins was a wonderful assistant deputy minister, deputy minister and, I think, a nurse, which makes her the best kind of deputy to have. I do agree with you that the ministry continues to be well served by the executive in place now. I join you in sending my best wishes to Leah Hollins. I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed working with Leah, who was a very personable woman but also extremely professional and competent.

The executive director for nursing…. There's a new position that's been created specifically for nursing, as I recall. Could the minister tell me about that and about what role that person will play in the executive of the ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: The title is chief nursing officer. It's currently being recruited. That employee will be an employee of the Ministry of Health Planning, and that position will be funded out of the budget of the Ministry of Health Planning. I appreciate that we're past those estimates, but if the member has some questions about this specific role, I can certainly try to get answers for her, if she's interested.

J. MacPhail: So the chief nursing officer is a planning function, not a line function?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the job description is set out, it is a planning function, but it's also a leadership function. One of the concerns we heard from nurses — particularly from students around the province, or individuals who would like to get into nursing or would like to advance their careers in nursing — was really a frustration in terms of having so many different programs that they could access and a confusion over who to go to in order to talk about a program.

I remember talking to one young nursing student in Comox who was telling me her experience of being transferred from office to office. Every time she'd phone somebody about nursing upgrade programs, bridging programs, bursaries that might be available to assist her or any funding from the health authority that was there, she was sent from office to office to office. Part of the role of the chief nursing officer would be to try to provide that leadership and coordination and really be an advocate for the nursing profession within the ministries, both in planning and in services.

Whether they're an individual who's attached to the Ministry of Health Planning or to the Ministry of Health Services, all of these staff will be working hand in glove. These are not solitudes between planning and health services. They're very much integrated. Certainly, the chief nursing officer will be no exception in that regard.

I was just handed this brief description of the — actually, I got the title wrong here; my apologies — chief nurse executive. The chief nurse executive will provide leadership and advice to government on recruitment, retention, education and workplace issues, as well as support the overall planning activities of the Ministry of Health Planning. The total cost of that position in this fiscal year is $115,000.

J. MacPhail: In the context of the changes that we're discussing right now as a result of the election of the government, I'm wondering whether the minister could assist in updating me on federal-provincial initiatives that are being discussed and that may impact on the health care of British Columbians. I think of this now, just as the minister was describing the role of the chief nurse executive, because of course we've had the federal government saying that the provinces should stop fighting amongst themselves in recruiting and retaining nurses, which is very convenient for them to say. The government has put in place a planning function, and I'm sure that part of his or her role would be to plan for recruiting and retaining nurses. That led to: what the hell's the federal government doing about all these things?

What federal-provincial initiatives are on the agenda for federal-provincial discussions? Has the minister had a federal-provincial meeting or a provincial-territorial meeting yet? Could he also then update us on moneys that have actually been committed and that have been promised to flow from the federal government to the British Columbia government this year or in ensuing years?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, there has not yet been a meeting of Health ministers. That's coming up on September 25 to 27, I believe, in St. John's, Newfoundland. I will be attending that, representing the B.C. government.

I have had the pleasure of meeting and having a chance to chat with several of the Health ministers to date. When the Premiers' conference was taking place in Victoria a week and a half ago now, I guess, the Ministers of Health from Ontario, Manitoba and Nova Scotia were here. I had the pleasure of meeting with them. I also had the pleasure of meeting the Health minister from Saskatchewan at a conference that was held in Blaine, Washington, just this last week. We've had some of those preliminary discussions, looking at some common challenges that we're facing.

Certainly, out of the Premiers' conference that took place in Victoria…. There was a lot of speculation that the Premiers would come together and that there would be some division and some rancour among different approaches. Quite the opposite happened. There were excellent discussions among the Premiers in terms of opportunities for collaboration among provinces. There were particularly some initiatives around pharmaceutical management, where the provinces identified some real opportunities to ensure that common approaches are taken across Canada. That's a subject that will be pursued in the discussions at the end of September.

I think there are some real opportunities there to move forward quickly on this. In the area of primary care, the federal government — the member was asking about specific dollars from the federal government in this area — has been funding $19 million a year for their primary care initiative, of which B.C…. I guess the latest portions of that were announced recently for the total of five years at $19 million a year, which will flow through the ministry. Also, there is some significant work being done on what's called the information technology initiative, which is standards for electronic recordkeeping. I

Janet McGregor, who I know the member is familiar with and who has served in the ministry for a long time, is certainly ably representing British Columbia in that initiative — again, some great opportunities for provincial collaboration among all provinces. So there are certainly lots of areas.

I guess the other area that I haven't mentioned yet is the initiative to develop a council on organ and tissue donation, which is something that certainly I know the previous government had been pushing for and encouraging. It looks like there are some opportunities to move that ahead on a collaborative basis with other provinces.

J. MacPhail: I noted that the Minister of Health at the federal level released another volley in his tobacco war. It was an interesting volley. I think he promised to outlaw the term "light" or "low tar." I also note that the current government is going to proceed with the tobacco lawsuit. Is there any coordination that's beginning between the B.C. government and the federal government on the war against tobacco?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, there is. There is good collaboration at a staff level between the provincial and the federal governments on the area of the tobacco file, if that's the right way to put it. Certainly, as the member will know, when we were in opposition we generally supported the tobacco initiatives of the previous government. We continue to do so and to push those forward. Our approach to encouraging British Columbians to quit smoking is equally vociferous, and it's a goal that we share, I believe.

Recently there was a federal-provincial report done on tobacco use in Canada, which is another example of that collaboration federally and provincially. There was actually some very good news for British Columbia in that. In terms of the 15-to-19-year-olds, usage in British Columbia went down from 24 percent to 18 percent in the space of about three years, if my numbers are right — from about 1997 to the year 2000. I think that is very encouraging, and it is hopefully a sign of things to come.

J. MacPhail: I actually hadn't heard that statistic, so that's very encouraging news. I mean, this is one area of health care that just encompasses every aspect of our delivery system: preventive health care and then the pressure on our acute care system and the astounding thousands of deaths that are related to tobacco use.

