Hansard -- Monday, May 13, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 11 (HTML)

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

Private Members' Statements		3361
	Rock Solid Foundation A. Hamilton J. Bray University of Victoria "Challenging Minds — Changing Worlds" I. Chong Hon. S. Bond Research and development R. Lee Hon. S. Bond The importance of libraries W. McMahon Hon. G. Abbott

Second Reading of Bills		3369
	Pets in Rental Housing Act (Bill M202) (continued) M. Hunter Hon. R. Coleman J. Kwan Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203) J. Kwan P. Bell B. Kerr I. Chong

A. Hamilton: Today I would like to provide the House with an update on an organization that has been working hard for four years on positive solutions to youth violence in British Columbia. The Rock Solid Foundation operates out of offices in Esquimalt and has a full-time staff of three, with over 100 police and community volunteers.

A group of law enforcement personnel and members of the Victoria Shamrocks Lacrosse Club created the Rock Solid concept in October 1997. Concerned with the apparent escalation in the amount and intensity of youth violence and crime, they created a concept that included an interactive presentation designed to bring reality into school gymnasiums and auditoriums.

The term "rock solid" is derived from the team name and is representative of the demeanour young Canadians need to demonstrate when they are faced with issues of a violent or criminal nature. Originally, the concept was presented in a one-hour format by on-duty plainclothes police officers, and schools in the Victoria area were encouraged to request visits.

Shortly after the first few presentations had been made, British Columbia was rocked by the tragic and brutal murder of a 14-year-old grade 9 girl named Reena Virk. This horrific incident garnered worldwide media attention for two specific reasons. Firstly, Reena was beaten to death by a group of female grade 9 students who were concerned that she was spreading rumours. Secondly, at the time of her death the APEC conference was being held in Vancouver, and many of the world's largest media outlets, such as CNN and Time magazine, had representatives within one and a half hours of Victoria. These factors led to an unprecedented amount of media coverage, with the result that all media questions about educational or proactive programs were directed to the officers who were involved in the fledgling Rock Solid message. A sad and ironic twist to this strategy was that the school Reena's assailants attended was scheduled for a Rock Solid presentation the week following the horrific murder.

In any event, this incident galvanized the officers with the knowledge that the Rock Solid message was not only very timely but also usually necessary in the minds of British Columbia youth. A firm commitment was made by the officers to keep the message relevant. Many visits to area schools were then scheduled, and in May 1998 the Rock Solid Foundation was officially incorporated as a non-profit society. Since this time, over 400,000 young people from grade 4 to grade 12 have participated in the interactive presentation. All over British Columbia, in every corner of the province, children in places such as Lumby, Saltspring, Surrey, Prince Rupert, Invermere and Fort St. James have sat patiently and attentively while police officers presented this high-energy one-hour message. Interestingly, Rock Solid has found that in every B.C. community, regardless of size, the youth issues are the same, and the young people all respond enthusiastically and positively to the empowering message of Rock Solid, which is simply that it is truly a Canadian strength to get involved, take a stand and prevent violence — not a weakness, as it is so often actively portrayed and glamorized in the media.

As the Rock Solid message gathered momentum, an additional focus was placed on younger children, and a program was developed for children in kindergarten to grade 3. The literacy-based primary curriculum is called WITS. This literacy-based primary curriculum was developed in partnership with the University of Victoria and greater Victoria school district 61, similar to the stop, drop and roll taught by firefighters to students who learned to use their wits. W stands for walk away and tell an adult; I, ignore them and tell an adult; T, talk it out with the person and tell an adult; S, seek help. WITS is designed to give younger children the information they need to make safe and positive changes when faced with situations involving threats, violence or aggressive behaviour.

Research shows that children who are taught conflict-resolution skills in their most formative years are less likely to become involved in antisocial behaviours. There are several components to this community-based program, and as police presence and involvement is a very important aspect of any law enforcement school-based educational program, it plays a doubly important role in the WITS program. The WITS program is done in a school environment, with a literacy focus in its main component. The educators are provided with information that facilitates the integration of the WITS message into the themes of the stories they read to the children as part of the regular curriculum. They simply read stories to the kids and apply the WITS acronym to any conflict situation in the various stories.

The police role at the start of the school year is very important. Every child from K to 3 is sworn in at an official ceremony where they receive their own WITS special constable badge. They are taught to salute, stand proudly at attention, the secret handshake and the top-secret password: huddy, huddy, but don't tell anybody. Regular police and proactive visits by police officers create a friendly rapport with the kids. This way, doing the right thing and making safe decisions becomes fun and rewarding.

In April the WITS program was introduced to school district 50 in the Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Islands, making eight districts across the province now actively using or piloting the WITS program. In a great example of cross-organization cooperation, members of municipal police, the RCMP, school districts 50 and 61,

the University of Victoria and the Haida first nations people all work together to do this original and B.C.-developed educational program.

With its literacy-based curriculum and early childhood conflict resolution skills spinoff, it is a perfect fit for this and many other districts across the province. By utilizing the highly flexible nature of this curriculum and without changing the impact of the overall educational message, in Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Islands, they incorporated a first nations literacy component by reading stories to the children, such as Little Bear's Vision Quest.

The cost of the WITS program for the entire school year is less than $5 for a child. To date, it has been funded entirely by corporate donations. The major intent is to provide a consistent, community-wide message that lets children know early that it is okay to speak with an adult about a problem. It is the cool thing to do. Education works. This statement is clearly supported by a 40 percent decrease in principal-reviewed suspensions, which are suspensions over five days in length and usually violence-related, in school district 61 between 2000 and 2001 school years, since the inception of Rock Solid.

The Rock Solid Foundation is proud of its achievements to date, but it is only a start. They're looking forward with eager anticipation to enhancing the community partnerships and proactive roles that police agencies can play in British Columbia so they can be able to expand and formalize their educational efforts with British Columbia youth.

Mr. Speaker, I now ask my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill to make some comments.

J. Bray: I'm very pleased to rise and follow the comments of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin on a very serious issue, which is youth violence, and also a very successful program, which is Rock Solid.

There is no question that in communities across this province, youth violence is an issue. Statistics seem to indicate that while it's not necessarily a growing issue, it is an issue that nonetheless has grown in severity, I think, in many communities. The violence may not be expanding, but the violence perpetrated on other youth has become more serious. My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin raised a very excellent example — an unfortunate example — in our community a few years ago of Reena Virk.

We've also had a lot of discussion over the last year about bullying in schools and the impact that has on the children and their ability to maximize their educational attainments, as well as the general tenor in the school yard and the fact that bullying really has an impact on all the kids involved. It has an impact on children.

By the same token, as Rock Solid is clearly demonstrating, the public education system is one of the best anti-violence venues you're going to find. You have the vast majority of our young people in classrooms in supportive environments. Programs like Rock Solid, and specifically Rock Solid, make their way into the classroom. They talk to children in the classroom, using the language the children use. They bring about a message that's positive and that they can relate to. It lets children know that violence isn't okay. It lets children know that they don't need to be victims of violence. It lets teachers know and reminds them of their responsibility. It also encourages and gives tools for teachers to deal with violence and bullying in the school yard. If you can curb that violence in the school yard, that will translate into the greater community when the kids leave school at the end of the day and make their way back home in their communities. It makes for a safer environment.

It's very helpful for children to have a very positive image of the police. Rock Solid tries to really break down the barriers of the authoritative position of police and the community to more of a collaborative approach where the police are part of the solution. They're not somebody to be feared. They're not somebody you can't approach — quite the opposite.

I know that those who are involved with Rock Solid have a wonderful rapport with the children they deal with. The children respond positively not just to the message but to the actual officers involved. In fact, I would suggest to you that while the officers involved in Rock Solid take it as a very strong professional commitment, I don't think there's any question that the officers also take it as a great personal commitment. It's an ability for them, as individuals in the community, to make a strong, positive difference in young people's lives. That makes a strong, positive difference in our communities, whether it be a community the size of Victoria or, as my colleague mentioned, smaller communities on the Queen Charlottes.

