Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 8 -- Monday, March 25, 2002

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
		Page

Point of Privilege		1997
	Draft report of the Education Committee R. Masi

Private Members' Statements		1997
	Ecotourism G. Trumper Hon. S. Hagen Deep sea port — transportation of goods D. Hayer Hon. K. Falcon The health benefits of pets K. Johnston L. Mayencourt Burnaby South Neighbourhood House J. Nuraney Hon. G. Hogg

Motions on Notice		2004
	Tuition fee freeze (Motion 5) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail K. Manhas

R. Masi: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege relating to the disclosure of a draft report of the Education Committee prior to the report being presented to the House.

G. Trumper: As our economy undergoes changes in British Columbia, communities throughout the province are looking at ways of diversifying their economies. Luckily, people all over North America and beyond seek different vacation experiences, and they are looking to the natural wonders of British Columbia.

With our location on the Pacific Ocean we have huge potential for expanded ecotourism. There is real economic value in the natural world, which we are only just beginning to realize. The United Nations has declared the year 2002 the International Year of Ecotourism in honour of this renewable resource which is respectful of our native heritage and provides both education and entertainment. On Vancouver Island two regions have been working hard at developing unique opportunities.

At this time of year, as spring pulls us out of the winter doldrums, we are witness to a miracle of nature: flocks of Brant geese passing through the Georgia strait on their way to their northern breeding areas. Up to 20,000 birds may stop at the Oceanside area to eat and rest on their 10,000-kilometre migration through Mexico up to Alaska. Oceanside has become a centre for the growing recreational activity of birding, with 17 kilometres of protected shoreline.

The entire community and visitors from afar witness the spectacle of nature at the Brant Wildlife Festival, which this year will take place from April 12 to 14. Tours and sightseeing areas are arranged to view the birds as they arrive in the area to rest. Activities are planned for serious birders and curious visitors alike. The theme for this year's festival is "A Feast of Nature" and focuses on the abundance and diversity of the natural world around us from shoreline and river estuary to forest and mountain meadow.

At the same time, on the west coast of Vancouver Island the grey whales pass by on their journey from the Baja peninsula to the arctic, a distance of 16,000 kilometres. Some of the grey whales stay in the Pacific Rim National Park reserve to go south again in December as the northern whales return to the Baja. From near-extinction in the early 1940s, the whales are now off the endangered list.

The Pacific Rim National Park, Ucluelet and Tofino celebrate the return of the whales this year during the sixteenth annual whale festival, being celebrated from March 16 to 31. The festival starts with a chowder contest on the Sunday in Ucluelet. If you can get there, you shouldn't miss it. I was one of the judges. Throughout the two weeks there are whale-watching tours, interpretative talks, nature walks and viewing stations, art shows and salmon barbecues. The whole west coast community becomes involved. Tourism numbers have increased as news of this festival spreads. This is one of the areas where tourism numbers are up in British Columbia.

Ucluelet is also developing the Wild Pacific Trail, to be officially opened on May 24. It is a ten-kilometre walk along the shoreline, with magnificent views. Parts of the trail are wheelchair-accessible. On any given day you will see the local people and tourists from all over the world walking this accessible trail. The experiences of visitors and residents at these special events enrich their lives and give them a much better understanding of our natural heritage. Ecotourism is becoming an important part of our economy. With the interest in natural history, there are many opportunities to be developed carefully so that we do not overuse our unique environment. This is a perfect example of good stewardship yielding perpetual benefits while bringing pleasure to residents and visitors alike.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a pleasure to stand up in this House and support the member for Alberni-Qualicum. I thought she had some excellent points. Of course, she lives in a very beautiful part of the province, very close to the Comox Valley, which, as we all know, is the most beautiful part of the province.

I want to talk a bit about being a resource-rich province. Of course, my colleague from the Peace will relate to that very, very strongly. As a resource-rich province, which British Columbia is, the way that we manage our resources powerfully affects our economic success. This goes for rapidly emerging sectors such as ecotourism as well as our traditional powerhouses, mining and forestry.

Clearly, the efficiency and consistency with which we make land use decisions is vital to that success. Over the past decade that has suffered considerably. What this government recognizes is that tourism is a resource industry and that sustainable resource management needs to take it into account, just as we do the traditional resource industries, environmental values and other considerations.

The opportunities and the potential for growth in this sector, as the member has said very clearly, are

large. We must remain competitive on a global scale. We need to maintain the diverse natural environments that draw tourists to our province. That's one of the industry's key resources and sets us apart from competing jurisdictions. After all, we are known around the world as Super, Natural British Columbia.

We need to get off the backs of entrepreneurs and let them do what they do best. By striking the right balance between economic development and natural preservation, we enhance the prospects of growing sectors in the industry such as ecotourism and back-country recreation.

I believe my ministry has an important and vital role to play in developing this sector. We've already dramatically reduced the backlog in applications for Crown access, and we've done so in a very balanced, responsible way. I believe the agency responsible, Land and Water British Columbia, will live up to a name that symbolizes what we value most about living in this beautiful province: our forests, our rivers and our natural heritage.

I'm also pleased to tell you that a dedicated regional tourism manager will be in place in each region by early April. This new capacity will allow us to respond to your concerns in a timely and flexible manner.

At our headquarters in Victoria we now have a tourism and recreation branch that will help our regional tourism managers carry out their work on your behalf. I want to tell you that when you combine the potential of Land and Water British Columbia with the changes within my ministry, I'm very excited about the future of tourism. We're going to show the world that we can develop economic opportunities on our resource base and uphold the highest environmental standards at the same time.

The members made some excellent points and highlighted some great examples. I know that we both share the vision with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise for a bright and strong future for ecotourism.

G. Trumper: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the minister for his contribution this morning — and to be here in his schedule.

In the United States, according to the Washington State fish and wildlife survey, if wildlife watching was a company, it would rank twenty-third on the Fortune 500 list. The world of ecotourism holds great potential for expanding our regional economy. The Brant Festival and whale festival enliven the spring shoulder season for tourism — normally difficult for tourist-related businesses.

With the West Coast Trail, Barkley Sound for kayaking, hiking, sailing and scuba diving, the whale festival, the McLean Mill National Historic Site in Port Alberni and now with the Port Alberni Maritime Discovery Centre, the world-famous Cathedral Grove, the Brant Festival in Oceanside and the interpretive forest in Qualicum, we have a unique opportunity for tourism, especially for so many visitors who come from crowded cities in other parts of the world to a world which we too often take for granted.

It is the natural beauty of our great outdoors which provides entertainment, recreation and even healing. As Anne Frank wrote: "The best remedy for those who are afraid, lonely or unhappy is to go outside, somewhere where they can be quiet, alone with the heavens, nature and God. Because only then does one feel that all is as it should be and that God wishes to see people happy, amidst the simple beauty of nature."

D. Hayer: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to talk about my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and about British Columbia.

Competition, Science and Enterprise — that is not only the name of the new ministry within this government, it is the future well-being of our province. Most of what we do in the future years will be tied to science, the opportunities it offers developed by enterprise, and its success based on competition. What will make competition, science and enterprise the leading edge of our economic renewal? It is innovation, and that is what I want to talk about today.

Progress is based on innovative ideas, innovative enterprise and innovative action. The birth of this province, as we know it today, began with the search for and the discovery of gold. It was soon discovered there was far greater wealth available in this magnificent region we call British Columbia than the gold that lay in the creek beds of the Cariboo and the sandbars of the Fraser River, but gold was the initial reason for exploration and development. The route in those beginning days was the Fraser River.