The reason I am so interested in this statistic is that as I hang out with 12- and 13-year-old boys, it's nowhere on their horizon. Smoking is nowhere on their horizons, if they're telling me the truth, and I'm sure they are. That's excellent news.

I don't know about girls, though; my life doesn't encompass teenage girls yet. I hope that statistic is showing the same positive direction as well for teenage girls in the area of smoking. Perhaps the minister could inform the House of that.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that report in front of me right now, but it certainly was encouraging. I know that there was a breakdown between the use by teenage girls and teenage boys. I'll certainly get that report for the member because I know it's of great interest to her.

J. MacPhail: The other area I'm interested in, in terms of federal-provincial relations, was a very hot issue that consumed so much time of the federal and provincial ministers: the area of blood services. Perhaps the minister could update the House on the delivery of blood services. Also, are there any increased costs flowing from that service delivery to the province, whether they be budgeted or unbudgeted?

Hon. C. Hansen: In terms of the Canadian Blood Service, what we have seen is an increase in costs in terms of blood services to British Columbia, but we have also seen an increase in quality as a result of the work that's being done. In B.C. there is certainly a focus and an appreciation that we're getting a service that is of high quality and is cost-effective.

We are certainly relying a lot on the role of the provincial blood coordinating office at St. Paul's to look at appropriate utilization in British Columbia of blood products that come from the Canadian Blood Service. There are steps being taken by the Canadian Blood Service to rationalize their service, things like centralized blood testing, so they can ensure that cost-effectiveness is always at its optimum.

I think it also speaks to the increasing rigour that is being shown in how blood is handled and how blood donors are screened. Certainly, as a blood donor I know what that screening is, and it is certainly rigorous and appropriate. We have been able to ensure that there is very high quality and high safety levels for British Columbians who are in receipt of those blood products.

We now also have a registry of all blood recipients in B.C. for tracing of any blood product that is used in the province.

J. MacPhail: Have the increased costs from the Canadian Blood Service been budgeted this year?

Hon. C. Hansen: My delay in responding to the member was only to see if I could give her an exact number of what is budgeted. It is fully budgeted, fully costed, for the year. We're very confident that the budget numbers will cover the costs that we will be incurring during this year. We certainly don't expect any overruns in that area, but if the member would like a specific number, I can get that for her.

J. MacPhail: By mutual agreement, I'm yielding the floor to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

D. Jarvis: I thank the member for Vancouver-Hastings for yielding to me, because I won't be in a position to ask questions tomorrow. It's rather unusual standing up here and asking questions without seeing the minister across from me. I don't know if the mike will pick me up when I start talking to you directly, so I probably will…. I'm not ignoring you on purpose.

Minister, I have about four or five families in my riding that have problems inside their families, ostensibly with anorexia. It's a situation that is a great concern. It's not as widespread as other diseases or problems that families are suffering from in this province, but those that have it are really concerned. It's almost to the point sometimes that it's life and death with the children that are involved. I was rather fortunate in having cooperation with the previous government just near the end of their regime, thank heavens, and I was able to help one of the families get the treatment they required. So far it has worked really well.

There must be an underground telegraph system going on in this province, because as I said, I've subsequently received calls from people all across this province — letters from Vernon, Fort St. John, Penticton and all over the place from families that have problems and aren't finding any success in this present system that we are operating under. This may be a long approach to the question. I understand the situation is that if a child is sick, suffering from this disease, they go through their own doctor. Then they go to Children's Hospital, and they're either cured or whatever it may be. A lot of these families, the parents, get so concerned about the welfare of their child. They'll be going into Families once or twice or maybe three or four times. They have this feeling that there are other locales outside of this province — more specifically in the United States, like the Phoenix ranch, or in Alberta — that they can get into, and they're having better success, theoretically, than we are.

This is one of my questions. I don't know how well we are doing. I was concerned when one child was turned down. The bureaucrat, I guess I can say, in Victoria who was responsible for giving me the information…. They turned this child down. They said: "Well, the child has only been in Children's Hospital three times." Children's Hospital, from what I understand, only has about three or four beds anyway. This child has been in two or three times. They said that there's nothing more they can do for them and that the child is going to have to wait her turn and come back in again. So I said: "Are you trying to tell me, then, that it's up to the child?" The government will give them money to pay for the treatment in other jurisdictions, providing that child has crashed enough times. That, in a sense, is the way it was pictured to us. That gives me great concern.

At that point I'll sort of back off, and you may want to give me some more explanations on it.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm glad the member raised this, because I have met with a family who is going through a very similar challenge — a family that lives in my constituency. In British Columbia the eating disorder program has had some challenges that have been difficult to deal with, partly around the nursing shortage in this area. There is a review committee that assesses each case in terms of what the appropriate treatment program is for an individual, and they would make the decisions and recommendations based on their expert medical knowledge as to what and where the appropriate course of treatment should be.

In the past there has been a willingness to fund treatment outside the country and in other provinces as necessary. Part of our approach is to say that if care cannot be provided in British Columbia, then we're fully prepared to ensure that patients can be transferred to get the care they need. That decision has to be based not on a political decision by a minister or by government but by the experts who are involved in this field. Clearly, the whole area of eating disorders is one that I think is timely for us to be reviewing to look at how we can provide better services. I know the frustrations the family has had in trying to get access to the care that they think their sons or daughters deserve, and that's certainly an undertaking that I will make. We will be doing that review over the coming period of time.

D. Jarvis: I have one brief question. Is it simply a matter of having beds available as a result of…like surgery? We don't have enough nurses, so therefore we can't put more beds into the system? Or is it that our system is not being effective enough?

I understand that the previous government, I guess, did send a team of experts or people down to, say, the Phoenix ranch to look at their way of doing things. The problem is that it's something you just can't cure overnight. Is our problem that we have a lack of facilities or a lack of money or a lack of people knowing what to do? Or is our system of treatment wrong?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is a combination of many of the points that the member has raised. Clearly, there is a need for more beds. There is a need for more physicians who have expertise in this area. There is a need for clinical psychologists. There is a need for training, generally, for all health professionals who are being called upon to assist British Columbians with eating disorders. It's part and parcel of the need that we have for a reform of the whole approach to how we treat chronic conditions.