The ability for these officers to bring a positive message that shows that violence isn't a good solution and that you don't need to be a victim improves the lives of everybody, parents and children alike.

Our young people deserve to live in communities that are safe. Our young people deserve to be able to go about their daily activities without worrying about being beaten up, about being gang-attacked, about being forced to join a gang and being worried about intimidation. Rock Solid defuses some of those issues, starting with young children, so that the habitual behaviour doesn't start in the classroom, doesn't start in the school yard, and the children learn a different way of resolving their issues.

In my school district, as the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin pointed out, there has been a significant drop in the most serious violent acts that are happening in the school yard. There's no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that Rock Solid can take credit for that, because it delivers a positive message that actually gives kids different strategies on how to deal with violence, both from being the person who provides violence but also for the vast majority of those who are victims of violence. I think Rock Solid is making a sig-

Any way that we can improve the lives of children today, any way that we can make lives better for children today, will pay huge dividends five, ten, 15, 20 years down the road and not just for that particular individual, not just for their parents, not just for their community. But when those children become adults, become parents and have their own children, they will have skills and abilities they will pass on to the next generation, skills that we currently have to provide ourselves.

I see that my time has expired, and I'd like to congratulate the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for his excellent words on Rock Solid.

A. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill for his comments. Thank you.

The Rock Solid Foundation has used innovation and creativity to reach out to the young people of British Columbia with a very important message. As funding is always a delicate issue with non-profit foundations or societies, Rock Solid is also in the process of utilizing innovation and creativity to become self-sufficient. Currently, Rock Solid receives provincial funding for the executive director's position — a seconded police officer — while the remainder of the salaries and program, educational funding, comes from corporate support, community events and fundraising activities. As is typical with non-profits, a disproportionate amount of time is spent raising funds instead of educating young people. This is a paradox that Rock Solid is aggressively addressing.

The foundation has created a concept called closed-loop crime prevention, and it is intended to lead to financial self-sufficiency within two years. In a closed version, closed-loop crime prevention is a seven-step process that is modelled after environmental sustainability. The process is:

1. Problem or issue identification. Stakeholders have a recognized societal or crime problem plaguing their community that has not been rectified through traditional reactive methods.

2. Youth involvement. Young people living in the community, their actions often as a part of the problem, need to be involved in solutions from the onset.

3. Assessment. The issue identified then needs to be clearly evaluated, studied and categorized.

4. Brainstorming session. The stakeholders then need to creatively come up with potential solutions for the problem. The more innovative, the better.

5. Application. The whole community needs to take ownership and get fully involved in the application of the solution.

6. Revenue. This is the tricky part, but the perfect solution is one that solves the problem and generates revenue for proactive purposes in the process.

Rock Solid calls it doing well by doing good, and they have recently completed a comprehensive study on closed-loop crime prevention which they feel will be a blueprint for other non-profit organizations to lead down the path of self-sufficiency. They will be launching the two inaugural components of this concept in the near future and have targeted a date of Tuesday, June 1, 2004, as the very first day of operation as an independent and self-sufficient non-profit agency.

I. Chong: This morning I rise to speak about the University of Victoria, "Challenging Minds — Changing Worlds."

The University of Victoria exists in the centre of the riding that I represent, and it is a remarkable post-secondary institution. The University of Victoria — or UVic, as we have commonly abbreviated it — is one of Canada's leading universities, having earned the reputation for commitment to research, scholarship and work-integrated learning. In addition, the university is widely recognized for its innovative and responsive programs and its interdisciplinary and international initiatives.

During its regular academic year, the university campus includes a population of some 20,000 people — larger than many municipalities in British Columbia. Here, students are able to participate in outstanding social, cultural, artistic, environmental and athletic opportunities. The motto that UVic recently adopted is, as I indicated earlier, "Challenging Minds — Changing Worlds," and it is clear that this is very fitting for a university of this calibre. When you look at the programs offered at UVic, there is no doubt they were developed for integration in and, indeed, used for a changing world. As well, the programs are so timely and responsive that students' minds are continually challenged for better outcomes.

UVic is considered to be a comprehensive university, which means there is a significant amount of research activity and a wide range of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, including professional degrees. At UVic you will find faculties of business, humanities, education, law, engineering, science, fine arts, social sciences, human and social development and graduate studies.

As a comprehensive university, UVic has been compared to other similar post-secondary institutions across Canada. Since 1990, Maclean's magazine has produced an annual special issue edition that ranks universities. There are three peer groupings or categories, being (1) primarily undergraduate, (2) comprehensive and (3) medical doctoral. In 1995 UVic was ranked in The Maclean's Guide to Canadian Universities as No. 1 in the comprehensive grouping. I can tell you that people throughout this province and particularly throughout this region were very pleased, as well as the professors and all the faculty staff members

Unfortunately, though, in 1996 the ranking given to UVic fell to third place. Then in 1997, UVic — while it did maintain its third-place ranking in 1998 — fell to fourth place and has remained there ever since for 1999, 2000 and 2001, trailing behind three other universities, those being Waterloo, Simon Fraser and Guelph. While we continue to be proud of our university and its ranking, I can tell you, in this region we certainly hope to improve upon the ranking that we currently hold to the one that we previously held, moving ourselves back up to No. 1 in short order.

UVic continues to meet the demands of a changing world by having Canada's third-largest university cooperative education program. By integrating academic studies with relevant paid work experience, UVic co-op students are much sought after across Canada, as well as in as many as 35 other countries. In the past I have been privileged to attend co-op conferences at UVic and can attest to the interest shown by potential employers, and I have seen the excitement and the enthusiasm of students seeking diverse work experience.

UVic is also B.C.'s second-largest research university based on outside research grant and contract funding received — a total of $31.7 million in the year 2000-01. As recently as this weekend I heard announced that UVic recently received another $600,000 worth of research funding, more than any other university in this province, again showing that it is a remarkable university continually challenging all others.

There are several interdisciplinary teaching and research centres at UVic, and while I cannot speak on all of them in the short time that I have, I do wish to note two in particular. Those are in the area of research on aging and also the teaching of Asia Pacific studies. As an MLA representing an area with an ever-increasing aging population, this area of research is extremely relevant and necessary. With our province so advantageously situated, it only makes sense that we need to better understand Asia Pacific matters to benefit from the opportunities of trade, commerce, education and immigration. In terms of research, UVic researchers participate in 13 of the 22 federal networks of centres of excellence.

One of the study areas includes health information science. With health care being a priority of Canadians as well as of British Columbians, it naturally falls to post-secondary institutions to work in partnership with government and with other third parties to fill the demand to graduate more health care professionals. In fact, as a Victoria-area MLA, I am proud that our government is doing just that.

The University of Victoria has recently announced the Island medical program — or IMP, as we have fondly called it here — by working in collaboration with the University of B.C. faculty of medicine. Beginning in the fall of 2004, the IMP will educate 24 medical students each year as part of a provincial medical education expansion initiative. The University of Northern British Columbia will also form a part of this expansion initiative.

The goal, of course, is to address physician shortages across the province, particularly in remote communities and in small urban centres. Here on Vancouver Island, we know there are shortages of physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue after I hear the response from the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to be able to respond to the comments of my colleague the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. I want to thank her, as always, for the advocacy that she does on behalf of students in the province and, in particular, in her riding. The University of Victoria is indeed an excellent post-secondary institution in British Columbia, and the member has highlighted some of the very incredible features of the institution.

In particular, the University of Victoria is a leader in the research area in the province. It has received over the last number of years significant research dollars to pursue the kinds of information we need to ensure that research brings the best researchers and creates solutions to the problems we find in British Columbia. Research is an incredibly important part of our agenda.

In addition, the co-op program mentioned by the member is absolutely amazing at the University of Victoria. It in fact has, as was pointed out, one of the largest numbers of students in the country participating in co-op education. The job placements alone are in excess of 2,500 every year. I think that it was about 2,800 job placements last year for students through the co-op program alone, an extraordinary accomplishment.