It took innovative ideas and a lot of enterprise, but soon we had paddlewheelers plying the great river. Men and supplies heading for the goldfields shipped out of Victoria and cruised to the first landfall, New Westminster, a little downstream from what is now my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

They also made for Fort Langley, just a little upstream from my constituency. In those days they were rushed, driven by the frenzy to find a golden fortune. Some did. Most didn't, but among those enterprising men came the merchants, the suppliers, the developers and the innovators. They could see that this great land we call British Columbia had a powerful future, a future that would depend on commerce.

On the mainland those beginnings of enterprise began in New Westminster. The first ports were created there to handle goods and commerce for the gold seekers and later, as the population grew, the pioneer settlers. Over the years those crude beginnings developed into a true deep-sea port, and other forms of transportation began to converge on New Westminster.

It was the start of a process I want to see expanded to and within my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. With deep-sea ships coming into New Westminster and with

railways skirting both sides of the Fraser River, it wasn't long before entrepreneurs opened up port facilities on the south side of the Fraser.

Deep-sea ships, container ships bringing goods to our shores and transporting the bounty of this province and of this country from here to other lands, are ever present along the Fraser River. They dock in Surrey, in my colleague's riding immediately to the west of Surrey-Tynehead. I hope one day soon they will be docking fully within my constituency at innovative new facilities in Port Kells.

Why do I hope for this, and why do I think this will happen? There are many factors. Port Kells is a key location due to the accessibility to the CN railway, which has a very large switching terminal and is located right next to the potential port. The area is also adjacent to the Trans-Canada No. 1 highway, and can directly access 176th Street, which is also known as the Pacific Highway, the main route to the U.S. border crossing for commercial trucks.

For those reasons alone, it makes sense to create a deep-sea facility in Port Kells, but it doesn't end there. There are concrete plans to build another bridge crossing of the Fraser River immediately to the east of Port Kells, with transportation routes linked to 176th Street. The planned South Fraser perimeter road will tie in 176th Street, Port Kells and the rest of my riding to the industrial areas in northwest Surrey, Langley, North Delta, Delta and Richmond.

A deep-sea port east of the Port Mann Bridge would reduce commercial traffic on that vital and very heavily congested link. It will reduce transportation time and therefore reduce costs for cargo transit by allowing truck and rail traffic to avoid the congestion of Vancouver, New Westminster and the portion of Highway 1 west of the Port Mann Bridge. It will also streamline traffic flows to the Alex Fraser Bridge, the Highway 91 north freeway and the Highway 99 freeway.

You may ask, Mr. Speaker, why Port Kells is not already home to a deep-sea port. The answer is simple. It is access. Until just recently the riverfront in Port Kells was relatively isolated, but with the planned new bridge and new perimeter road, the upgrade of 176th Street and the interchange with the already large industrial area along 96th Avenue, that isolation is changing and will change dramatically.

As to the river itself, I have already been in contact with the Fraser River Port Authority. Yes, dredging would be required for a mile or so of the river, but immediately to the west of the Port Mann that is already being done with federal government funds. I expect the federal government would continue dredging east to provide deep-sea access, if we have the necessary infrastructure, the completed transportation links and an innovative entrepreneur who is willing to invest in our province. Our provincial government is already sending strong signals to the investment community that B.C. is once again open for business.

Our economy and that of the rest of Canada are on the upswing. The economy of the U.S. is strengthening. That means there is increasing demand for imported consumer goods, and it follows that those countries who ship to us will be markets for our goods.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Surrey-Tynehead provided a rather fascinating overview of the developments of Surrey and the important role that our ports have played in the economic development not just of Surrey, of course, but of the entire province. The member correctly points out the important role that government can play in ensuring that B.C. remains competitive with the ports in Puget Sound, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Folks across British Columbia need to understand that the ports are as critical as our airports and our highway system as part of the economic lifeblood of the province. Yet our ports face enormous competitive pressures not just from American ports, but also pressures that are imposed on our ports by governments. I think we have to have the courage and the foresight to address those pressures that governments can be responsible for.

That's why my colleague, Minister Rick Thorpe, who is the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, is meeting with the key stakeholders to develop a strategy to ensure that our ports don't just merely survive but actually thrive. Our government recognizes that we must address head-on the challenges that are facing our ports. It's one of the reasons why we eliminated the 7 percent tax on bunker fuel as one of the important steps that we're taking to assist our ports and their ability to compete.

We can do more, and we will do more. As I mentioned, my colleague, Minister Thorpe, is going to work with all levels of government to craft solutions to ensure that our ports can become competitive leaders in this country and can act as a further catalyst for economic growth in British Columbia.

In concluding my remarks, I want to thank the member for Surrey-Tynehead for raising this important issue and assure him that this government is going to continue to work to create an environment that will not only encourage new investments in new ports, as the member is advocating, but also encourage new investments to upgrade our existing ports and to ensure that they will remain competitive and be competitive leaders across this country.

D. Hayer: I want to thank the hon. Minister of State for Deregulation for his insightful thoughts and comments on this issue. In fact, this minister has a very key role to play in the development of this province, because up till now enterprise had to struggle through

mountains of red tape and regulations to get things done. Those regulations are job killers.

At this point I would also like to note that the minister from Surrey-Cloverdale, along with two other MLAs from Surrey–Green Timbers and Surrey-Whalley and myself, met recently with many Surrey groups at my Surrey-Tynehead community office. We gathered to discuss common issues and to get a clear picture of how government can work with local organizations to advance the public interest.

Among those groups we met with on March 15 and 16 were the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, Surrey Teachers' Association, BCGEU, Surrey agriculture advisory committee, the parent advisory council for Surrey school district 36, Kwantlen University College, the Métis association, Whalley Business Association, Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation, Surrey Community Services Society, Surrey city social planning committee and the Hospital Employees Union. There were many other groups as well. I'm proud to say that in these meetings partisan politics were left outside the door, and we had many fruitful discussions.

To return to the issue at hand, I want to point out that this government and our hon. Minister of State for Deregulation, who is so kind to respond to my statement, are working diligently to cut those regulations and slash the red tape that had crippled the development and enterprise of this province. They — in fact, all of us on our side of the House — are now committed to getting this province back on the road to economic recovery. This minister has a tough job ahead of him, but I am certain he will succeed for the benefit of all British Columbians.

From his remarks today, it is obvious that he understands the mandate of his portfolio, which falls under the umbrella of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise and is so important to the future growth of British Columbia. Without the science to understand and plan for the future, without the enterprise of its people to develop and seize opportunities, and without competition that sharpens minds and stresses bottom-line accountability, this province would never have progressed from the scenario I painted at the beginning of this speech. British Columbia would still be tied strictly to the exploration of its natural resources.

Our pioneers had a vision for this province, and they used the science, enterprise and competition of the day to create the foundation for a powerful economy. We will take that legacy and with our plan….

K. Johnston: I'm here today to stand and speak about something that I believe very strongly in. The topic is the health benefits of pets. I'm here to speak from my perspective about the positive influence of animal ownership on our society.

I'd like to relate the importance of this issue from the perspective of physical, psychological and social benefits. Some might say that this issue is somewhat frivolous and maybe doesn't really deserve to be spoken upon in this chamber, but I suggest to you that there are tremendous implications to health benefits for our population on this particular subject.

