Hansard -- Monday, October 20, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 1 (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

Tabling Documents		7327
	Guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 Report of the Crown Proceeding Act, fiscal year ended March 31, 2003

Private Members' Statements		7327
	Boys and Girls Clubs
	K. Johnston
	R. Stewart
	Education: whither do we go?
	R. Masi
	R. Nijjar
	Mandatory retirement
	P. Sahota
	B. Lekstrom
	The Nisga'a treaty
	B. Belsey
	Hon. G. Plant

Motions on Notice		7335
	Repeal of Firearms Act (Motion 9)
	D. MacKay
	P. Bell
	Role of resource industries in health and education infrastructure (Motion 2)
	D. Chutter
	R. Visser
	J. Les
	Arts and cultural tourism on Vancouver Island (Motion 29)
	M. Hunter
	J. Bray

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8).

I have the honour to present the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003, in accordance with section 15(2) of that act.

K. Johnston: I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak on a private member's statement. Today I'd like to talk about a community group that is extremely important to the youth of British Columbia, Canada and in fact worldwide. I'd like to talk about the importance of the Boys and Girls Clubs to the youth of British Columbia and provide my support to that worthy organization.

The job of being an MLA can be challenging on many days. However, like all challenges, there are highlights and lowlights. One of the highlights for me occurred this past summer when I had the opportunity to revisit, after many years, the Fraserview Boys Club in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview. I attended a carnival where 200 to 300 children from across greater Vancouver came to the Boys Club and took part in a festival, which would be much akin to the PNE. What really struck me on that day — getting, as I say, reconnected — were the faces of these children. The children were so grateful to be part of an organization, to be part of a group that was really acting on their behalf and making them feel a sense of worth.

The Vancouver-Fraserview club has operated since 1962. In fact, I was actually an original member back in 1962, so it was extra special for me to go back and visit the organization. It was extra special for the opportunity to get reconnected, and memories of my days at the club came back to me the moment I had the opportunity to go into the gymnasium. I think psychologists tell us that the most powerful stimulus to our memory is a sense of smell. I have to say that when I walked back into that gymnasium after decades, many, many powerful memories did come back, because that gym smelled exactly the same. It brought back memories of how important the organization was to the youth of my day. In my day Vancouver-Fraserview was an area that wasn't the highest on the socioeconomic scale. In fact, there was a lot of gang trouble, children of veterans and veterans' homes — lower-income types of situations.

The Boys Club of those days was — like today — extremely important to the social, physical and emotional development of all youth. The clubs today play a vital role in the health and welfare of the communities in which they exist.

Boys and Girls Clubs do tremendous work throughout the world, but I wanted to talk about the Boys and Girls Clubs of greater Vancouver that have been providing programs since 1936. The motto or tag line for the network of clubs is: "Bringing out the best in kids." The mission statement with the Boys and Girls Club is: "to be the primary neighbourhood voluntary agency providing preventative and development-oriented services to children and their families within the greater Vancouver community. These clubs build individual self-esteem through participation in activities that have a health, social, educational, recreational or spiritual focus." I read the mission statement out because it talks about building individual self-esteem, which is critical in young people.

Boys and Girls Clubs provide cost-effective, community-based responses to many of the issues rated very important to Canadians — those issues being education, child protection and safety, job creation, preventing youth violence and programs to fight substance abuse. The Boys and Girls Clubs respond to these issues by ensuring that all children have access to the services and support they require. No child is turned away because of their inability to pay.

Some statistics on the operation of the Boys and Girls Clubs. Annually over 1,300 youngsters enjoy a wilderness experience at Camp Potlatch on Howe Sound. I know there are thousands of British Columbians who have grown to a positive adulthood and who have had the opportunity as children to attend that camp. Daily more than 650 young people participate in club activities in seven facilities around the lower mainland. Approximately 50 youth each day receive counselling support related to substance abuse — extremely important. Annually close to 700 parents are involved in weekly mutual-help support programs related to parent-teen conflicts. In excess of 60,000 hours of voluntary service are provided each year by over 1,200 volunteers involved in direct youth services. Over 425,000 youth services are delivered each year, and over 6,000 individuals are served by the club.

I would like to paraphrase the words of John Mulka, executive director with the greater Vancouver clubs:

The Boys and Girls Clubs that have spanned the world have made a positive influence, have made a difference. I am proud of the support that this government has provided to the Boys and Girls Clubs through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and I would like to acknowledge all the thousands and thousands of volunteers who participate for the betterment of our youth.