This is an area that, as we start looking at primary care reform and a move towards much more of a team approach to primary care…. This is a classic example where British Columbians who are suffering from eating disorders would be able to benefit from that

kind of a change. I wouldn't want to say that what we are doing in British Columbia today is meeting the needs. That certainly is something we will be looking at in terms of the immediate needs of those with eating disorders in the province and also how eating disorders fit into that broader restructuring of primary care over the medium to long term.

D. Jarvis: Seeing that we both think along the same philosophical borders, I assume you will look after the situation in the future.

Now, in order to not take up time but to use up what time there is.... Time's valuable here in Victoria. That's all the questions I have on the anorexia aspect of it at the moment.

I see the minister of state for mental disorders is available, and I was wondering if I could eat up the clock by asking him one question.

I have other families in my riding, too, that I'm having a lot of problems with. The parents are calling me — those that have schizophrenic children in their families. The past has been pretty traumatic for these families. I was wondering if the ministry is planning anything in the future that might alleviate these parents of their problems.

Hon. G. Cheema: First of all, this is my first answer in this House as part of the estimates process. In my previous life I had been asking questions from the other side in another province, so I think this is a good opportunity.

Before I answer your question, I just want to take two or three minutes to explain my role. As Mr. Hansen was explaining, my role is going to be threefold as Minister of State for Mental Health: (1) to be an advocate for mental health patients; (2) to build a public information campaign; and (3) to fully fund and implement the mental health plan. That was our commitment, and the member knows full well that we are going to fulfil that commitment.

Within that context, I will be working with Mr. Hansen and the Minister of Health Planning. It also gives me flexibility as minister of state. It's a very unique opportunity that I can work with ministers such as the Minister of Education, Attorney General and other ministers where the mental health patients will need access and services. It's a good opportunity for us as a government to make sure that the patients, such as your constituents, will have a special focus. I think we have seen in the past that we have pressures within the health care system, and mental health patients are not given proper respect. Part of that is my job. I have to make sure we can address those concerns that you have raised.

As for your special question regarding schizophrenia, this year there is a $1.3 million part of the early psychosis program that will help those patients and many more families. If you would talk to those families, and I'm sure you have been…. Unless the diagnosis is made at an early stage, it becomes very difficult for them to have proper treatment. What we need to focus on is early intervention and also provide long-term care. We, along with Mr. Hansen, met with one of the pharmaceutical companies. They came and made a presentation regarding newer drugs which are more effective for schizophrenia. We will be examining that part also. I met with the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. I had a good discussion with them. I think they're thinking along the same lines.

I want to assure your constituents that we are focusing on special areas, and one of the areas is schizophrenia. This early intervention program, which is about $1.3 million, will be helpful, but there are other services which will be equally helpful for them. There are a number of people in this province…. I just want to mention one name: Dr. Phillip Long. He is a very eminent person who is taking care of a lot of patients with schizophrenia. He has also developed Internet mental health services, which is very unique in the whole world. He developed that program five years ago, and I will advise you that you should have a look at that program. That gives you more information on what's available out there.

The main issue here is that we should be able to identify those patients, diagnose them at an early stage and provide them with the best possible care. For mental health the good effects are not going to show up within a week or two weeks; it's going to take some time. I don't want to get the expectations too high; it's going to take some time. We are going through the process, and part of the process is that along with the ministry staff, who have been very helpful, I'm meeting with various groups and trying to get more information.

For your issue and your constituents, I think the most important thing is that they should be able to have access to the newer program that will help them.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister. My constituents and I will look forward to great changes in the province in the future.

We have an agreement to report progress, but I understand the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has one question that she wants to ask, and then we will report progress.

I. Chong: I see the Minister of State for Mental Health here, which is why I rushed in to pose this question. As a result of a recent incident that occurred this week, a constituent was admitted to the emergency of the Royal Jubilee Hospital and was immediately recommended for entry into the Eric Martin Pavilion, which is the institution in this greater Victoria area dealing with people who have mental health illnesses. Because there was not any space available, this patient was left unsupervised for a number of days in the hospital. The staff were not able to provide appropriate care for this individual, and as a result a very near disaster almost occurred, because the patient began wandering in the hospital.

We know that this is not only dangerous to nursing staff but also could possibly have endangered the lives of other patients, in addition to the patient himself or

herself. I know this is an ongoing problem, where an emergency room fills with an overflow of psychiatric patients and they end up waiting there until an alternative setting is available. Often they end up waiting for days.

My question on behalf of the constituents I represent is whether he sees that there will be an opening of more beds soon in the Eric Martin Pavilion to accommodate this constant stream that we have in the emergency department. Could he just shed some light on what may be happening in this area?

Hon. G. Cheema: This issue the member has raised is not only important for this area. I think it's all across the province. We have a problem with acute-care beds occupied by chronic-care patients, so patients can't have the proper treatment. On this particular issue, I think the local health authority has to resolve it. As far as we are concerned, we are going to make sure that part of our mental health plan is to provide more services within the community so that we can free up beds so the patients can get the proper care.

I think we'll also save a lot of money, because as the member would know, if the patient is occupying an acute-care bed and the other patients are coming through emergency, it's costing more money. It's causing difficulty for the family. As well, we are not providing the best possible care. I think this will take some time. For this particular situation, I will take that question, and I will discuss it with the ministry staff and make sure that these things don't happen.

Given the circumstances across this province, I think it's going to take some time, because we have problems all across the health care system. It's very complex, especially for the mental health patients, because if you have a medical problem, if you have a heart condition or angina, you will get probably more care as compared to if you have a mental illness. Especially this person — if this person could have committed suicide, it would have been a disaster. I think it's very stressful for the staff as well.

We are not getting the best we can get for the dollar with the amount we are spending. So we will be focusing, over a period of three to four years, on very specific issues and especially part of our mental health plan, which is on page 23 of our New Era document. I think that will clearly outline some of the services. One of them is going to be supportive care outside and assisting with the housing. Many things will be done to make sure that patients do get care in the communities.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his response, and I look forward to working with him.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

J. Nuraney: I rise today to speak about the changing face of my community, Burnaby, and the role of the fastest-growing business organization in that community, the Burnaby Board of Trade.