I'd like to paraphrase a statement made by the organization of Pets of B.C. Residents, which is fighting a battle — or lobbying, I guess — to have the no-pets-allowed clause reviewed in the current Residential Tenancy Act in British Columbia, if I may: "To a significant segment of our society, sharing one's life with a companion animal is a normal and basic desire. Pets become a member of the family and provide immense comfort and satisfaction to the owner. In fact, to seniors in our society they can often be the sole source of companionship.

"For many, the responsibility that comes with owning an animal becomes a catalyst for positive change, emotional and physical well-being. Pets offer affection and companionship to people of all ages but particularly to those who lack close family ties. Pets ease social interaction and promote a sense of community to all inner-city dwellers, not just to the pet owners themselves."

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Select Standing Committee on Health, I had the opportunity to go around the province prior to our report and speak on many issues and hear many issues with regard to health. I can tell you that the pressures on our health care system today — in the neighbourhood of $10 billion in this province — warrant a close look at this whole subject I'm speaking on. We are looking for solutions to help ease the burden on that system. Such a simple thing as pet ownership and allowing pet ownership could have a profoundly positive influence in reducing health care expenditures. As I say, we are currently spending close to $10 billion annually on health care in British Columbia, so we should not take lightly the importance of this subject.

I'd like to refer to a study from 1995 done at the University of Melbourne titled Health Cost Savings: The Impact of Pets on Australian Health Budgets. This study concluded, based on the method of disaggregating the nation's recurrent health expenditure, that the annual savings to Australia could be $790 million to $1.5 billion on an annual Australian health care budget of $33 billion (Australian.)

Some interesting things came out of that study. The study revealed that pet owners visit their doctor less than the rest of the population, saving up to 4.47 percent annually on health care spending alone. Another 1990 study of medicare patients discovered dog owners made 21 percent fewer visits to physicians. I can personally attest that I have made fewer visits to my doctor than my dog has to his vet. The bottom line is that

pet owners use doctors and pharmaceuticals less than non–pet owners. Even a small difference in behaviours between pet and non–pet owners can have a huge potential to save tremendous amounts of money in the health care system.

More importantly, what are the benefits to people of ownership of a pet? I summarize the benefits from a wide list of independent scientific studies. There are unbelievable lists of abstracts on the benefits — the scientific evidence on this particular subject. You just have to go to the Internet and go through them. I'm just going to refer to a few.

Seniors who own dogs go to the doctor less than those who do not. The level of daily living activities for seniors who did not currently own pets deteriorated much faster than for those who did own pets. These are all documented studies. Seniors who own pets coped better with stressful life events without entering the health care system. Pet owners — this is good for all of us — have lower blood pressure. Pet owners have lower cholesterol levels than non-owners. Companionship of pets helps children and families adjust better to serious illness and death. Pet owners feel less afraid of being a victim of crime when walking with a dog or sharing a residence. Pet owners have fewer minor health problems and better psychological well-being. They have higher one-year survival rates following coronary heart disease. Medication costs dropped from an average of $3.80 per patient per day to just a $1.18 per patient per day in new nursing home facilities in New York. This study was done in 1995.

Pet owners have better physical health due to exercise with their pets. The member for Alberni-Qualicum gave a quote from Anne Frank just a few minutes ago that talked about being happy and healthy, and the main thing in being happy and health was actually getting outside and getting some exercise. It does that.

I think it's very clear that pet ownership is a benefit to health in British Columbia. I think we should be looking at the scientific evidence and putting that position forward.

I refer everybody to the law passed in Ontario about 12 years ago. They affectionately call it the Fluffy law. It was an amendment to the Ontario residential tenancy act that says, basically, that a tenant cannot be prohibited by a landlord from keeping a pet. They also have a tribunal to ensure that landlords' interests are taken care of. I think it's a very positive thing.

Mr. Speaker, just to conclude this part of it, I'd just like to say that I think the scientific evidence is very clear. It's there, and I'm very supportive of moving the initiative of health care benefit of pets in British Columbia.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the member that just spoke for his words of wisdom about the value of a pet.

I've had a chance to talk to a couple of members here in the Legislature. I guess a lot of politicians have pets. Probably the reason they do is that — I'll borrow a quote from George Eliot, a British author: "Animals are such agreeable friends. They ask no questions; they pass no criticisms." That's certainly valuable when we get home after a day of working with the constituency and all that sort of stuff. It's a wonderful thing to have a pet.

This past week I had a meeting with a woman who is poor. She's looking for some affordable housing. We had a wonderful meeting and talked about all of the possibilities in terms of some affordable housing in my riding of Vancouver-Burrard or in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I noticed that her handbag started to move. Inside was a little puppy — I guess not a puppy; he was probably about three or four years old. I began to understand that the real problem this woman was facing was not just finding affordable housing but finding affordable housing where she could keep this wonderful companion of hers.

She was someone living with a very serious illness, had lost most of her family and had very little opportunity, because of her illness, to get out and socialize. This little dog meant the world to her. When I talked with her about getting into affordable housing and how difficult that was going to be, she said: "Well, I just couldn't let my dog go. I just couldn't do that." She was prepared to suffer some great hardship because of that.

What it says to me is that the companionship you get from an animal is very valuable. It also says to me that perhaps we need to take a look at whether or not we can find a way to accommodate pets in rentals.

In my community I have a young man by the name of Julian Benedict. He started an organization called Pets of B.C. Residents. Pets of B.C. Residents has 8,000 members. It is a group of pet advocates. They're working very hard to find a way to allow for some reasonable method of protecting landlords' rights and property rights while at the same time allowing tenants that are responsible pet owners to have a place to live as well.

I think there is room for some compromise. I was really interested in the Ontario law. That law was passed by, I think, an NDP government ten years ago. Since then they've had a Liberal government, and they've had a Progressive Conservative government. Each of those has found that law to work. They found that it works in their communities. The reason is that they've got a relationship between landlords and landlord associations and tenants and tenants' advocates. They understand that nobody wants a bad tenant, and nobody wants a bad tenant with a bad pet.

I'm hopeful that as we look at the Residential Tenancy Act here in this province — we have a bill that's going to come forward to this Legislature — we'll have an opportunity to talk about this in a rational way to see if there's some way we can accommodate those good pet owners to allow them to find good, affordable housing in their communities and so that people like this young lady who came to see me last week won't have to sacrifice the friend of her life so that she can find a nice, clean place to live.

With that, I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak. I salute the good work of Julian

Benedict and other people who work to ensure that we can find good accommodation for renters that want to have a pet.

I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for his very insightful comments today on this very important topic. I find it really special that he responded because, quite frankly, he probably has the riding with the greatest density of apartments and potential affordable housing sites in all of British Columbia. He knows of what he speaks. I think the member summed it up extremely well, telling us the story of the young lady with the affordable housing and explaining the dilemma she had in potentially losing her best friend.

I'd like to refer to the fact that the member also spoke about the Ontario experience. The Ontario experience has been a very positive one. The information from the Pets of B.C. Residents — they've done a lot of work — indicates that the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal reports that of the 800,000 calls they receive annually, the number of queries regarding pets and concerns about pets is officially listed at less than 1 percent. Clearly, in Ontario, what they call the Fluffy law works, and it should work here. I think everybody in British Columbia would benefit from that direction.

Again, the member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke about Mr. Julian Benedict and some of the feedback. He in fact is correct when he suggests that all three political parties in Ontario are fully supportive and have been supportive and have written nothing but good notes about the Fluffy law. In front of me, I have one from a policy analyst from the Ontario Liberals, and it says: "Ontario Liberals were pleased to pass the Fluffy law amendment while in government. We continue to support Ontario tenants' rights to have their pets in rental accommodation." An NDP housing critic from Spadina: "Over the past ten years Ontario tenants have been able to enjoy the family pet within their apartment unit exactly the same way as homeowners do." And: "The act is working very well in Ontario, and, as the housing critic for the Ontario NDP, we have not heard of any complaints from petless residents."