In looking at the Maclean's rankings, I can see that the member is anxious to see the institution move from its current fourth-place ranking, but I need to tell her that when we look at comprehensive universities across the country, UVic ranks extraordinarily high. I think that's a real tribute to the faculty, the staff and the administration that work at the university.

Having said that, I want to spend just a couple of minutes celebrating the Island medical program. It is part of a remarkable initiative of this government to look at collaborative medical training across the province. We are witnessing an extraordinary event in British Columbia, in fact, where three institutions have decided they want to work together to look at how we can best train physicians in this province.

In the Island medical program, UVic is well situated to be able to provide extraordinary medical training in this province. We know the component that will be hosted at the University of Victoria will focus on the issue of aging and on gerontology. We are excited about this, because the UVic Centre on Aging in fact enjoys an international reputation for its leadership in health-related research.

Many of UVic's biomedical scholars have engaged in leading-edge research looking at the human genome, cancer research and immunology. The collaborative

nursing program at the University of Victoria graduates more than 60 percent of the province's nurses through its partnership with nine provincial colleges and university colleges. The Island medical program is something that is going to bring incredible added value to British Columbia.

We believe that if we train physicians where they live, they will actually stay and serve and work in those communities. The collaborative project between the University of Northern British Columbia, the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria is a landmark event where institutions are choosing to work together and to look at sharing resources to provide additional physicians in the province.

I am so pleased that today the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has chosen to highlight the institution in her particular riding. It stands as a credit not only to your riding but also to the province. I know that many more exciting initiatives will be generated at the University of Victoria. I anxiously await the beginning of the training of 24 physicians as part of the Island medical program.

I. Chong: I do want to thank the Minister of Advanced Education for her comments. I have worked with her and have had an opportunity to speak to her on a number of initiatives and, in particular, on post-secondary education. She is a strong advocate for the opportunities for our students and to seeing our post-secondary educational institutions continue to be at the forefront across Canada.

I thank her for her comments acknowledging that UVic can play a role in dealing with the physician shortage we have. As I indicated in my remarks before the respondent, here on Vancouver Island we indeed are facing physician shortages. We do want to see that upon graduation, they will remain in our community. This is happening throughout the country, but here in British Columbia I think it was noted that we graduate one medical student per 32,000 people, which clearly is not adequate. We also hear that our retiring physicians will soon be accelerating, such that any current shortages will become that much more significant in the short to medium term.

At present UVic is B.C.'s second-largest educator in the health sector through its programs in nursing, social work, psychology, health information science and other allied health programs. I have already mentioned, as has the Minister of Advanced Education, that one of the interdisciplinary research centres is the Centre on Aging, a very welcome and internationally renowned centre for research into health.

I am extremely encouraged, as well, by the very many physicians in this area who do play a key role in meeting our health care demands of the future. I know that they are anxious and interested in teaching medical students. Overall, we do look towards the Island medical program as an opportunity to build capacity at UVic, to provide more community health care services, as well as to contribute to our local economies.

Over the years I've seen many improvements and additions to the UVic campus. In 1999 a $3.7 million Centre for Innovative Teaching was opened. It was equipped for multimedia and Internet-based instruction, a timely addition in today's evolving electronic world. Recently I was pleased to have attended the opening of the Bev Glover Greenhouse Facility, another world-class building that will attract students worldwide.

Each and every year I am invited to attend convocation ceremonies at the University of Victoria, as I'm sure many of my colleagues are throughout the province. Each and every year I try to attend at least one of their seven ceremonies they have twice during the year. I have had the opportunity of hearing some excellent speakers.

This year there are seven honorary degrees going to be presented at the spring convocation. Julie Payette, an astronaut and the first Canadian to participate in the international space station is one of them; Char Davies, a world-renowned digital and virtual reality artist; Dr. Lloyd Axworthy; Dr. Julia Levy; Peter C. Newman; Dr. Robert Murray; and Loreen Vandekerkhove — just a few people that our university continues to honour. I would be most pleased to represent not only my area but the province on their behalf.

R. Lee: I'm pleased to have the honour to rise in the House today to speak on a very important topic. Broadly, this topic is the need to make British Columbia a destination for research and development. Most specifically, I will highlight some of the exciting research projects and individuals that are helping lay the foundations of the future of B.C.'s research and development sector.

British Columbia has traditionally had a resource-based economy. Over the past century revenue from exporting our natural resources has been sufficient for British Columbians to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. But as we enter a new century, the resource sector has become more volatile, as evidenced in the difficulties we are encountering in the forestry, fishing and mining sectors.

We must adapt to the new economy and put added emphasis on searching for new sources of revenue beyond the traditional resource sector. In order to diversify our economy and attract investment, British Columbia must become a cradle for research and innovation.

The United States is considered the most innovative country in the world. They are implementing many programs that will help expand their research base. Key initiatives include funding basic research in universities, ensuring graduate-level educational opportunities for qualified students and funding federal government laboratories. R and D investments by the U.S. government have increased in recent years. They have committed to increased funding for infrastructures in

schools. They have expanded college aid, providing training programs in the workplace and assisting communities in need.

Canada's federal, provincial and private sector investments in R and D in 2001 totalled $21 billion. Even though this amount increased by 20 percent from 1999, Canada ranks only fourteenth in the OECD in gross expenditures on R and D relative to GDP. Amongst G-7 countries, Canada's expenditure on research and development as a percentage of gross national product is the second lowest.

Worse yet, within Canada, British Columbia consistently underperforms compared to most other provinces. R and D as a percentage of GDP is one of the 13 performance indicators used by the B.C. Progress Board to measure the province's economy and competitive position. It identifies that spending on R and D is a key factor in innovation and creation of new wealth, yet in 1998 only $1.01 billion was expended in B.C. compared to $1.1 billion in Alberta, $4.1 billion in Quebec and $8 billion in Ontario.

British Columbia lags behind the more competitive provinces because with the friendlier business climates in these provinces, companies are more willing to invest in research and development. We must increase investment in R and D in order to generate the knowledge that fuels innovation. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to ensure that British Columbia has a business climate in which companies are not afraid to invest.

Thankfully, our government has done many things to help stimulate investment in our province. For example, the corporate capital tax has been cut in half. In December the tax will be totally eliminated. Corporate income tax has been cut from 16.5 percent to 13.5 percent. To encourage investment by small businesses, the small business tax threshold has been raised from $200,000 to $300,000. We cannot forget the importance of the 25 percent personal income tax cut the government implemented when coming to office. On the first $60,000 of income British Columbians pay the lowest tax rate compared to any jurisdictions in the country.

When the Minister of Forests announced a $20 million marketing campaign at the end of March, $8 million was set aside for developing new products. Last week the federal government followed suit, promising $45 million for research into new uses for Canadian lumber.

Recently the government has announced the leading-edge endowment fund which will help keep and attract B.C.'s leading researchers. All these initiatives help create the appropriate climate for investment, drawing much-needed innovators to our province.

Historically, Canada has been a country of innovators and inventors. Just think about some of the Canadian inventions that have forever altered the way we live our lives. Canadian ingenuity has contributed some of the world's greatest inventions — from pablum, painting rollers and pacemakers to instant potato flakes, IMAX and insulin, not to mention the Canadarm, the BlackBerry and the electron microscope. These are just some of the many examples of Canadian innovation.

I believe B.C. has the greatest potential of any province in Canada, and we can be at the cutting edge of research and development in Canada and the world.

I would like to thank the House for its time and eagerly await the Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. S. Bond: I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the statement from the member for Burnaby North. I agree with you; research and innovation is one of the keys to our province's future prosperity. In this increasingly global environment it's absolutely critical that we diversify our traditional industries and take advantage of B.C.'s intellectual capacity so that our province is positioned to excel in the knowledge-based economy.

Education is one of our government's top priorities, and I can honestly tell you that I am very proud to be a member of a government where, in particular, the Premier of the province recognizes the importance of education and, in particular, a post-secondary education and the significance of research and how it links to economic prosperity. It is important that we create a favourable climate, and investing in research is an absolutely central component of our government's agenda.