For years, when people thought of Burnaby, they thought of a working-class bedroom suburb with the endless strip mall that was Kingsway. Burnaby was what you passed through on your way to somewhere else. That was true in the past.

Now, however, Burnaby is fast becoming the hub of the high-tech industry in British Columbia. In fact, Business in Vancouver's Hightech 2001 lists seven of the top ten high-tech firms in our province with addresses in Burnaby. With several institutes of higher learning in the city and the excellent access provided by SkyTrain and the freeway, it is understandable why companies select Burnaby as a place to locate.

The changing face of the business community has been accompanied by a change in the organization which serves that community. Although Burnaby had a chamber of commerce for over 50 years, it was not in keeping with the new economy. In 1999, under Michael Gau, the Burnaby Board of Trade came into being. In just over two years, it has grown to include over 700 businesses in its membership.

Last year the Board of Trade, in partnership with the city of Burnaby, hosted the first Burnaby Business Excellence Awards gala. Over 400 people joined in the celebration of excellence and applauded as PMC-Sierra, Ballard Power Systems and CreoScitex, among others, were honoured. It was a coming of age for Burnaby and the first chance for many, from both inside and outside the city, to recognize just how far they had come.

The second annual awards banquet is set for October 18. The sponsorship dollars raised already this year are more than double those of last year. The fax machine at the board, I am told, was humming overtime as the deadline for the nominations came closer. Publicists for firms in Burnaby recognize the value of having their clients among those to be honoured. The nominations closed on July 31, and according to Sonja Sanguinetti, the current president of the board, the quality of nominations is excellent. Who is to be the newsmaker of the year? Which firm will be honoured as the business of the year? Who will be recognized for their service to the community? These questions will be answered when the lucky people in attendance on October 18 attend this gala dinner.

The Burnaby Board of Trade is doing its best to live up to its mission statement of making Burnaby a great place to live, work and invest. I am delighted to be an honorary member of this dynamic organization. The recognition of excellence in business brings about awareness to strive for better results. In this regard, the Board of Trade is playing a very significant role. I wish the Burnaby Board of Trade continued success, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for his comments on his community and the success of his community and the recognition of the role that people in the community have achieved — the board of trade, the president of the board of trade. I'd ask the member to please give my personal best wishes to the president, someone who has served British Columbians and obviously Burnaby very, very well.

Burnaby is a success story in British Columbia. You know, we have a tremendous high-tech industry in British Columbia — over 50,000 well-paying jobs throughout the province. Burnaby in particular has had tremendous success in attracting some of British Columbia's most innovative companies. Indeed, some well-known names from across the range of technology industries call Burnaby their home. Ballard Power Systems, PMC-Sierra, Electronic Arts, Infowave Software and Spectrum Signal Processing all call Burnaby their home. These companies and many others are helping to shape the global economy — the technology future of the world right in British Columbia and in particular in the member's riding of Burnaby.

The list of innovative Burnaby-based companies goes on: Creo, Glentel, Cantest, HSBC and many, many more. The member has every right to speak proudly of his community and of the board of trade of which he is a member. I commend all of these firms. I commend the board of trade.

You know, I think that through the innovation that's taken place in Burnaby, even through the very difficult years we've had in British Columbia, it should give all British Columbians promise and hope. Our government has recently introduced some changes, too, just as Burnaby had to do. We're on the verge of a new era here in British Columbia, with lower personal taxes, with lower business taxes, by cutting red tape by one-third and now by eliminating subsidies to business. We can truly have an environment where the private sector can prosper in British Columbia, just as they have done in Burnaby.

So in wrapping up, I would like to thank the member for his words and the manner and the proud way in which he speaks of his riding, his constituents and the success of those companies. We wish all of the people that are nominated for the awards at the dinner on October 18 the very, very best. By being nominated, you are a winner. I congratulate the member on the success in his community.

J. Nuraney: I would like to thank the minister for his very kind words and also for his kindness to share in the pride and success of Burnaby — the people of Burnaby and the businesses that have come to locate in Burnaby. It is so very true that we have now embarked on a new era in British Columbia. This new era will bring us prosperity, hope and everything that we have been fighting for and looking forward to in the past decade.

I think this new era, under the leadership of our very able Premier, will take us into a totally new business climate. We have already seen a huge difference. We are now seeing the difference: a new hope, new aspirations in the air. I very much look forward to working with the minister and the Premier in bringing about success and fulfilling the dreams of British Columbians, which have been long overdue.

Mr. Speaker: Private members' statements continue with the member for North Island.

R. Visser: Tonight I rise in this House to take advantage of one of the great traditions of this Legislative Assembly, the private member's statement. I hope to make use of this institution frequently to discuss topics that are important to my constituents, whoever they may be and wherever they may live.

Last weekend I had the pleasure of spending time in Nootka Sound, a place that has a long and storied history not only since first contact between first nations and Europeans but for the first nations as well. While I have been there often in my life, it was the first time I had ever been there as a provincial representative. I have to say that it is as though I have begun to see this in a new light.

Many of us know the story of Captain Cook's arrival in late 1778, his meeting with Chief Maquinna and the first contact Europeans made with the west coast of North America. Many of us also know how Captain Vancouver sailed into Nootka Sound 20 years later to meet with the Spanish commander, Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra, and settled a competing claim for the northwest that was threatening peace in Europe that year. We know of their forts, their trading and their adventures over the next 200 years, but that is not what I wish to speak of.

What I want to talk about is the Yuquot whalers shrine. Yuquot, or Friendly Cove as it has been called over the years, lies at the southwest corner of Nootka Island, right on the edge of the Pacific Ocean. It was the principal home for the Mowachaht band of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. It is truly a place of extraordinary beauty and power not only when the sun shines but even when the fog is present. Its power emerges in the winter, when the wind has been known to blow to 100 knots, and it remains beautiful even when the rain blows sideways for days on end.