In summary, I would just say that responsible landlords and responsible tenants can come to a compromise, can work together and can make this type of Fluffy law situation work. As we move ahead in British Columbia, I'm hopeful that we will in fact move ahead in that direction.

J. Nuraney: I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to bring forward the subject of community involvement in strengthening our social safety net.

The needs and demands of society change with the times. The gap that we have seen develop between the haves and the have-nots increases as we witness the shift in economic development. The emerging technology brings in its wake a challenging shift in the workforce. Greater demands are placed on our society to meet this new technologically driven economy requiring different skills and a new level of education.

These shifts happen, and many people in the workforce find their skills are no longer needed and land in the unfortunate realm of poverty. Our social safety net has come under great strain not only from our own who have fallen but also from those who immigrate to our great country either as refugees or from poorer countries.

As needs increase, so does the will to help. A settlement movement was born in the United Kingdom in the late nineteenth century. The key idea was that the people concerned about social issues can only be effective in working for improvements if they have direct experience with the existing problems. In order to get a better understanding of that, they had to be living among the people in need and settling in their neighbourhoods. There are over 20 settlement houses throughout British Columbia, with 13 of them in the lower mainland.

The settlement approach can best be described as: every person has a right to grow and enjoy the best; effective change is evolutionary; strong communities and positive social reform depend on personal communications across social and economic divisions. We in Burnaby have such an organization that follows these principles and was developed to meet the social needs of the community. This organization is called the Burnaby South Neighbourhood House.

A group of local residents in South Burnaby initiated a working committee to look at and address the social needs of South Burnaby. Since 1995 this group, through hard work and real dedication, has developed a model which today offers a variety of services. These include family place drop-in, youth leadership, summer day camp, community dinners, ESL classes, out-of-school child care, information and referral services, a storefront drop-in centre, student training, Homework Haven and an Empty Bowls project to raise money for the hungry children in Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to imagine that a place like Burnaby would have a population of children who go hungry. I've also seen and heard of families who feel so alienated that they are known not to have left their apartments for days because of fear and insecurity. These are refugee families who have come to live with us in Canada, seeking a lifestyle free of oppression. We also see families who have fallen victim to social malaise, particularly those who are bearing the responsibility of single parenthood.

As social conditions change, the needs evolve. The challenges to find the answers become more complex. As we in government work to put our province back on track, we will be making some very tough decisions

about where government money is most needed. We have to determine what services are essential to government and what services can be provided by either the private sector or the non-profit sector. We must foster the development of public sector partnerships as well as the role of volunteers in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in society today. We must have a strong social net for those who are in need. At the same time, we must help these individuals not just with handouts but with skills and assistance that will support them in their everyday lives.

I must say that we in this province are very fortunate that there is no shortage of people willing to help. Organizations like Burnaby South Neighbourhood House are committed to providing the knowledge and support that are necessary to make it in today's world. They are manifestations of the social conscience of the community. They are working with a vision to create a safe place for individuals and families, including elders, to find support, information and friendship. Support from groups like the Alexandra Foundation, Rotary Clubs, United Way, VanCity Savings, Vancouver Foundation and the Royal Bank, among others, helps organizations like Burnaby South Neighbourhood House to meet the needs of the community.

J. Nuraney: …can be measured by the way that it cares for its vulnerable. We should be proud of organizations like Burnaby South Neighbourhood House. As we move towards meeting these greater challenges…

Deputy Speaker: Member, it's appropriate that we do not waste the time. Thank you very much.

J. Nuraney: …I would recommend that our government be very conscious of the fact that we should have a balanced approach as we move along in the restructuring of the government.

Hon. G. Hogg: Thank you to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for those comments with respect to the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House and for talking about moving our social safety net, in some ways, back to the future.

As the member knows and as I'm sure all members of this House know, the way social services were provided a hundred and more years ago was actually by communities and families supporting each other in organizations — volunteers and people who cared about people providing care, not service. Care comes from having contact with, an understanding for, a belief in and support for people, whereas service is that thing that's pulled away from and is part of when we impose upon a community a large structure rather than building from within the context of the structure.

The member made reference to the number of changes that have happened in terms of social service delivery over the years. Certainly, as we look back over a hundred years ago, we saw some dramatic shifts happening in our societies in North America and indeed around the world. The member has made reference to those shifts — shifts such as urbanization, as we moved people more and more into cities; immigration, as we saw more and more people coming from other parts of the world to participate with us; and industrialization, as there was a big change from our agrarian societies to moving into societies that were dictated around big urban centres. That continues.

The member made reference to settlement houses and the ability of a system which has people who have experience — experience within the context of the problems as they exist. Certainly, we have seen some changes. When those things happened a hundred years ago — urbanization, industrialization and immigration — there were dramatic changes. People before that had a sense of support that existed within the context of their families. When we look at society and the changes they made, we have seen the changes that started to occur.

If we look at the Rotary Club, which the member made reference to, and if we look at 4-H, Boy Scouts and virtually all of the service clubs, they started between about 1885 and 1910. They were responding to the fact that we were starting to lose our sense of community, neighbourhood and family that the member has made reference to. They came in response to that; they were developed in response to that. They grew dramatically over the course of the last century, but we've seen some reduction in the participation rate levels in those organizations over the past 20 years.

We may in fact be coming to the same type of crisis that occurred a hundred years ago, which resulted in the formation of those social service agencies, those service clubs, that existed around the world, and that crisis may be coming because of suburbanization. A hundred years ago we looked at immigration, industrialization and urbanization. Now we're looking at such things as suburbanization. We're looking at the development of the suburbs. We're looking at the impact of television, and we're looking at the impact of computers, which are starting to separate people where they don't have the same sense of their neighbourhood, their friends, their society and their families that they once had and their ability to assist and support them.

The social safety net, which became a service net, is starting to fragment because of that. I think one of the things we have tried to do as a government is go back to a recognition of what the member has talked about — a recognition which is epitomized by South Burnaby Neighbourhood House. It epitomizes the ability of people to support each other, to get to understand.

As a ministry and as a government, we have looked at methods by which we can start to empower again those communities to provide the services they need to provide. The social capital that exists when people have contact with each other and support each other

and the ability of those relationships to effect change are the types of things we need to look at.

A big organization, a society, a bureaucracy or a big government deals with things in a monolithic way across society, across the province, and it has to respond to challenges that exist at the individual, family and community levels. Problems and challenges that exist at the individual, family and community levels need to be and can best be responded to at the individual, community and family levels.

That's why neighbourhood houses are so successful. That's why we as a ministry and we as a government must move to support volunteers within the context of their communities, within the context of neighbourhood houses and community service delivery models. That way, we'll be far more effective in terms of being able to respond to the changes that we're seeing societally. That way, our social safety net will be a social safety net that responds in a caring model rather than in a service model — as the member made reference to, systems that work and that work because people experience the problems and are involved in those problems.

That's exactly the model that government and social service networks must go to if we are going to have a dramatic impact in terms of being able to improve the quality of services that exist for the people across this province. I say to the member: congratulations. Thank you for bringing up the Burnaby South Neighbourhood House. Thank you for reflecting a principle and a policy which they epitomize and, indeed, which this province hopes to epitomize as we hope to empower and give more authority and responsibility and funding…

Hon. G. Hogg: …to societies and agencies across this province to provide those services.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I'd like to remind everyone in the House that we have an allotted time, that it's appropriate that they stay to their allotted time and that when they are doing their responses or their speeches, they stay within their time frame, please. Thank you.