So what do we want to do in terms of research in this province? First of all, we want to look at its potential for economic development, and we want to make sure that B.C. is a global leader in research and innovation. Most importantly, we want to attract the best and the brightest minds from around the world so that we can improve the quality of life for people who live not just in British Columbia but in Canada and, in fact, the world.

We believe that we can discover new therapies, applications, conservation methods and economic opportunities in the areas of health, technology, oil and gas, forestry, environment, and these are just a few of the sectors that we believe can garner tremendous benefit for British Columbians.

I was incredibly proud and so glad that the member mentioned the fact that we recently announced the government's $45 million leading-edge endowment fund. That was part of the new-era commitment that we made to establish 20 permanent B.C. leadership chairs for research across the province of British Columbia.

The leadership endowment fund is in fact based on a cost-sharing partnership with the private sector, and it will establish chairs in the areas of medical, social, environmental and technological research. Each chair will receive up to $2.5 million from the government and will partner for the other up to $2.25 million with the private sector. Institutions will be responsible for securing the private sector contribution, but it is a great opportunity for community members and businesses from across the province or even around the world to invest in British Columbia and to contribute to cutting-

We believe that these chairs are going to make a difference, and I have a perfect example of that. It was very, very exciting to announce the first B.C. leadership chair, and it was awarded to the University of British Columbia in partnership with the Rick Hansen Institute for a joint chair in spinal cord research. Government will provide $2.25 million for the first chair, and that will be matched by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. The chair will support the director of the recently established international spinal cord research centre, known as ICORD. It will held by Dr. John Steeves, who is an absolutely accomplished researcher. He is the principal investigator for ICORD and has been director of the cord research group at UBC since 1995. He is going to conduct spinal cord research, and he leads the evolution and implementation of research strategies both nationally and internationally.

You may have heard just recently that already, as a result of work being done over the last ten years or so or longer with cells that were once thought not able to be revived, there's now hope that research done in the next number of years will actually bring new hope to those people who have had spinal cord injury. I am so glad that as government we have decided to partner to look at research, and we will make a difference. We will leave a legacy in this province of creating an improved world for many people in British Columbia.

We recognize the importance of research. We are working very hard to look at the dollars needed to leverage federal funding. As the member points out, the federal government often responds in kind as we provide dollars, so we're working very hard at looking at our agenda. I am really pleased today to stand in the House to talk about the significant investments that our government has made and will continue to make in the area of research and innovation. I want to thank the member for Burnaby North for raising this most important topic. I know he has continued to be an advocate and has certainly provided help to me as the minister in understanding the important role that research plays in British Columbia.

R. Lee: I would like to thank the minister for her very informative comments.

In British Columbia we have many innovative people and businesses. For example, TRIUMF, Canada's national lab for particle and nuclear physics, is a world leader in particle research. It's a member of the international subatomic physics community and strives to play an important role in a global quest for a clear understanding of subatomic particles and fundamental forces that determine every aspect of our universe. I had the honour to work in this facility for 22 years.

In Burnaby Ballard Power is developing environmentally friendly fuel cells that will change the way we think about powering vehicles and appliances. Electronic Arts, one of the world's most innovative software companies, has a $60 million facility located in Burnaby. Chromos Molecular Systems is doing research into chromosomes and has the potential of alleviating the pain of people who suffer from chronic illnesses. Palcan is a company in Burnaby that creates hydrogen fuel cells for bikes and motorcycles. BCIT has Canada's first independent Internet research centre in Burnaby.

My own riding of Burnaby North is one of B.C.'s centres of innovation. My constituent Albert Leung, of the school of engineering science in Simon Fraser University, has developed an accelerometer that measures the speed, rate and direction of motion of an object. In the next few years the market for this device will reach $1.5 billion. In 2001 he won a Science Council of B.C. award, as well as the national Manning award for innovation.

Another constituent, Peter Borwein, and his brother Jonathan, both mathematicians at SFU, have helped secure a $4.7 million CFI grant towards a mathematical and computer science research facility at Simon Fraser.

The IBM centre for e-business innovations is in Burnaby North. The only other similar centre in Canada is located in Toronto.

The Down Syndrome Research Foundation and Resource Centre opened its doors in Burnaby North last month. It is a shining example of innovation within British Columbia. It's the only facility of its type in the world to combine the research facility for leading researchers, educators and health professionals that specialize in Down syndrome and provide a centre for the Down syndrome community. In conjunction with researchers from SFU, UBC and University of Victoria, scientists are able to explore previously unexplored aspects of Down syndrome. Through their work, these dedicated British Columbians will be able to better the lives of people with Down syndrome.

R. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Research and development can and will play an important role in the future of B.C. Nowhere else in Canada is the vast potential of research and development so great as in our province.

W. McMahon: It's a privilege to rise today and speak about something that I hold dear to my heart: the public library.

As a young girl my library was a travelling bookmobile. As close as five blocks on Saturday morning, every second week my friends and I would walk to our elementary school, and there it would be parked, just waiting not only for us but for our neighbours and friends — for everyone and anyone who wanted a book.

When I spent time with my aunt in a small rural community outside of Edmonton, we would go to the library. I can still remember the smell of that library and the light filtering through high leaded windows. It was a wonderful old building with a wonderful librarian — a librarian who was happy to give me a library card, although I was only there for a few weeks each year.

I've often worn a pin that simply says "Library." I can't tell you how many times I've been asked about the pin. It's a perfect way of starting a conversation about a very important place and a very important service.

I have found that many people have a passion about libraries. People always have something to say about a library. It may be as adults, or it may be a childhood memory they have. Whatever it is, I encourage people to get to know their libraries and their librarians.

When asked what a library means to an individual, there are many, many responses. For children it's a place where they have gone for summer reading programs. Most can remember a school trip to their library or getting their first library card. For teenagers it may be a place where they found information for homework assignments. It may be a place where they are comfortable in going to help or to find a part-time job. For adults it may be a place they find important information about medical or financial needs. It's a place for technology. Most importantly, it's a place for learning. It's a place of books — all kinds of books, for all kinds of interests.

Did you know that libraries provide community Internet access and provide many services, from print to audiovisual material, from access to technology and reading to preschool programs? Libraries foster literacy and a love for reading. They provide an interlibrary loan program, deliver books or audio tapes to the homebound and much more.

What can you do at your library? Navigate the Web, reserve the latest mystery, borrow an audio book or plan your next vacation.

Libraries are the sense of community. I believe they are the very foundation of many small communities. I sometimes visit libraries in the places I travel to, and although the building may be different, the people are the same — willing to help, willing to share information, happy to meet a new face and always interested.

The Invermere Public Library is one of four public libraries in my constituency of Columbia River–Revelstoke. It has had a few homes in the past 50 years or so. At one time it was located in the community hall and was open on Friday evenings before the picture show started. It's been downstairs and upstairs in different buildings. It's had part-time staff as well as full-time staff. It has grown and changed over the years. Its current home is the old RCMP building, cells and all.

It is more than just a library. It's a place where people meet, where fundraisers are held and where eager young children come in for the summer reading program. It's a place where hot dog sales have been held in the cold and in the rain as well as in the sunshine, where used books are sold and bake sales planned, and where a book may be adopted. It's a place where everyone likes to be.

I've made friends at the library, and what great people I've met. Through the library I've met a number of B.C. authors who have shared with us parts of their newest novels. It's a place of learning and creativity — a library that stands with its doors open, inviting people in.

It's a library with many volunteers — friends of the library. Whether it is shelving books or checking them out, they give countless hours of their time.

It's a municipal library supported by the service clubs and the local businesses and by individuals who recognize a need and volunteer their time or give financially. The community is so fortunate to have the support of so many to ensure that the library meets its needs. I know this story is the same throughout the province.