Within this place also lies an extraordinary history, a history that has developed, according to archae-

ologists, over the past 4,000 years in continuous hab-itation on this particular site. The first nations oral history, the telling of their stories and the passing of their legends, dates their time at Yuquot as being forever. Like many aboriginal cultures, the Mowachaht history is tied to the land and resources that surround them: the western red cedar, salmon, seals and, most importantly for this story, the whales.

In the winter of 1903 a Canadian, George Hunt, working for an American anthropologist from the American Museum of Natural History, Franz Boas, came across "a mesmerizing beauty." It was located on an island in Jewitt Lake, which is separated from the Pacific Ocean by a narrow isthmus of land only a few metres from the village site.

Like he had before, up and down the coast, he negotiated the purchase of this shrine. With great attention to detail, he crated and shipped the entire building to New York and the museum, where it remains today. It lies in storage, unseen for the past century by anyone but scholars and staff and, recently, a few of the band members.

The Yuquot whalers shrine has something of a confusing history and lineage, with competing but not necessarily contradictory accounts of both its origins and its function. Hunt, the purchaser, lived among the Mowachaht and learned their language. He wrote extensively of this subject as part of his duties for New York.

The whalers shrine was a great treasure for the Mowachaht people, and many generations ago a shaman and chief of the tribe had it erected as an open shed for the whalers — usually the chiefs — to go and pray, wash and purify themselves in order to attract whales to the beaches of their village.

The story is told that the whaler would have to wash in the shrine four times a day for four continuous days, and twice on each of those days he would have to rub his skin with 100 branches of hemlock. The power of the shrine was derived from placing the skulls of great men in the history of the village. These 40 skulls on the left side and 40 skulls on the right side were in addition to 100 infants who were placed there in cradles. The shaman, over the years, would increase the power of the shrine by adding simple but elegant carved figures of men and infants.

I'm the first to admit that I'm doing a disservice to the Mowachaht people, their legends and culture, by giving such a brief and simplified version of its shrine and its power. For that, I am sorry. But the main thrust of my argument centres around the importance of these cultural artifacts to the Muchalaht-Mowachaht people. On the eve of the 100th anniversary of their removal, I would like to pose the question: should they be brought back to the people of Yuquot, to whom they belong?

In her new book, The Yuquot Whalers' Shrine, Aldona Jonaitis describes the visits that elders and chiefs have made to the museum and the effect that it's had on their cultural rebirth, and I have seen that. In the sixties the band moved from Yuquot to Gold River, where they reside today. At the present time Parks Canada, the American Museum of Natural History and the band are in discussions about the very repatriation of those artifacts and what it might mean to those people.

I think these are important things that a government can do, that a government can take part in and that, as an MLA, I can be involved in. I think these are the foundations upon which we will build a new relationship with first nations in this province, by respecting their culture and heritage, by doing all that we can to bring it back to this province and to those people and allow them to enjoy and share it with all of us.

Hon. G. Plant: I want to say that one of the marvellous things about sitting in this chamber is the opportunity that comes along from time to time to learn something. I thought I knew a lot about the history of Friendly Cove. I've learned something more about it this evening.

I spent some time, particularly in the 1980s, as a lawyer involved in what was then called the Meares Island case, learning what I could of the history of the Nuu-chah-nulth, particularly the Nuu-chah-nulth in Clayoquot Sound. As an aboriginal history it is a fascinating and important part of the history of our province, not least because, as the member points out, in the place once called Friendly Cove occurred perhaps the first — certainly one of the first and most important — incidence of contact between the west coast aboriginal peoples and Europeans, in the form of explorers and then the maritime fur traders.

It's a strange and, in some ways, poignant aspect of the history of aboriginal people on the west coast of British Columbia that the marvellous legacy of their cultural expression, for the most part, was given form by using cedar. Cedar is a beautiful wood to carve with and a wood that can serve many, many purposes. But like all wood products, it decays if left untreated or if mistreated over time. So it becomes an even more perplexing part of our history as a province that there are places scattered throughout the world where we find preserved elements of the history of the aboriginal presence on the landscape of what is now British Columbia in museums in places like New York City and Philadelphia and Cambridge, Massachusetts — places where these artifacts have been preserved and where they could serve an enormously valuable role here in the province of British Columbia.

I think it's good to talk about how we can repatriate and restore to B.C. and to the first nations of B.C. their legacy wherever we find it, even if we find it in the basement of a museum somewhere on the east coast of North America. I think there is work for government to assist in that repatriation to ensure that the first nations of British Columbia who are involved in that project have access to the tools and the resources they need so that when the artifacts come home, they can be looked after and preserved.

In raising the issue of the whalers' shrine here tonight, the member has given me something that I intend to look at and pay attention to. I look forward to talking with him about it in the coming weeks and months to see whether there is something the government can do to help restore to the people of Yuquot this tremendously important part of their heritage as a first nation.

R. Visser: I was in Yuquot on Sunday for their summer festival, an annual event that marks the meeting between Chief Maquinna, Captain Vancouver and Commander Quadra. On that occasion there were representatives of the English government and some representatives from Spain and Mexico, Indonesia and Japan. They had all flown in for the event. It was remarkable. It was not only the physical beauty of the place but the rebirth and the spirit that the people are embracing.

I think it behooves us as a government to stay involved in these things. I think these are issues that have been ignored over time or set aside while other things were seen as more important. I don't think there are more important things than the roots and culture and pride of a heritage, of a people, of a nation. I think it's an important step for all of us as a government, and all of us as members of this House, to take some of these issues and find them and embrace them and do what we can to help move them forward and bring some understanding between the two cultures that find themselves living together here, certainly in my riding but across the province of British Columbia.

R. Harris: I rise today to speak to an industry that is at the heart of the northwest economy and a company within it that is playing such a central role for so many residents in communities of the northwest. I refer to Skeena Cellulose, otherwise known as SCI. If there's a company, and a situation, that at times has been misunderstood or misrepresented, I think it truly is SCI.

Most British Columbians have learned about SCI through the media. They know that Skeena Cellulose is a pulp mill in Prince Rupert that employs around 600 people. The impression left is that of an old pulp mill, poorly run and managed, a facility that has been a financial albatross around the neck of this province.