J. Nuraney: I am very delighted to hear the response from the minister. Even though we do adopt a monolithic model to the services offered by the government, it is very encouraging to see that the minister has added a human face to that kind of delivery of services. I commend and congratulate the minister for having added that extra sense of compassion to the need of the communities that are out there.

I have no doubt in my mind — and I'm very confident in this government and in the work of the minister — that we will, as time moves on, find better solutions and better delivery models for the services that are needed in our communities. As we have said before, the times move, and we have an evolution of needs. We have an evolution of different needs and different demands by society.

It is very encouraging, as I said, to see that the minister is very conscious and cognizant of the fact that where there is a need, there will be a service, and a delivery will be provided that best suits the local demands and the local needs of the community. I am really encouraged to hear the minister speak. I congratulate him, as I said, for adding a human face to the monolithic model that governments are generally well known for. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity.

J. Kwan: The motion that we adjourned from, I guess, two weeks ago now is Motion 5, which reads:

This is, I think, one of the most important issues that British Columbians are debating right now — whether you are a student in the system, whether you have children who would be going into post-secondary education in the future or whether you are an older person who is seeking re-entry into the post-secondary arena. We know that the government has deregulated education. By that, what the Liberal government has done is basically open up the door widely for institutions to lift the tuition fees.

We have seen, indeed, a lift of the tuition fees. It was most recently reported that UBC is to lift tuition fees up to 321 percent. For those who are students entering the undergraduate program this fall, they'll pay a 22 percent increase in tuition. For those who are looking at a postgraduate degree, their jump will be as high as 321 percent.

The B.C. Federation of Students chair, Summer McFadyen, has stated publicly, on numerous occasions, and called on the government to retract this regressive approach. To quote her in an article in the Vancouver Sun, March 9, 2002, she states: "These are students' worst fears coming true, and regardless of the impact on students, universities are going ahead with dramatically higher tuition fees. Right away, students are

The impacts are significant. Of course, the impacts would be most significant for students and families who are least able to afford to go to post-secondary education.

I was recalling back to my days when I had the opportunity to enter into post-secondary education. I come from a low-income family. My parents have less than a high school graduation education. My mother has a grade 6 elementary school education. My father has a grade 11 education level.

They made the decision to come to Canada because they wanted to see their children have an opportunity to access post-secondary education. They know that would make a difference for them in terms of future opportunities for employment and a better future for them. That's why they made the decision to immigrate to Canada in spite of huge barriers they faced: language barriers, employment barriers and so on. They made that decision because they wanted to make sure that the children had an opportunity for a better future.

I was very luckily the first generation within the Kwan family to have access to post-secondary education. Now I think back: if this had occurred when I was entering the post-secondary education arena where you would face tuition fees going up 22 percent to 321 percent, would I still have my graduate degree from Simon Fraser? Very unlikely.

It is insurmountable to think that you have to raise that amount of money to get a post-secondary education but not only that — to also incur a debt load. Many students would have to incur a debt load to overcome the barriers of access to post-secondary education.

The Minister of Advanced Education claims, under the Liberal government, that this will somehow create better access for students and that — somehow, under the mantra of the New Era document — access to post-secondary education means increases in tuition fees. This is in spite of the fact that students by the thousands and British Columbians by the thousands have come forward and said: "Do not lift the tuition fee freeze."

In addition to the government lifting the tuition fee freeze, they have also, quietly of course, cut the first-year students' grant — impacting some 11,000 students who will be forced to take on a higher debt. Again, a message was sent to the Liberal government from the Canadian Federation of Students, the College Institute Educators Association of B.C. and the B.C. Teachers Federation to the Minister of Advanced Education, where they challenged the government to withdraw that policy that essentially off-loaded $40 million worth of debt each year onto B.C. students.

The Liberal government has scrapped the first-year grant. That means lower- and middle-income families and students would likely not have the opportunity to pursue a post-secondary education. It also means that those students who could actually manage to get into the system, by holding many jobs perhaps, would be burdened with a higher debt load. Of course, this was tabled quietly on a bulletin on the Ministry of Advanced Education's website on budget day. It wasn't part of the budget day announcement. It wasn't made public in the budget speech to let people know that this is what this government has done: taken away $40 million worth of first-year student grants to support students in their post-secondary education.

Moreover, not only that, the government also cut youth employment programs. In the University of Victoria alone, the youth employment programs provide for some $400,000 worth of job opportunities — experience for students, for young people, for people who are seeking to be in the job market. Those summer programs, youth employment programs, are now gone.

That, too, was not in the throne speech. In the throne speech you wouldn't hear of these kinds of negative impacts that this Liberal government, this Minister of Advanced Education, is putting on students. You wouldn't hear that because, quietly, they put this information on the website. Quietly, they try to let people know, but really the agenda is to not let people know.

The government has caused such upset in the community that people all across British Columbia came together on a day of action that was organized by the Canadian Federation of Students on February 6, calling on the government to not lift the tuition fees, calling on the government to support students, calling on the Liberal government to keep their promise during the election of not lifting the tuition fees.

You know, the government ignored the voices of British Columbians. Who were these people, and where did they show up? In the city of Victoria some 4,500 students converged on the Legislature's front lawns, demanding that the Premier fulfil his promise to make post-secondary education a priority and reduce the tuition fees. In Nanaimo, at Malaspina University, over 300 students gathered for a macaroni-and-cheese lunch before they joined the rally in Victoria. In Vancouver, at Simon Fraser University, some 800 students marched in a procession to the front of the administration building with a coffin symbolizing the death of accessible post-secondary education in British Columbia. Some 500 students, faculty members and supporters attended a rally at King Edward campus — a rally I was at before I came to the Victoria one. At Emily Carr, the school of arts and design, 300 students participated at a rally, and they dropped a 30-foot banner from the Granville Street bridge that said: "Reduce tuition fees." Then the students marched on to the office of the Minister of Finance. Approximately another 400 students attended a carnival at Capilano College, with speakers, placards and petition-signing. People then went on to MLA constituency offices to make sure their voices could be heard. In New West, at Douglas College, another 150 students gathered at a protest. At Kwantlen University College another 300 students participated in a rally. At Langara College there were another 200. In Cranbrook 200 students rallied at the College of the Rockies. In Kamloops, at the College of the Cariboo,

there were 150 students and in Kelowna 300 students at the Okanagan University College. In Prince George there were 500 students at the College of New Caledonia and in Terrace 150 students of Northwest Community College.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Advanced Education is heckling me, laughing at these numbers.

J. Kwan: The minister perhaps thinks these rallies are funny, that the number of students showing up is meaningless and that they should basically just be laughed at and be put off on the side as too unimportant to be recognized as individuals who should have a voice — a voice represented by this minister in this House. She is the Minister of Advanced Education, whose goal is to advocate, to protect education and access to post-secondary education.

What has she done instead? She has allowed for tuition fees to be lifted by 321 percent. That, in her definition, means access to post-secondary education. But you know what? British Columbians who showed up at these rallies, British Columbians who continue to send petitions to this government, British Columbians who sit in the galleries today and who watch at home are saying to this minister that she is wrong.