In early June the Invermere Public Library and the College of the Rockies will co-host its annual literacy golf tournament in Radium Hot Springs. This event brings the community together again for a great cause: literacy. There will be a guest speaker, an adult who has learned to read during the past year. It's emotional, it's heartwarming, and often the story is difficult to tell. In today's society we still have people who have never learned to read. There are still people who buy groceries because of the picture on the label. There are still people who haven't been able to help their children with their very basic reading skills. It's hard to believe and harder to accept. The golf tournament raises money each year to support a program within the community to help adults learn to read, and it's a good-news story.

Public libraries receive support through the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. At this time I will ask my colleague the Hon. George Abbott to respond on the importance of libraries in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's certainly a pleasure for me to respond to the private member's statement from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I salute her for the sentiments she expresses. I know she has been a lifelong supporter of the libraries in her constituency, and I do appreciate the comments she has made.

The member rightly notes that Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is the ministry responsible for provincial support to libraries and the library system across British Columbia. At this point in time there are 69 public library boards in British Columbia and 230 public libraries. Virtually every community, large and small, across British Columbia has at least one library. I don't think it would be an exaggeration at all to say that of the community services and public amenities people enjoy, one would find that the public library is always rated among the highest, if not the

highest, of the public amenities that are available to people across the province.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to say we have been able to sustain our support to public libraries across B.C. during some very tough, difficult fiscal times. We are currently assisting libraries to the tune of about $8.6 million annually, and we have been able to sustain that. I do know that the $8.6 million that we provide is just a small portion of the cost of operating a library in British Columbia. From 17 years in local government, I know how important a function this is at the local and regional district level. It is frequently one of the more important cost items on the annual budget of a municipality or a regional district. Most of the operating cost, in fact, is raised through property taxes.

Again, I think when people are asked, "What's important to you?" they will often say: "Libraries." Typically, when polls are conducted asking people, "Generally, what's the most important public amenity in your community?" again libraries almost invariably are at the top or near the top of the list right across the board.

Libraries, as the member has, I think, rightly noted, are really vital to communities. They are places where people can get together to talk, to share ideas, to learn and to experience new ideas. I know when my kids were young, the library was always a great place to go on Saturday afternoon. When kids learn how to read and they get their first few books, and you take them into the library and they see literally hundreds or thousands of kids books, they are fascinated, to say the least. It is a very magical place for young kids, and the library is a very important part of ensuring that they acquire that lifelong love of reading.

As well, I find — particularly in communities that I know well — that seniors value the library. They have perhaps a little bit more time for reflection, for reading, and seniors always very heavily value the library in their community.

I know I was feeling sorry for myself on the weekend after reading too many briefing notes and not enough books. I decided to make a trip in to the Sicamous library and was happy to find there books by Alice Munro and Carol Shields. That'll keep me happy for a couple of weeks, and we'll try to keep those briefing notes at bay and actually read something that's a lot more fun to read than background material for politics.

Libraries are a place to learn more about the world we live in. They're also a place where we can go to temporarily escape from the pressures of the world, as we can get into a great work of fiction at the library. It's a wonderful place.

I thank the member for her statement. I do want to salute the many capable employees that we have in the library system across British Columbia. I particularly want to thank and salute the dedicated volunteers who helped to make the library a great success and particularly the board members of the many public library systems across the province who work hard to ensure that our communities continue to enjoy that opportunity for lifelong reading.

W. McMahon: My thanks to the minister for his comments. I think it's very easy to say that libraries are very important and recognized throughout the province not only by the users but, as the minister said, by the seniors who are very active in their libraries. I encourage my colleagues to visit their libraries periodically each year. They, too, are places providing a public service.

Take time to talk to the library trustees, to find out about the challenges they face in performing their job. You will likely find the main challenge is funding. I believe in the importance of our libraries. For eight years I served as a library trustee, and for six of those years I was the board chair. I know what it takes, and I know the important role libraries play in our communities and also in our society.

In closing, libraries are not what they used to be; they're better. From the bookmobile of my childhood to today, the opportunities are limitless.

M. Hunter: I just want to conclude the remarks that I had when the clock ran out on me last week. I had been critical of the bill, because I think, as I said last week, it was both premature in the sense that the Solicitor General has been holding extensive public consultations on residential tenancy issues, putting this stuff in plain language, and, more importantly, a bill that would not achieve what its proponent, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, wants.

It is a bill which takes away the right of property owners to decide the use to which their property will be put just because their property might be on the rental market. I think that a much more sensible alternative to this bill would be to remove the barriers that have been in place for a number of years in this province, barriers to the construction and development of new rental housing that would give choice and which might allow pets — the objective of this exercise.

We are building an economy which is encouraging construction. We're seeing an increased number of rental units being constructed. It's my belief that at the end of the day, with an economy that's firing on all cylinders, we will have a rental housing market in British Columbia that gives choice both to property owners and to those who would be tenants. That concludes my remarks on this bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: I reflect back, whenever we're discussing anything to do with residential tenancy, to a conversation I had with the former Attorney General, Mr. Dosanjh, in the dining room when we were going to do estimates in 1997. He asked me how long we would be discussing residential tenancy that particular day in estimates, and I said anywhere from three to five hours. At that point in time he said: "Well, that's good, because I never really understood that piece of legislation on residential tenancy when I was in law school, and I don't think I understand it today."

Residential tenancy is actually very complex. It is not something that should be tinkered with by little pieces of amendment and touches to legislation. What we should be doing is modernizing residential tenancy relations in this province, doing a new piece of legislation that will come forward and deal with all these issues in one group. In our New Era document we made that commitment. We made the commitment that we would modernize residential tenancy, and for the last number of months my ministry has been undergoing a public process — a process of input relative to residential tenancy. In December of last year we actually put up a draft of a plain-language rewrite of the act and also a plain-language writing of a new manufactured home park act, because the two are presently enjoined in the same piece of legislation, and we took it out for public input.

We had over 1,400 submissions from people in the public that we have been taking and disseminating and putting together. This is going into a policy paper relative to all the issues in and around residential tenancy. The questions are many and varied, and the opinions are also many and varied, whether it be around pets or any other issue. We have issues around a rent review system; pets in residential tenancy units; marijuana grow operations and drug labs, which are an illegal activity in residential tenancies; amounts of security deposits and how they are applied for and how we can move away from an arbitration system on that; the return of those deposits; and many, many items including everything from the consistency and accountability of our arbitration system right down to how we streamline it for the benefit of everybody.

It is inappropriate for us at this point in time to just take one piece of residential tenancy when we are working on a new piece of legislation and a new governance model for residential tenancy — for us to just deal with one issue. I therefore put the following motion, which I've deposited with the Clerk.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the appropriate thing to do. The previous government promised a rewrite in plain language of the Residential Tenancy Act in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. We've actually moved forward with the ability to do this, and we want to complete that work without having to try and also manage another issue in and among that.

The fact that this private member's bill is before the House obviously outlines that there is an issue in and around this issue, which is being taken into account as we work through the drafting of the act and the modernization of this particular sector. I look forward to that act being completed and brought before the House, so we can have the debate about pets along with all other issues in residential tenancy encapsulated in a new, modernized, plain-language rewrite of the act.

J. Kwan: On the amendment. Given that it is the intent of the government to modernize the Residential Tenancy Act, incorporating changes to ensure that pet owners would not be denied rental accommodations and that in fact pet owners would actually have a right to access rental accommodations, I don't see a problem with that. I don't see a problem with the intent to ensure that there are these changes. That's the reason why this bill was brought before the House.

I recall that at the end of the last session, just prior to the election, the people who worked to bring this issue to my attention worked very hard to bring it to the attention of all members of the House. At that time they brought forward the bill that is now being tabled. I myself, having heard their perspective, agreed with them and understood their perspective. Particularly recognizing the health-related matters associated with it, I was wanting to support them and wanting to champion this issue on their behalf.

Of course, as the members know, the period we had to work on that was short, and then the election was called. Subsequent to that, I wanted to bring the matter before this House for further debate. If it is the intent of the government with this amendment to bring forward comprehensive changes to the Residential Tenancy Act that incorporate challenges for renters with pets, I would be pleased to support the amendment and await the government's legislation on changes to the Residential Tenancy Act — monitoring those closely to ensure that the act actually incorporates the rights of pet owners and allows for them to not be denied accommodation from the rental perspective.