Last week again there was a negative media report in the lower mainland, expounding upon the immediate demise of the company and again sending shock waves through the communities and the residents in the north. Any prospective purchaser of Skeena Cellulose could hardly be blamed for not pursuing an interest in this company after reading any of the media reports that come out.

Mr. Speaker, SCI is much more than a pulp mill in Prince Rupert. It's a sawmill in Terrace, a sawmill in Kitwanga, in Hazelton, in Carnaby, and a sawmill in Smithers. Each of these mills also has a contract logging component that provides logs for the mills and ultimately fibre for the pulp mill. The community of Stewart relies on the forest licences at Buffalo Head and Orenda for their employment. Both of these licences are controlled and managed by SCI. At full capacity Skeena Cellulose is responsible for the employment of 2,500 people as mill workers and contract loggers. There are another 4,000 jobs in the service and supply businesses that are associated with this company in that industry. These are huge numbers.

As the member for North Coast stated in his reply to the throne speech, SCI has contributed approximately $100 million a year over the last three years to the various levels of government from stumpage and personal income tax and sales tax from the people that are employed by Skeena Cellulose. These are hardly the contributions of an albatross. In fact, in 2000 SCI turned an operating profit.

The more impacting statement the member for North Coast spoke to was the impact that SCI would have on his community if it was to close. He stated that 20 percent of the population of his community would be out of work overnight. The impact on the other communities is even greater. At a time when Vancouver and Victoria have unemployment rates of around 5½ percent, the scale of the impact of an SCI closure provides numbers that are difficult for people in the lower mainland to even think in terms of.

Just last weekend I was at Riverboat Days. That's our annual Terrace celebrations, which you're all invited to. During that time people wanting to get some idea of what their future holds were constantly approaching me. I talked with constituents that were worried about their mortgages as well as businesses trying to plan for the next step. I attended the regional district meeting last Friday, which has representatives from every community that SCI operates in, and again this was the major topic. There is a real sense of frustration that the urban centres care little for the human cost that possibly faces all of these northern communities collectively.

Last week I also met with the mayors of Stewart, Terrace, Hazelton and Houston. Their questions to me again started with Skeena Cellulose and the concern that the negative media reports were raising in their communities. They were frustrated by their inability to be able to access the decision-making process — decisions which will have a lasting effect on their towns — or even be part of the discussion. After ten years of a government that pitted and divided people and communities in this province, there is good reason for feeling alienated.

For those of us who have chosen to live in the north and work in the forest industry, SCI is not just about bricks and mortar. It's about people, families and communities. These are the individuals who at the end of the day will bear the brunt of the demise of this company or any further downturn in the forest sector. We are communities of proud and talented professionals. We are second- and third-generation

families and businesses whose success has been built around the logging industry. We are the true environmentalists who understand that our future is completely dependent on our ability to log in a sustainable manner. We truly understand that we don't inherit the land but rather borrow it from our children.

We understand that the many issues that today challenge SCI are the same as those facing every other forest company in this province today: a lack of competitiveness, high regulatory environment, stumpage, land use decisions, soft markets and now softwood lumber.

An additional challenge facing forestry in the northwest is the timber profile issue. The high pulp content in the wood is especially difficult to manage under the one-size-fits-all regulations that we have operated under in the past. These policies have only added to the operating costs and the lack of competitiveness within this industry.

The forest industry has a bright future in the northwest. We have a talented pool of businesses, contractors and workers who have the creativity and the experience required to make any venture successful. Our logging community has a history of being innovative. Our communities already have infrastructure and support services in place to complement any business thinking of operating in the northwest. We have the proximity to the marketplace. We are communities that are surrounded by spectacular scenery and offer a safe and rich quality of life for any family wanting to relocate.

This is the message that needs to be sent out. This is the positive component of SCI and the forest industry in the northwest that needs to be marketed in the world. Potential investors need to know that the people of the northwest are prepared to work to create a vibrant, profitable and expanding forest industry, and we are committed to that.

At the end of the day maybe there is a lesson to be learned from SCI. When government listens and utilizes local expertise, values and priorities, the likelihood of success rises exponentially. It is too bad the previous government did not listen.

SCI's struggles to succeed are wrapped more in its past than in its future. I am hopeful that at the end of the day we will be able to move Skeena Cellulose to the private sector and that any move will mitigate any downside and in fact position the company for the future.

I know that as a government our commitment to reviewing and reducing regulations will only improve whatever company locates there, as well as every other forest company, in terms of competitiveness within this province and in this industry. Our commitment to establishing a working forest land base, as well as involving the public and industry in discussions on tenure reform, will bring communities into the process. I believe that our majority in government gives us the opportunity to reverse the trend of the previous government. We have both the opportunity and the obligation to ensure that no part of this province ever feels alienated from the decision-making process again.

All we ask is that our communities within this great province have a chance to prosper. The northwest has as much future potential for that as any part of this province.

B. Belsey: I want to thank my colleague for the words that he spoke in here about the north and about Skeena Cellulose.

The member spoke about forestry being the heart of the northwest economy. I would like to add to that. Forestry was the heart of every riding in this province at one time. That's borne out by the many pictures and paintings we have on the walls around this building. In an awful lot of them you see that even the lower mainland and Victoria were covered with forest. The industry no longer exists here today. It was wiped out over the last century.

The past government tried to run Skeena Cellulose — very unsuccessfully. There have been millions and millions of dollars in resource revenue collected from these rural communities, including from the community that Skeena Cellulose is located in. Northern communities have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of sales tax, personal income tax, royalties and property taxes to the general revenue of this province and the municipal governments in which Skeena Cellulose has assets.

Today we have a company, Skeena Cellulose, which has assets that belong to the people of British Columbia as well as to the employees of Skeena Cellulose, a company which has assets that stretch across three ridings and a company which employs roughly 20 percent of the people in those ridings. My colleague from the neighbouring riding of Skeena is correct. Skeena is not just a pulp mill; it is the lifeblood of no less than three communities.