Lifting the tuition fees does not allow for access to post-secondary education for many British Columbians, except for those who are in the highest income brackets or the families who have the resources to send them there. Those without the resources would have a tremendously difficult time.

This is in light of employment programs for young people being axed. This is in an era where the new $6 minimum wage for young people entering the workforce is being forced by this government on young people, making them work much longer, more hours, in order to raise the funds to send themselves to post-secondary education, to university or to college.

This came from this Liberal government, who claim that they are putting their priority on the students. But what is their priority? Their priority indeed is sticking it to the students. What the students got was not protection for better education; it was not better access to post-secondary education — but, rather, the reverse. They have fewer opportunities for pre-employment programs because this Minister of Advanced Education, with this Liberal government, has taken away all of those opportunities.

It wasn't just the students who have issues with the government's agenda and approach to limiting access to post-secondary education for British Columbians. Many other people have issues as well. What this government likes to do is say that you are all special interest groups, and, special interest group, we're no longer going to pay attention to you. But you know what? It's not just the students who are saying that. Other people are coming forward as well.

You know, it's interesting that for the Liberal government, the only group that's not a special interest group would be wealthy, big-corporation British Columbians — the people who, I guess, financed the campaign. They are the only group that is classified as not a special interest group. When everybody else — the majority of British Columbians — comes and says to this government, "Your policy is wrong; your policy is damaging for our economy; your policy is damaging to the opportunities for young people, for their future," this government says: "You're just a special interest group."

Who has said to this government that this policy of tuition increases will hurt students? Here's what the president of the College Institute Educators Association of B.C., Maureen Shaw, had to say:

Shaw noted that it is clear from evidence across the country that increasing tuition fees is a barrier for low- and middle income students and families. A study released last year by the Canadian Association of University Teachers clearly found that participation of students from low-income families drops off with ever-higher tuition fees.

So, hon. Speaker, I have to ask this question: how does lifting the tuition fees, and actually not just lifting but allowing for tuitions to increase by as much as 321 percent, help students access post-secondary education?

The Minister of Advanced Education laughs off the day of action that was put together by British Columbians led by the Canadian Federation of Students. She laughs at the turnout and the message that British Columbians want to send this government as irrelevant. Is it irrelevant from this government's or this minister's point of view because the barrier put up in terms of preventing access to post-secondary education would only impact low- and middle-income families? Is it because it's unimportant for equal access to be available for all students, from this government's or this minister's point of view? Why would she minimize the importance of the voices of these British Columbians when they want to let the person who's supposed to be their advocate know that this kind of policy hurts students? It hurts people. It creates huge barriers for people to try to get ahead, to improve and to have greater opportunities to maximize their potential.

The government, disregarding the impacts of their tuition fee hike, sits back and says: "Hey, you know what? We can't afford it. We can't continue to fund

education. We can't continue to allow for tuition fees to remain low." This government says we can't afford it. Well, Mr. Speaker, why can't we afford it? Perhaps the question is: can we afford not to invest in our education system for the future of tomorrow?

Politicians often get up and wax eloquent about how important it is that these kind of policies are in place, because it is for the future of British Columbians. Yet, they fail to make the link. When young people rise up and send a message to government, whether it be through holding rallies in different communities, visiting their MLAs — many of whom are just not accessible or available to their constituents — or through the government's own action in asking for people's opinion on the tuition fee freeze…. When people say, "Do not lift the tuition fee freeze," the government just ignores it. Even when people voice their concern, government is deaf to that voice. They pay no attention to it, and they move on with their own agenda. What is that agenda? That agenda effectively limits access to post-secondary education, particularly for those in the low- or middle-income family brackets.

The Premier has been suggesting that the tuition fee freeze limits access to post-secondary education. So, too, has the Minister of Advanced Education. However, when confronted by this fact by the Canadian Federation of Students, the minister and the Premier were unable to give an answer to the federation. On February 5, 2002, a press release was sent out by the federation, Canada's national student union, and it uses the name of the Premier and says that the Premier "resorts to falsehoods to justify fee increases. His own minister admitted in the Legislature that no evidence exists to back up the Premier's claims." I quote:

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, just one moment. I'll just remind the member that you cannot impugn another member in this House and accuse them of lying, even if it's read from another document — all right? I just caution you in your use of parliamentary language.

J. Kwan: Yes, I am indeed quoting the press release from the Canadian Federation of Students, and people actually do have strong views on them. Thank you for your words.

The issue at hand really comes to this. When we talk about post-secondary education and the issue of ensuring there is access, which this government often raises as its mantra in the new era, in reality — checked against their action on their mantra of better access, better flexibility on the education front, better protection and better enhancement for education for British Columbians — their actions show otherwise. This is why I think many people in British Columbia are rising up and challenging this government, in an attempt to hold this government accountable, when this Liberal government is refusing to hold themselves accountable.

What they said during the election was that they would support the tuition fee freeze. After the election they deregulated education. By that, we see tuition fees increasing as high as 321 percent.

During the election we heard from the Liberal government that they would maintain the minimum wage. What we see in action is that they have reduced the minimum wage to $6 an hour for the first 500 hours for people entering the workforce. Who does that impact? All kinds of people — yes, including students. Those who are trying to get employment to support themselves to get through university will now receive a lower wage of $6 an hour. That's been brought to you by the Liberal government in spite of their promise during the election that they would keep the minimum wage.

We have another broken promise by this government. They said they want to support students in terms of their access to employment training; then we see the employment training programs being cut and eliminated by government. Those programs allow young people and students to get experience in the workforce. Not only that, they actually provide for support in the institutions in which they work, and those programs are now gone.

The government says that this is all to protect and enhance education. I fail to see how the government's action actually supports the students in British Columbia who are trying to have a better opportunity for themselves. I fail to see how these actions actually enhance the economy, especially now when we have a situation where workers from all walks of life, whether it be nurses, teachers, doctors, those in the trades….

We're lacking skills in these areas of work, but government is increasing tuition fees so that students' access to the training they need to become part of the economy of British Columbia would be further limited.

J. Kwan: Thank you. I'm being heckled by the Liberal backbench members. This is the period in which all members of the House could rise up, particularly those not from the executive council, and speak on these issues. To date, I have seen few government backbench MLAs rise up to engage in these debates on the motions. I urge the members to get up and be on the record on whether or not they support the lift of the tuition fee freeze. Rise up and be on the record. The MLA from Chilliwack says….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Burquitlam rises on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, every member in this House will have a chance to enter this debate.

Every member has an opportunity to enter the debate. Please do so at the appropriate time.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would be important for members of the House to learn the rules that govern this House. That, too, would be helpful.

I can't wait for the government backbench MLAs to rise up in this House to say that they oppose the lift of the tuition fee freeze. I can't wait for them to be on record. Their constituents are waiting for them to be accountable to their electorate. The members need to rise up in this House and speak their view. There will be ample opportunity for every single member in this House to do exactly that.

The education system is one that speaks to the future opportunities for young people. It also speaks to the future economic development of British Columbia. Moreover, it speaks to what we as a nation stand behind when we look at educational issues and when government policies impact access to post-secondary education.

It speaks to whether or not government is prepared to truly prioritize post-secondary education and access to post-secondary education for students when we look at what kind of investment is put forward by government in these areas.

What we have is a government that says: "We will not invest in the students of British Columbia." They will off-load the responsibility of making tough decisions to other people. I know that this government will get up and say, "We didn't raise the tuition fees. The institutions did. We didn't have anything to do with that" — just like the Minister of Education in her own budget where she's frozen education for three years in the areas of K-to-12. That effectively means a cut in education for students in the areas of K-to-12. She has been saying: "It's not me who's going to be cutting educational programs. It'll be the local school boards who'll be making those cuts, so don't come and talk to me. It's not my responsibility."