Therefore, I will be supporting this amendment. I'll be awaiting the government's bill, then, on the Residential Tenancy Act to watch carefully to ensure that it does incorporate changes that would address the issues of pet ownership in rental accommodations.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to this motion, which has been tabled in my name. I want to go back and highlight, I think, the history around this matter.

At the time when the former government was contemplating the compensation issues for senior bureaucrats, there was a committee struck on this matter. In fact, I was the chair of this committee. Having heard the information that was brought forward to the members on increasing salaries for the senior bureaucrats within government, as the chair I was concerned about some of the issues that were raised, particularly the high rate of increase for senior bureaucrats and the process which one would have to go through to evaluate whether or not such action was appropriate. As the chair of that committee at the time, I declined to support the increase and, in fact, referred the matter to cabinet for discussion.

Shortly after…. The matter did not actually appear at the cabinet table for discussion, but rather the then Premier, Dan Miller, just moved forward on bringing forward the increases. I had difficulties with that. As I said, when I was the chair of that committee, I did not think it was appropriate to deal with the matter in this way. I thought there should be a proper process around it. The matter was meant to be referred to cabinet for further discussion, but the then Premier made a unilateral decision then and came forward with the increases. I was troubled by that.

Since that time, though…. We have to, of course, recall the history around it as well, because the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, had difficulties with the raises given to senior bureaucrats at that time and criticized the action of the former government. In fact, I actually agree with some of those criticisms. Since that time, we look at what the new government is doing, and there seem to be discrepancies with respect to what the government is now doing on this issue.

First, let's just look at the issue around ministerial assistants. Since the incoming government has been in place, there have been some 27 ministerial assistants who received an average pay hike of about $15,000 a year. Ministerial assistants, of course, help the cabinet ministers cope with political and policy matters. Formerly, they earned somewhere between $60,000 to $65,000 a year.

The now Premier initiated and approved a cabinet order, an order-in-council, that changed the classification of ministerial assistants to receive substantive increases in their pay. They have been upgraded by three salary positions in the civil service and are now receiving somewhere between $70,000 to $75,000 a year. This is following just on the heels of the then opposition leader, the now Premier, criticizing the former Premier's actions on increases for civil servants.

Subsequent to that, of course, we also saw the now Premier vowing during the election campaign to stamp out political patronage. After the election, he appointed the president of the B.C. Liberal Party to the top post in the Premier's office. The now Premier is defending that appointment of the Liberal insider Andrew Wilkinson as being the best candidate to become the deputy minister responsible for intergovernmental relations.

I want to quote what the Premier had to say: "I thought it was important that we had someone of quality, with experience, that could serve in the deputy minister's role. He is one of many who has been recruited to government. I don't think you're excluded from participating in government and in public service because of political activities." The Premier has said he had engaged in a Canada-wide search to fill the position before deciding to appoint the former Liberal Party president for the $180,000-a-year job post. Quite frankly, in my view, this speaks of heightened hypocrisy.

The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, spoke against insider appointments, patronage appointments, and we see the top person within the Liberal Party, the president of the Liberal Party, being appointed to a top post that pays $180,000 a year. It seems to me that is a direct contravention of what the now Premier said during the election: that he would not engage in political patronage. Yet we see the biggest political patronage in terms of the appointment of the president of the Liberal Party to a deputy minister's post within the Premier's office.

We also see the now Premier, who was then the opposition, suggesting that the size of government needed to be reduced. But what we have seen since that time, of course, is an alarming rate of rapid growth in the size of government. The Premier's office was endowed with a budget of just $3 million and approval for 40 full-time staff when the now Premier took office. That was back in June.

Soon after, we saw that change. The budget was revised to $21 million with a complement of 198 staff — a fivefold increase. That increase is substantive. While the government said they wanted to see the size of government reduced, what we saw in action was that the government size increased substantively. We saw the budget increase sevenfold.

Hon. Speaker, when you look at the actions of the now Premier versus what he said during the election campaign, there are two complete stories, two complete sets of actions, two complete approaches to the matter. We've seen it in terms of the size of government. We've seen it in terms of a political patronage appointment, and we've seen it in terms of salary increases for civil servants.

I started off by saying that the Premier had criticized the former Premier Dan Miller for the deputy ministers' increase. What we saw, of course, after the Premier took his seat in office was substantive increases for deputy ministers. The increase was some-

where in the neighbourhood of 32 percent for deputy ministers, with the chairs of Crown corporations going up by 750 percent. The rationale that the Premier used was that it was necessary to attract and retain talented professionals, but when the former Premier Dan Miller gave deputy ministers some 29 percent raise in their salary, the then opposition leader, the now Premier, was very critical of the issue.

You have to ask: what's changed? If the rationale for the Premier now justifies the hikes, one would have assumed that it would have justified it then, when Dan Miller, the former Premier, made that decision. But not for the now Premier; that wasn't the case. He had two different sets of approaches to the issue, and he had two different sets of rationales for the issue. The big difference, it appears to me, is that the Premier is now in his seat as the Premier. He's no longer the Leader of the Opposition. For that, he could justify his approach.

When I was in government, as I started to say earlier, I chaired the committee that looked at the compensation issue. I was dissatisfied with the information that was put forward, and particularly, I was dissatisfied with the process in terms of determining and evaluating pay hikes for deputy ministers.

I personally did not support the pay hike that was given to the deputy ministers. I thought we should go through a different process around that to ensure that there is third-party evaluation, to ensure that it is an open process, to ensure that the decision is not just resting within the government — whoever happens to be government — but is broader than that and to ensure that the broader public would actually have a role to play and that all of that is an open process for the community to evaluate.

That is not to be. Even for the Premier now to have criticized the previous decision…. All this Premier now has done is to further reinforce the approach and further reinforce the increases, in my view, in a hidden, non-transparent process, in a process that raises questions in the minds of the public and in a process that ultimately, I think, undermines the deputy ministers and the senior bureaucrats in their role within government.

I would support a process that allows for third-party evaluation with respect to the compensation for deputy ministers and for that to be one which is conducted at arm's length from government and to involve the broader public. It is only in that way, I think, that we would ensure good public scrutiny and good understanding from the broader public in terms of how deputy ministers should be compensated, at what rate and what that increase should be.

The bill speaks to the matter. I just want to read parts of the bill, borrowed from my colleague here, onto the record. Bill M203 asks for a citizens panel and for the panel to review increases for public sector management earning in excess of $100,000 and for the review to be done on an annual basis.

The makeup of the panel ought to consist of one representative each, appointed by the business community, the trade union sector, the public at large, and a chair. The chair shall be appointed from a list of arbitrators used by the Ministry of Labour. The panel shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House. That takes it away from government involvement and removes it to someone who can be and ought to be completely independent of government and involves the public in an open and transparent way.

Then, the panel's duty is such that it is required to consult broadly with the public, and it will have the authority to examine all employment contracts and agreements established by order-in-council, approved by Crown corporations and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The panel will also have the authority to examine all employment contracts and agreements that apply to senior civil servant positions that are under review. The panel shall also identify criteria for evaluating appropriate remuneration levels.

Of course, the panel ought to be cognizant of wage and benefit increases according to the provincial government and Crown corporations' unionized personnel, and then it should proceed to make recommendations on appropriate adjustments to the remuneration levels.

By way of formalizing the process, the panel will submit their recommendations by way of a written report to the Minister of Finance in a timely manner, and there's a date attached to it. Of course the panel's recommendations ought to be binding and made public so that there's no going back to a panel's decision around their work or to hide the panel's work. It ought to be binding to government, and those decisions ought to be made public.

That, to me, Mr. Speaker, ensures a process that would take politics out of compensation for civil servants who earn $100,000 or more. It will ensure that there is an open and transparent process, and most importantly, it would ensure that it is a decision that's made away from government, with an independent panel of individuals. That would, I think, eliminate any potential criticism for the actions of government — whoever happens to be in government. That, to me, is an open and appropriate process.