The many problems that face Skeena Cellulose, as I mentioned earlier, are from a previous government who thought they knew how to run a pulp mill and from the previous owners, who took hundreds of millions of dollars out of Skeena Cellulose without putting money back into the maintenance and upkeep of that company. We have international markets for pulp today that are as low as they have ever been — $450 (U.S.) a tonne for pulp. Norscan stocks, a measure of the amount of pulp sitting in warehouses around the world today, are at 1.7 million tonnes. That's about 250 million tonnes more than anybody producing pulp today would like to see. Paper mills have a surplus of paper in their warehouses. They're not selling paper at the rate that they would like to; therefore, they don't need pulp.

Another problem that faces Skeena — and my colleague from the Skeena riding mentioned it — is the negative media. It has a devastating effect on people in the north when they read a headline that says: "Liberals Dump Skeena." They have houses; they have families; they have equipment; they have jobs; they have companies; they have loans and mortgages. Banks get nervous; suppliers get nervous. It has a devastating effect when the media makes irresponsible statements about a firm in the north to sell papers in the south.

In this province we have a number of pulp mills that are down for inventory adjustment just like Skeena — mills in Castlegar, Cranbrook, Squamish, Prince George, Kootenays…. Pardon me, Kamloops. Kootenays haven't got a pulp mill yet, but they'll get one soon, I'm sure, once he knows the price of pulp may move up. The cost to produce a tonne of pulp at these mills is greater than what they can get for a tonne of pulp on the market.

B. Belsey: If I just might point out to the member for Skeena that I think he's done an excellent job in the points he's made today, and I'll finish this later on this evening.

R. Harris: I look forward to hearing the end of that. I would like to thank the member for North Coast for his comments. I'm sure today that if we had the member from Bulkley-Nechako, he would be echoing the same concerns — the same effects of a negative media campaign on the individuals and the families that live in our part of this beautiful province.

I would like to just touch quickly upon two issues, though. The first one is the management of marginal timber. At the end of the day we still are facing, regardless of how SCI looks in the end, the challenge of how we manage the marginal timber that occurs in the north. It's faced with the continual problem in terms of high road construction, high silviculture costs, high logging and transportation costs, but it's also one of the lowest-valued timbers in the province with an average saw-log content of less than 30 percent. This is a challenge that as a government we need to take on and work on to ensure that the logging industry has a secure and long-term future in that part of the province.

The second issue I want to talk to is just the issue of alienation in the north and how values change so much. One of my constituents last week, also, relayed a story to me on an article they read in the paper, where in the same newspaper there was an article on grizzly bear hunting, speaking to the negative effect of it but at the same time talking about how in the lower mainland they were going to humanely euthanize coyotes. He found it an irony that the paper could refer to those things and treat them completely differently.

I think the challenge we have as a parliament is to start to bridge those kinds of differences. I can understand exactly where his sentiments come from, and I think that's our challenge. I think our majority here allows us a really good opportunity to develop that empathy throughout this entire province so that we learn that because we have different values, it doesn't mean that anybody is right or anyone is wrong. It's just that we're a little different, but we can all move forward in a progressive manner to make this a great province for each and every one of us to live in.

B. Bennett: I'm going to tell a little story here this evening. It's a sad story, but I hope it has a happy ending. We don't know the ending yet, but I hope it'll be happy. It's a story that's specific to the Kootenays, but it's one that I know will resonate with members from all over rural B.C. It's specifically about government land use decisions that have been made in the past and which have impacted on our lives and on our families. It's a story about good intentions, deception, intrigue, special interest politics and what happens to a government and political party when they stop listening to the people. My father used to tell me all the time, when I worked for him when I was a young fellow, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suppose the people who crafted the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan and its higher level implementation did have good intentions.

The Kootenay-Boundary land use plan is a plan that determines what goes on, on the land in our region, the Kootenay-Boundary region. That includes forestry, mining, recreation and just about every activity that you can imagine. If you want to go behind a bush and relieve yourself, I'm sure you should probably check the plan to make sure it's okay.

The CORE process, the Commission on Resources and Environment, was a two-year process in which people from the Kootenay-Boundary region got together and spent an enormous amount of volunteer time, for the most part, talking about how to develop this integrated land use plan. I think, for the most part, it was reasonable successful. It culminated in Stephen Owen's report in October 1994. Many of the participants at the CORE table, when the report was announced, felt betrayed by the final report, saying that it didn't actually represent the consensus that came from the two-year process, but other people were satisfied with it.

Whatever the views in 1994, we've been living in the Kootenay-Boundary region with a shrunken economy as a result of the plan. The plan added six new parks to the East Kootenay. That's where I come from, and also the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. It raised the protected area to 16 percent, which at the time was the highest percentage of parkland ever recommended by Stephen Owen's commission. Even the president of the IWA, who I think, at least at that time, would have been considered a friend of the government of the day, said that protecting 16 percent in the East Kootenay was too

much and that it was completely inconsistent with the stated goal of protecting 12 percent of the land base in B.C.

Others pointed out a very important observation, that the government of the day refused to determine the socioeconomic impact of new protected areas. There were others, vocal members of special interest groups in the Kootenay, that referred to B.C. — and I looked up some old newspaper clippings today to see what they were saying in 1994 about this — as the Brazil of the north and said that the CORE recommendations were an outrage and an insult. Apparently, they weren't satisfied with 16 percent protected.

In March 1995 the government of the day announced implementation. The companies responded in the Kootenay-Boundary region by saying that there would probably be about a 38 percent drop in timber supply. Premier Harcourt was in Cranbrook at the time. I was there. He predicted new jobs and economic opportunities — his words. The companies, as it turned out, were a lot closer to the truth than the former Premier was.

The NDP government of the day agreed, after the announcement of the implementation, that they would develop a seven-step process to gain understanding from implementation. They did that because the communities asked them for that kind of process. That was in October '95. In May '96 they arbitrarily abandoned that process with no explanation. They then, in February '97, agreed to establish what they call a planning bound of 5.5 million cubic metres. There were many tours and meetings that I participated in at the time, with the government, communities, companies, workers and so forth. In late 1997 the government once again arbitrarily and unilaterally abandoned this 5.5 million cubic metre limit with no explanation.