My prediction is that the Minster of Advanced Education will rise up and do the same thing and say: "Hey, it's not me. I didn't raise tuition; the institutions did." In fact, the net effect of the government deregulating education is to allow for tuitions to skyrocket, and to allow for that to take place effectively means that education would be curtailed, its access would be curtailed for many British Columbians, especially those who are low and middle income.

Mr. Speaker, I'd be very curious to know, from a government who claims that it's open and accountable, whether or not the Minister of Advanced Education will make available all of the information that she has received on the tuition fee freeze question, because the information which I have received so far indicates that the majority of British Columbians by far did not support the lift of the tuition fee freeze. In spite of that, the government has allowed for that to happen. In spite of that, the government is curtailing access to post-secondary education for young people, for people who are looking to enter into the system to be retrained.

There are a couple of people here today who are interested in the debate on this motion. The University of Victoria Students Society, Saanich South…. Geordi Clark is here, and also high school student Tina Hoang is here watching these debates, concerned about the tuition fee impacts for students — not just for themselves but for many British Columbians.

J. Kwan: No, I was just going to include that in part of my debate, because they are here to watch the debate.

J. Kwan: I do want to highlight people who are here participating and observing the debate and to send a message to this government that lifting the tuition fee freeze is the wrong move.

Mr. Speaker: Member, please ask leave to make an introduction, as the rules require, and then introduce your guests.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, I'm making the introduction of the two people that I referenced in my motion on the tuition fee freeze. They are the University of Victoria Students Society, Saanich South, Geordi Clark and high school student Tina Hoang. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a pleasure for me to be in the House with my colleagues today to respond to some of the comments made and also to talk a little bit about the whole issue of tuition and post-secondary education in the province.

First of all, let me set the record straight. The member opposite makes reference to what we committed to doing in our New Era document and prior to the election. I'm really pleased to be able to say today that we did exactly what we said we were going to do. In fact, we honoured the tuition freeze for the current year, which is exactly what we said we were going to do. In fact, we also said…

Hon. S. Bond: …that we were going to then consult. We used a process and talked to people around this province. We did exactly what we said we were going to do. The member opposite's reference to the fact…

Hon. S. Bond: …that we would maintain a tuition fee freeze is in fact not what we said prior to the election. We said we would do that, and the great news is that we fully funded it. Isn't that incredible? We actually fully funded the tuition fee freeze.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, over the last number of years, as we look back to the amount of tuition that was actually sent through to institutions, it was not fully funded.

Let's talk a little bit about some of the other information that was shared. The member opposite made reference to the Simon Fraser undergraduate student survey, saying that there was in fact no evidence that statements had been made about the completion time that students experienced. Let me just read from the report of the undergraduate student survey from the fall of 2001 in terms of the timeliness of degree completion:

So, in fact, students themselves in the undergraduate survey from the fall of 2001 said….

Hon. S. Bond: The interesting point here is that the minister and the Premier…

Hon. S. Bond: …suggested that…. This is only one of the reports we looked at, but interestingly enough, some of the quotes come from that report, and we only hear part of them.

Let's just also set the record straight in terms of student financial assistance and the changes from grant…. The fact of the matter is that when we made the decision to move the grants to a loan in British Columbia, the member opposite failed to point out that despite that change, those dollars will still be — yes, it will be more challenging — accessible to students. As a matter of fact, we've increased the weekly amount that students who are single with no dependents will actually be able to access under that program.

In addition, for students who have difficulty repaying their loans, we're going to extend the eligibility for their B.C. interest-relief program. We are going to improve the assistance benefits….

Hon. S. Bond: We're going to improve assistance benefits under the B.C. debt reduction in repayment program. We are going to provide principal deferral and extended amortization options and align the permanent disabilities program. So, in fact, we're adding

some to the weekly amount that students can access, and we're going to help those students who have difficulty exiting the program. So to suggest….

Let's take a look at the comments about what happened at the University of British Columbia and the reference to the 321 percent increase, which is in one particular program area. Let's just talk about the student's comment about that in particular. It was an interesting quote that was used out of a March 9 article in the newspaper. There's a quote from another student in that newspaper article, and what it says about that increase is this: "Commerce graduate student…."

Hon. S. Bond: Well, this particular student was actually impacted by the increase.

"Commerce graduate student society president Mark Cordy, who represents 100 students completing their degree, said that raising tuition was necessary for the continued competitiveness of the program. 'The current levels are unsustainable, and something needs to be done to allow UBC to compete at the same level as the University of Toronto and other top schools.'"

So students who are involved in this program have recognized that there is a need for an issue with tuition to be addressed. Let's look at what UBC is going to do with the increase, because we're talking about the whole ability to look at access and what's best for students. Let's talk about what UBC is going to do.

"The tuition increase will allow administration to rebuild the faculty, reinstate courses that have been cut in the past decade and restart the stalled part-time MBA program" — another part of the article that was not mentioned.

Let's talk about the concern that you have around access for students. I'm wondering if we've paid any attention to the fact that there is a UBC policy, since we're talking about UBC and in particular their tuition increases…. It's probably a little-known fact — but one that's pretty significant and one of the things we consider as we look to the kinds of things that benefit students — that the UBC board of governors has a policy that says that no qualified domestic student will be denied access to the University of British Columbia on the basis of financial considerations. In fact, institutions, when making decisions about what's best for students, have put policies in place that would protect the rights and the abilities of students in this province to access a seat at the University of British Columbia.

Let's look at what this government believes about post-secondary education. I know we've said this a number of times in this House, but we're going to continue to say it, because we believe it. We have, in times of very difficult fiscal situations, actually protected an almost $2 billion budget. If we look across Canada and look at what other governments did as they faced restructuring and challenge, did they protect those budgets? In fact, they didn't. In the K-to-12 system and post-secondary, cuts were made to those budgets when they found themselves in similar situations.

We have protected a budget. We are working very hard with institutions to make sure maximum resources are sent to those institutions to help them as they provide services across the province. In fact, we do consider post-secondary education a priority, and throughout the service plan we've created for my ministry, we have set performance measures and targets. We expect over the next year to see increased seats. We expect to see enhanced quality. We expect to honour the commitment we have made to post-secondary education in this province.

I want to also make comments about the accessibility of our MLAs to students around this province and certainly to clarify the point that no one in this room was being disrespectful about a student's right to protest or to express their concerns. What we are concerned about is that when numbers of attendance in our communities are mentioned, we want to ensure that the member opposite is using factual numbers and to make sure they reflect what is actually going on. Members in this House are concerned about post-secondary education. They meet with students on a regular basis. Their offices are open to them to hear their concerns and to sit down and work with those students across their particular constituencies.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's talk about the issue of tuition related to enrolment in this province. In fact, when we look at the province of Alberta and look at the increase in tuition fees that occurred in a number of years, guess what happened. Student enrolment actually increased in the province of Alberta, and if we're to compare the province of Quebec….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The minister has the floor. All others will have their chance to enter the debate at the proper time.

Hon. S. Bond: If we look at the issue of the impact of tuition on enrolment in the provinces that have seen increases in tuition over time — if we look at the province of Alberta, for example, where tuition's increased

— guess what happened. Student enrolment actually increased over that period of time.