That's what Bill M203 speaks to, the Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act. It's an approach that I think is appropriate, and as I mentioned earlier, I did not support the former increases that were implemented by the then Premier Dan Miller. I chaired that committee, and I thought that the matter should have proceeded to cabinet, and then we should have adopted a different process around it. But the then Premier had made a unilateral decision, and it was criticized.

The now Premier has also made a unilateral decision by giving wage hikes to senior civil servants: a 32 percent increase for deputy ministers and a 750 percent increase for Crown corporation chairs. Again, the

process behind that is one that is not open and is not transparent and is subject to substantive criticism.

I would urge the members to support Bill M203 in bringing forward a process for salary increases for senior public civil servants.

I have a few concerns actually about this bill, but philosophically, I guess I have a much larger concern in terms of the way we approach issues like remuneration of senior individuals within government.

I would like to turn briefly, if I may, to the Ministry of Health Services, a ministry that has responsibility for in excess of $10 billion per year. If a senior executive officer of a corporation of that nature was to be remunerated at the level that we remunerate our senior bureaucrats, I don't believe they would be able to attract or retain quality people within that organization. I think that inherently in government, one of the issues we have had over the years is our inability to properly remunerate senior bureaucrats. In that event, we end up, perhaps, with difficulties recruiting the right people to run these organizations.

As I indicated, if we have a corporation that is a $10 billion corporation, that corporation would have an individual at the helm of extremely high quality. So we are competing, I guess, with these corporations in terms of finding quality individuals to support these ministries' endeavours. I think, in fact, that we have to be competitive. Not only are we attempting to create a competitive environment where we can compensate these individuals at a level that would be similar to other provinces in Canada, but I also think we ultimately have to be competitive with private organizations — as we are, coincidentally, with individuals that work within these ministries.

If you scan through the ministries, you will find that public sector employees, particularly through the 1990s, gained significantly over their private sector counterparts. So we ended up with a very difficult employment environment. Many of these individuals make up to 30 percent more than their private sector counterparts. However, we refuse to remunerate the senior management officials within this organization in a fashion that even comes close to the remuneration that would be received were that person to be in the private sector.

Certainly, I feel that the senior bureaucrats that we have, have been very diligent, and they've shown a true commitment to the civil service. I often wonder in my own mind why they would do that for the types of dollars that we're prepared to pay these individuals. I would use, just as an example, David Emerson, who was a senior bureaucrat for previous governments — a deputy minister, I believe. He was probably making something at the time in the neighbourhood of $100,000 per year. That was a number of years ago. I don't know what his salary would be exactly. Now he is, as we know, the CEO for Canfor. I'm sure his salary is many, many times that.

We tend to lose what I believe are quality individuals to the private sector. I think there's inherently a huge problem with the way we remunerate our senior executives within government, and I think that's created many of the inefficiencies that we currently have within government. Right off the top, there's an issue for me personally there.

The second issue I'd like to move on is just the way, perhaps, the bill has been drafted in the sense that it refers to public sector management, and it describes public sector management as individuals making in excess of $100,000 per year in earnings. Now, as I continue to read through the bill, I don't really see a description of what earnings would translate into. There's a description for remuneration, which also includes allowances, severance packages, perquisites, non-taxable benefits and pensions. So clearly, that can't be a description of earnings. There's also a description for adjustments.

I'm wondering how one would describe what earnings would actually be and if one would include, as an example, pension benefits. Would that be considered to be part of earnings, or would that be excluded from earnings? In terms of allowances, would allowances be included as part of one's earnings, or would they be excluded? If they were to be included, would those earnings be considered as before tax or after tax, and would they be topped up to reflect taxation values within the description of earnings? In fact, when we refer to earnings in excess of $100,000 per year, is that pre-tax earnings or after-tax earnings?

There's a number of areas where I think this bill perhaps falls short in terms of description. I'm not sure how you would actually implement the bill in view of those specific areas. Also, just the description, purely, of $100,000 as being a public sector management individual…. I'm not sure, but I would think that we probably have people working within government that have a very high skill set, who probably make well in excess of $100,000 and yet probably would not be considered managers. I'm thinking, perhaps, of engineers, architects and physicians that may work directly for government. I would think that a physician that would work directly for government would likely make in excess of $100,000 per year. Yet I don't know that I would classify that individual as a management individual, so that's another problem I see with this particular bill.

Further to that, it's referring to income that's derived totally from provincial government sources. That could, I suppose, include every physician in the province and perhaps many professors at universities and institutions throughout the province, so I'm not sure how you would calculate that. Would it be the responsibility of the citizens panel to review every single private sector — as it's described — management position earning in excess of $100,000? That could be a huge task. There are 7,800 physicians, if I'm not mistaken, in

the province — something in that order. For this committee or panel to have to review every single one of those individuals' salaries would just be an enormous task and a real challenge for any group of individuals to try and pursue.

There are some other problems I see with this bill as well. As I understand it, private bills are not allowed to impose any cost on government. I presume this will be reviewed at a later time by the House Leader, but I think this bill would probably be out of order, in fact, on that basis because, certainly, there would be a cost to government of having a panel that would review these wages or, as they're described in here, earnings of individuals. So I think there are further problems with the way this bill has been drafted.

Certainly, we as government are accountable and responsible to our constituents and need to ensure that we maximize the value of what each individual is making and what they bring to the table in terms of skill sets. In fact, it's appropriate that we're accountable. I think that is the correct way to manage government, but if you're going to review this, in effect what you're doing is creating a situation where the panel has to review every contract that government makes. Then the panel makes binding recommendations which may or may not meet the needs of government.

I think it has the ability, and I don't know even how you would do this in law…. The way I read this bill, it would create an opportunity to override existing contractual arrangements that are made in government. Certainly, we're faced with the Carrier lawsuit, as we all know, in my end of the world. There's a huge liability that's been associated with that, and we've had to clean up the previous government's mess once again. We'd be creating an opportunity to have further responsibilities, if we were to allow a bill of this nature to continue down the road.

I think there are some huge difficulties and issues with regards to this bill. I would even wonder what the definition of a year would be. We're indicating that public sector management means all individuals earning in excess of $100,000 per year. Well, is that a calendar year, or is it a fiscal year? Is it the fiscal year of the provincial government? It offers the opportunity for the panel to review Crown corporations, so is it a fiscal year of that given Crown corporation?

There are just holes in this thing all over the place, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I have real difficulty with the bill — just in terms of the way it's been drafted, if nothing else. Allowances, severance packages…. Would you include a severance package, actually, within the annual wages of the individual in that given year? Or if the severance package were spread out — if you were liable for two years' severance, as an example — would that be all included in a given fiscal year, or would that be spread out? There are huge difficulties.

I have difficulty with the makeup of the panel itself. You're indicating that you want to have one individual from the business sector, one individual from the trade union sector and then one from the public at large, yet we're not going to have anyone from the public sector management teams involved in that. Certainly, those individuals would have as good a handle or better on what appropriate remuneration rates throughout Canada would in fact be.

I really feel that this is a shortsighted approach or attempt at trying to create a one-size-fits-all solution, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the bill makes any sense to me at all. I think there is a need for us to ensure transparency when it comes to paying our public officials, but certainly I am personally in support of ensuring that we bring absolutely the best-quality people to government that we can. If we're going to recruit individuals out of the private sector and have those folks come forward to us, we need to pay them appropriately. For us to view $100,000 as an appropriate salary for someone who has responsibility for a $10 billion ministry, just as an example, or any of our other ministries…. I clearly don't think this is appropriate.

I will not be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, and in fact think that likely, at some point in time, the bill may be found out of order.

B. Kerr: I also rise against this bill. I won't be supporting this bill, because it goes against everything we're trying to do as a government. I say this sarcastically: just what we need — more bureaucracy.

All this does is add more bureaucracy without accomplishing the objectives we need in restoring sound fiscal management to government. My colleague from Prince George North brought up a lot of the points I was going to make. I'd just like to add a few more points to what he was saying.