We then went through a whole series of town hall meetings. I participated in a lot of them when I was president of the local chamber of commerce in Cranbrook for a couple of years. They always claimed that they were listening. It didn't seem as if they were.

Implementation of the plan was established in March 1998. Really, it dawned on us at that time that we were stuck with this plan. We were going to have to learn to live with it, and we have. But then, as if the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan wasn't challenging enough, in April 1999 we learned — secondhand, basically, through the media — that the provincial government was going to make all or part of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan a higher-level plan.

The higher-level dimension of a land use plan is incremental to the Forest Practices Code; it's additional. What it means is that forest development plans, logging plans, silviculture prescriptions, stand management prescriptions and range use plans must all be consistent with the higher-level plan and the Forest Practices Code. So it adds another level of regulation. It also means that district Ministry of Forests managers lose most of their discretion in terms of dealing with the forest industry.

We all begged the government at the time, in 1999, to put an economic objective in this plan. They refused. In July '99 everyone was told in the Kootenay-Boundary region that there would be no more consultation; that was it. At that point — well, going right through, I guess, till about 2000 — from the beginning of the land use process in the Kootenays, from 1992 through 2000, the British Columbia government not once told the people of my region what the socioeconomic costs of implementing this land use plan would be. No one had any idea how many jobs would be lost, and they refused to talk about it.

At the time, in late '99 and 2000, you had the government ministers of the day…. In fact, the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke at the time, I think, was Minister of Forests, and the member for Nelson-Creston at the time was minister of something else. They were having a public argument about whether there'd be a socioeconomic objective put in this plan. Apparently the member for Nelson-Creston won, because the NDP government announced that there would be a higher-level plan with a very minimal economic objective in it.

W. McMahon: It's an honour to rise tonight to respond to the comments of my colleague from the East Kootenays. He told you a story, and it's a very true story. It is a sad story. As my colleague mentioned in his remarks, the issue of the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan is one of great concern to the people of the Kootenay region. He outlined in his remarks the way in which this land use plan implementation strategy is flawed. The process to reach the higher-level plan strayed from the consultation that is necessary to achieve its long-term sustainable goals.

A process that ensures that a full social and economic impact analysis of a region be undertaken before any land use plan is implemented not only makes common sense, it is the responsible and conscientious thing to do. A good, sound land use plan takes into account the environmental and economic concerns of a region. A good, sound plan must balance the need for environmental sustainability and the need to support economic activities which communities depend on in order to survive. A good, sound plan takes into account science and research which quantifiably support the environmental goals of land use planning. Most importantly, a good, sound land use plan is driven by good policy, not politics, and it should never be treated as a token measure to win a government votes.

This is all that a good land use plan should be. Unfortunately, this is not what the residents of the Kootenays have before them. Don't just take my word for it. Stakeholder groups also know that the land use plan which the previous government imposed is not a

good plan. The Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association attempted to work with the previous government to offer their views on how to build a balanced and sustainable land use plan. In a letter to the then Minister of Forests, the association stated unequivocally that the new laws in the land use plan create impossible, unworkable impasses.

Residents in the Kootenays have been tackling the issue of land use planning for some time now. As the member for East Kootenay said, it was in 1992 that the process started, and what a process it was. In 1994 a report by the Commission on Resources and Environment, CORE, caused Kootenay residents some concern about the thoroughness of consultation with community stakeholders. A citizens group called the East Kootenay Communities in Action publicly expressed deep concerns with the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan, calling it a made-in-Victoria plan. I know there are baseball caps in the Kootenays that are bright yellow and say: "Listen to the people." Perhaps those baseball caps should come out again.

Here's what a constituent, John Tilley, from the forest community of Canal Flats in my riding had to say in a 1994 letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun. I'll read a part of it. In it he states:

You know, he used a great word in this letter: "slavishly," meaning archaic, despicable, oppressive, without originality. It certainly sums up how people are indeed feeling. He spoke earlier in the letter about the closure of the Sullivan mine, all part of the CORE process, and we're dealing with that issue right now.

Again, unfortunately, the people are continuing to worry about the effects of a land use plan on the communities in the Kootenays. It's a fact that the residents of the Kootenays do not feel that land use plans initiated by the past government addressed the concern of balance. We need a good, sound plan that's environmentally sustainable, that supports economic activities based on sound science and driven by good policy.

Again, it has been an honour to respond, and I congratulate my colleague on his statement. I, too, recognize that in the Kootenays it's a sad story, a story that needs to be rewritten before it's too late.

B. Bennett: In October 2000 the then Leader of the Opposition addressed the UBCM convention, and I want to quote what the Premier said then: "If the government decides to make that decision" — that is, implementing this higher-level component to the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan — "we will send the plan back until the study is done, so the people in the Kootenays have their say and know what the statistics are."

The NDP government released the final higher-level plan with an order-in-council on December 22, 2000. That's right: December 22. It was their quaint way of wishing those of us in the Kootenay-Boundary region a not-so-merry Christmas, I guess. The companies in our region have suggested what we think is a very reasonable three-part economic objective. The objective that's in the plan right now was a last-minute deal. It's really one fixed macro number which is imposed over six timber supply areas and four tree farm licences. It's a total of eight million hectares of diverse land base.

But we're here today. It's a new day; it's a new era. I said earlier that I hope this story will have a happy ending. That certainly remains to be seen, but I'm very hopeful. The former government has been dispatched. It's our turn. We can't blame it on them any longer, in my view. There are no excuses. We have to get the job done and make the positive changes to the higher-level plan.

Our government is listening. The Kootenay caucus met with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. We've asked the government to revisit the Kootenay-Boundary higher-level land use plan. I'm pleased to say that we have assurance from the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management for the people of the Kootenays that indeed their concerns are being listened to.

I am grateful for my government's willingness to listen and for my government's stated objective of knowing the socioeconomic implications before finalizing any land use plan. So on behalf of the people of the Kootenays, I want to thank the Premier, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and all the ministers who are dealing with this issue for their support of the Kootenays. I do look forward to a happy ending.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to thank the members for their statements this evening.