Let's take a look at the province of Quebec, whose tuition has rarely changed between the periods of 1992 and 1998. Guess what happened. Enrolment went down. There was actually a decline in enrolment in the province of Quebec. In Ontario enrolment has declined slightly, even though tuition fees were raised significantly during that period of time. In fact, there is no direct correlation. Provinces which have the highest tuition fees in Canada in fact also have the highest participation rates.

We are convinced, and we are committed to making sure that post-secondary education is a priority of this government. We have protected an almost $2 billion budget. We are working with institutions over the next number of years to enhance and create a quality system. We're going to add to the number of seats. In fact, we're going to train more nurses and doctors in this province. We're going to train more social workers. We're going to double the number of graduates in various high-tech fields so that those particular students will have a huge opportunity for jobs in this province.

We are excited about what we plan to do in post-secondary education. We believe institutions in this province will do what's best for students. After all, they are the ones who work with them on a daily basis. They know the needs of students. They are committed to enhancing the system, and we are pleased and excited about that.

We also want very much to indicate that from our perspective, it is important that we ensure we can sustain and enhance the system we have. We have to provide a quality education in this province. That is exactly what we're going to do.

We expect institutions to be able to discuss with students, and it's happening. As a matter of fact, in my community and in my riding of Prince George–Mount Robson, students were quoted the other day as having said that when they had a discussion about tuition with their university, it was open and there was an incredible dialogue. The students actually commented that it was a great opportunity to have this discussion with the administration at that institution. They were very complimentary about the process at that institution. In fact, the students in many situations have said that in order to ensure that their education is top quality and competitive, they are prepared to deal with the tuition fees.

Hon. S. Bond: I, too, am pleased today to have two students in the gallery who are here from the University of Victoria. They are also interested in the issue of tuition and how it will impact them in their particular institution. I'm very pleased today to welcome and ask you to make welcome Kara Hamilton and Lisa Karoway. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, we do believe that institutions will do a great job of looking at what's important for students. We have some of the finest institutional presidents in this country in British Columbia. We know that we're going to focus on students. We're going to work together with them. In fact, one of the other pieces of good news that wasn't mentioned in the member opposite's comment was that because we protected the budget and worked very hard to push resources down into institutions, this year virtually all institutions received more….

Hon. S. Bond: No, let's hear the rest of the story. Almost every institution in this province received more money this year than they did last year — more money. As a matter of fact, the two institutions in my riding received, between the two of them, a total of almost $2 million more to provide services to the students of British Columbia.

We are working very hard with institutions to meet demand. We know there's going to be huge challenges in the system over the next number of years. It is our responsibility to make tough decisions to make sure that post-secondary education remains a priority in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: We believe and our actions reflect that the institutions are in the best position to make decisions.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the amendment is completely out of order. We have discussed this about the parliamentary rules. The one thing that is out of order in this area is when an amendment makes a complete negative of the original motion. The amendment is completely reversing the role that this motion is about. This motion is about opposing tuition fee increases. Any amendment such as this completely removes any effect of the motion to make it the complete negative of it, and it's completely out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your information, hon. member. We will continue with the debate, and we will bring a ruling in as to whether the amendment is in order or not.

Having said that, we believe, as I've said, that the place for decision-making is at the institutional level. We have excellent leaders. We have boards in this province who have been appointed to be able to govern with institutions to look at what's in the best interests of students in this province. We are excited about the opportunities we know they will consider as they look to the future, as they look to the commitment they will make in terms of post-secondary students.

It's interesting to note that from our perspective, we hear one side of the story. There are students in this province who have certainly faced the impact of a freeze that has been felt in this province for a significant number of years. We know there have been issues around access. There have been issues around equipment. There have been issues around the availability of getting into particular courses.

In fact, the same Simon Fraser University undergraduate report that is referred to by the member opposite and many other people also talks about the availability of courses and their ability to actually get into the kinds of courses they want. In fact, it points to a trend. While the ability was stable for a particular period of time, the ability to get into classes — specific classes that students needed to graduate — declined over time. A significant number of students found that the courses they needed to graduate simply were not available to them. We are working with institutions to say that we need very much to be able to provide the kind of access and opportunity for students that is important to them.

As we consider the future of post-secondary education, we are committed to looking at ways that we can enhance the kinds of opportunities for students in this province. We've heard from students who have said to us: "We've felt the impact. We have not been able to get the courses we need. We have had to take longer to complete the education. We thought it would take us four years. In fact, it may have taken us five — in some cases, longer than that."

The member opposite asked about the kind of information that we've received. We've made it very clear. We have shared that information across the sector. As a matter of fact, the report that we did in terms of the tuition freeze consultation is on the website. We've actually published the results of the information that we found. It is important for all of us to be able to look at the results that we had.

The job of the government, the job of the Ministry of Advanced Education, is to look at the long-term sustainability and not just be concerned about students that are currently in the system at this particular point in time. We have to look at the number of students who are going to want to get into the system. They are looking at the number of students who are going to have concerns about their accessibility, the availability of courses for them.

In fact, as we have continued to look at the types of situations across Canada, despite the kind of decisions that institutions are making, looking at what they can do that's best for students, British Columbia students will still have some of the lowest tuition rates in the country. Let's talk about what's happening in the other province, as a matter of fact — which we really can't compare ourselves with, because they use a differential tuition fee situation. Recently, in the province of Quebec, people have actually started saying….

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's talk about what's happening in the province of Quebec, where tuition fees are the lowest in the country. Guess what they said.

Hon. S. Bond: "We may not be able to sustain the system much longer. In fact, we may have to ask the government to consider looking at" — guess what — "tuition fees."

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. The other province in Canada that has a sustained period of time, Quebec, is now beginning to say: "We're not sure we can continue to offer quality opportunities for students." Despite the member opposite's comments about our lack of concern, we're concerned enough about students in this province to make very difficult decisions so that ultimately we can ensure that they're going to have a quality opportunity, that they're going to have access. We're going to try to increase the number of seats — 2,700 new seats this particular year, with a protected budget and institutions receiving more operational dollars this year than they got last year.

In terms of the ability of institutions to make the kinds of decisions about what's best for students, I have confidence in the leadership that we have at some of the finest institutions in this province. They are leaders in the academic world; they are leaders in institutions. In fact, they are going to make decisions focused on what's best for students.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's interesting. Have I paid attention to my riding? Yes, as a matter of fact, I have met with students there. We have toured the campuses of institutions.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, as we look at what's best for students, we needed to make some very difficult decisions in this province. We're prepared to do that. We're prepared to work with institutions. I'm proud of being part of a government that said that this is such an important priority, we are going to protect this budget….

Hon. S. Bond: We are going to ensure that we can give as many resources as possible during very difficult times. I'm in the enviable position of having a protected budget, something I'm very proud to say. It speaks clearly about our priorities for post-secondary education in this government. In our service plan, I want to make it very clear that we have said our first goal is to create top-notch post-secondary education for British Columbia.

We are going to work to improve graduation rates. We are going to encourage system integration in this province. We're going to look at expanded degree-granting opportunities. We're going to expand online access, so those people who have a more challenging situation accessing post-secondary education will have the opportunity to do that.

We're going to look at quality enhancement. We're going to hold institutions accountable for the kinds of things they do for students. We are excited about the opportunities we have. We are excited about the commitment we've made, and we're going to work hard with those institutions to ensure a top-notch education system.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain seeks the floor. Order, please.

K. Manhas: Okay, given that time's up, I'd like to reserve my spot in this debate until next Monday, and I'd like to move adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, and I'll inform the members that I will rule on the admissibility of the amendment as early as possible.