With regard to the bill itself, when we're defining, for instance, public sector management and saying it includes all individuals, he mentioned maybe physicians and possibly university professors. Well, this would also include judges or anybody else who derives income, even if they're in the private sector. As long as their income is derived solely from a government source, they could be deemed to fall under that public sector management classification.

The recitals are very inflammatory where they're talking that they've been awarded staggering compensation increases. I don't know how we're going to define the word "staggering." Possibly, the compensation increases have been right in line with what we need to attract the best people to do the job that we need to be done.

This was done unilaterally and without public process. Well, we don't know that. We don't know what process has been involved in this thing. I'm sure that when we determine salaries, there are a number of companies out there that are called headhunters — I won't name the companies, but they're called headhunters — and they know what salaries we have to pay to get the top-quality people we need to do the job.

That's the way it should be done. It shouldn't be done by setting up a panel of people who are going to meet broadly and travel around the province and add more cost to this without making any definitive deci-

sion on helping us hire people to get the job done. I think, again, we're just looking at a lot more bureaucracy.

We have to be in a situation where we can negotiate contracts with people that we're hiring. I'm assuming this act is referring to senior civil servants. It's probably not referring to judges, not referring to doctors and physicians and university professors or people in the private sector who derive their income from government sources. I'll just address it as if that's what this act means, although it definitely doesn't say it means that here.

If we're required to hire somebody to head up a ministry, we have to be able to go out and search for that person using the headhunters, knowing what the wages are that we have to pay, and bring that person in. We can't then hire that person and sign him to an interim contract so that person may have to wait a year to determine whether the panel is going to approve or disapprove of that contract and make the adjustments, which could mean reduce, freeze or raise his level.

This creates a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doesn't allow us, again, to move forward with our objective of restoring sound fiscal management to the province. Sound fiscal management includes certainty, and we have to have certainty when we hire people. Certainly, it's difficult enough, when there are so few people out there, to bring them on and tell them: "We'll have to wait to see what the panel has to say."

One of the other concerns is the makeup of the panel itself. It looks like this is the NDP rebattling the election. They're going to make sure the union sector is on there looking at the hiring policies and the practices and wages of senior management.

Does the panel get paid? This could be an additional cost to the government, who will be picking up the costs for them to travel around the entire province. Will they be paid for their meetings on a per-diem basis? None of that is mentioned in here. Maybe it's intended that these people do it voluntarily. We just bring them in and ask them to do it and tell them to consult broadly throughout the entire province and take time off from their schedules and do this for the good of the province. I don't know. It doesn't indicate here whether they should be paid or not, but certainly if they are to be paid, that's an additional cost to government.

I'm just looking at some of the other things here. Again, we look at one of the sections here, and it says that in their deliberations, the panel must be cognizant of wage and benefit increases accorded to Crown corporation unionized personnel. Well, what has that got to do when you're hiring a senior executive? Why should you worry about the job that a clerk is doing typing someplace or taking dictation someplace when you're hiring the president of a Crown corporation? Why would you take that into consideration?

We're talking here of supply and demand. If we need a senior civil servant, if we need a senior president of a Crown corporation and there are very few of them around, then we have to pay the salary that's necessary to attract that person and to attract the best people for the job. I don't know why they would want to put that kind of provision in there, which would have to be addressed.

Again, you wait a year. The first recommendation is not going to come out till November. There could be a number of changes in November. Then it's just going to be once a year in which every new person that's hired, every senior executive, civil servant and deputy minister that's hired would have to wait a year pending the results and the review of that panel to determine whether their wages are going to be frozen, whether their wages are going to stay the same or whether, indeed, the panel may say they're going to get an increase in wages. It does allow for that here.

These are some of the real concerns that I have with regard to this bill. I think it's poorly written. It's not well thought out. It adds a tremendous amount of bureaucracy to the system — bureaucracy that we're trying to reduce, not increase. It takes away any certainty that we have with regard to hiring people. It creates more uncertainty. It doesn't go towards the objectives that we have with regard to restoring sound fiscal management.

I can't see any benefit whatsoever in this bill, Mr. Speaker, so I will definitely be voting against this bill. I will now turn the floor over to any of my other colleagues who may have something to say with regard to this.

I. Chong: Well, what a piece of work by the opposition. As I listened to the comments by the member who brought forward this bill, I just could not believe the nature of what she brought forward and her comments. She doesn't realize the damage that was done to the public sector by their government these past ten years. The morale of the public sector had declined so substantially that I believe the auditor general issued a report not long ago speaking to that very nature.

This opposition also conveniently forgot that because of their fiscal incompetence, they have put this province into a structural deficit. Because of that, our new government has begun a significant restructuring where we can ensure that we can sustain the two very important elements of our society: that is, public health care and education.

It doesn't mean keeping the status quo. It doesn't mean hiring people to do the same thing and spending recklessly. It means hiring people who bring forward the best ideas, who bring forward innovation and creativity to get this province back on sound financial track so that we can provide for health care and education. It means that we have to get the best and the brightest to come back to this province, because they left this province years ago when the opportunities were gone.

That previous government, which the opposition members were in, did so much damage to the public sector by allowing for promotions and increases without merit that our best and brightest left. I myself met

with a number of people in the public sector over the last few years. They came to me and said: "I'm leaving because I'm not valued and the morale is so low. One day, maybe I'll come back, and maybe one day I'll be treated with respect, paid with respect and promoted with respect, because I will add value to this province and I will make this province work again." They left, and they left to go to the private sector because opportunities were there and their work was valued.

This bill is so flawed that I don't know where to begin. The definitions, as the member for Prince George North has already indicated…. He went into the definition section, and he's absolutely right. What does private sector management mean in terms of all individuals? What does remuneration mean in terms of salary pensions? You know, those "individuals earning in excess of $100,000 per year whose income is derived totally from provincial government sources…." We have those individuals, and they're mostly professional people. You have your professors. I spoke about the University of Victoria this morning. You have vice-principals and principals. You have your physicians. You even, perhaps, have people who are provided contract work to do a specific task to save money in this province. Again, the definition section is definitely flawed.

In addition, the other part of this bill is "striking of a citizens' panel." Well, I find that intriguing as well, when we have for the first time, with our Premier, activated a number of select standing committees where issues like this can be discussed. We have a Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, where a number of independent officers are able to attend. As well, we travel around the province every year for a prebudget consultation, so there's broad public input there. If people would like to provide broad public input to us, they can do that when this committee is travelling around. Now, there's a cost saving, but of course the opposition members don't consider those kinds of things.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, which for the five or six years that I was here was never activated until our government came in force last year. We've activated the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations which, again, will allow for questions to be raised, will allow us to ask questions of the management and the board of directors. If the opposition member is concerned about Crown corporations, there is a vehicle; there is a select standing committee that is available for those questions to be raised.

In addition, we have a Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I know the opposition member is aware of that committee because not only is she Chair of that committee this year; she also served on it as a private member when she was first elected in 1996, along with myself. At the Public Accounts Committee we are constantly receiving reports that the auditor general does — reports that we have to take a look at and review his recommendations. He and his team of auditors have done much of the work. They have gone, they have investigated, and they have looked into — whether they be contracts or administration or management of a ministry or a Crown corporation or a particular project…. They have brought this forward in a report. They have tabled a report and allowed the Public Accounts Committee to look at it. Again, we have an opportunity to take a look at some of these issues that this member may wish us to be raising.

With those opportunities, with these select standing committees, it just raises that question as to why the opposition would bring forward a bill of this nature. The opposition doesn't get it. They don't seem to understand. They don't understand finances, so why would I support a bill that is purporting to deal with the financial basis of our province? They had ten years at the helm — ten years to have a spiralling downwards effect on our economy and to take us from first place to last place. Any legislation the opposition members can bring forward dealing with finances I have a lot of concern about.

As I take a look at this bill — the authorities to make recommendations, the makeup of the panel, the reporting — there is much more to be raised in these various sections. I know the time will not allow me to do that, so noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.