P. Bell: I see in the gallery today that I have two friends joining us from the community of McLeod Lake, British Columbia. McLeod Lake is a small community of 250 or 300 people located about 100 miles north of Prince George but is really in the centre of the economic belt that is driving this province currently. The two gentlemen represent both a large forestry company and a large oil and gas exploration company and work very closely with the McLeod Lake Indian band, which has had a treaty in place for about two years now, although we're still signing some of the final documents. I would ask the House to make both Guy Jolly and Jim Humphries very welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to rise in response to the member's statement on the Boys and Girls Clubs. It was, in fact, my pleasure to welcome John Mulka and Simon Adams of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Vancouver into my office last month. They came in with their passionate presentation about the work that the organization does. I was pleased to be able to receive them.

I learned, of course, that not only do the Boys and Girls Clubs offer two excellent programs in my community, but they offer them across the province. They offer them in Delta, Kamloops, Ladysmith, Nanaimo, Williams Lake, Victoria, certainly at the greater Vancouver chapter that we're part of, but also in the Comox Valley, Cranbrook and the Okanagan. In fact, the Boys and Girls Clubs are everywhere.

I found this out because I managed to get away camping with my family last weekend, Thanksgiving weekend, and there was Simon Adams camping in the campsite right next to us to press again the point about the importance of Boys and Girls Clubs. He does that as passionately at the campfire as he does across my desk. I really appreciated the chance to chat with him on that occasion as well.

In Coquitlam, for example, Boys and Girls Clubs were opened in 1982. It's called the Pocomo Boys and Girls Club, representing Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody. It actually runs two programs serving the Tri-Cities, one at Place Maillardville and one at Mountain View Elementary. Place Maillardville is a community centre in the heart of the older community of Maillardville. The population surrounding this community centre was traditionally the French Canadian community of Coquitlam, though that has changed in recent years with densification and other issues such that today's population in Maillardville is much more diverse.

Similarly, Mountain View Elementary serves a wide range of needs from a very diverse population, a population that is diverse both economically and culturally. This school has many children of single parents, many children of immigrants, many children who face poverty and other issues. I think that's key to the role that Boys and Girls Clubs can play in many communities in helping with a great many issues in the development of young people outside of the school system.

In our community, as in other communities, Boys and Girls Clubs offer after-school and evening programming for children aged six to 18 as well as the registered summer day camp program. These programs can offer the social, health, educational and recreational support for the development of young people through all kinds of means: arts and crafts; recreational activities such as soccer, basketball and floor hockey; educational programs such as the homework club that I would love to get my children working on; reading; and other means of developing the skill and character and enhancing the capacity for learning that young people naturally have.

There's another program that the member spoke about with some passion as well, and that is the parent support program. It's important in Coquitlam, as it is elsewhere. Greater Vancouver Boys and Girls Clubs have 14 different groups called Parents Together. It's a self-help support group for parents in major conflict with their teens. This is all walks of life; this is all socioeconomic groups. It's a weekly self-help program that really serves the needs of very specific families. In Coquitlam a facilitator comes in once a month or so to ensure the program remains effective, but apart from that, it is a self-help program.

Now, my wife and I have four children, and we've had the joy involved in experiencing the teen years. This program that the Boys and Girls Clubs offers — the Parents Together program — is aimed at more than just the typical conflicts that exist between teens and parents over homework, over spending time at the mall or on the phone and over the messy bedroom. This program helps parents who are facing the enormous challenges that sometimes happen in families regardless of the parenting skills, regardless of any number of things. They simply are enormous challenges that some families unfortunately face.

There are also challenges such as our cultural diversity that exist in our province, and I think Boys and Girls Clubs do well to serve those needs as well. So, as the member did, I thank the Boys and Girls Clubs for

K. Johnston: I would like to thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for his profound words of support for the movement of the Boys and Girls Club. With a younger family of teenagers that he has, I know he truly understands the need for these programs.

You only really need to spend some time with the children to see the smile on their faces, to understand the impact of this organization on the youth and what they get out of their experience, to understand what importance such programs as Odyssey and Nexus have, which are substance abuse programs and counselling programs — how critical they are.

I'd just quickly like to, in closing, use a couple of quotations from a couple of individuals. First from a 14-year-old girl who said: "I don't think I'd be alive today. Drugs had taken over my whole life. The Boys and Girls Clubs Odyssey program helped me put my life back on track." From a parent of a 16-year-old boy: "We were at our wits' end, and we didn't want to give up our son, but his behaviour was tearing the family apart. The Boys and Girls Clubs Together program was our answer. It turned our family right around."

So many individuals and organizations support the Boys and Girls Club initiative, and I know all the youth of our province are grateful for that. I would ask that everyone look back into their youth and remember what the Boys and Girls Clubs have done for them. Like me, there are over 67 years of alumni out there in British Columbia, and I ask that you get reconnected with your local Boys and Girls Club. Let's bring out the best in our kids.

R. Masi: Today I'd like to say a few words about the direction of education in British Columbia. Education is the cornerstone of our society, and every one of us — from trustees, university presidents, union officials and members, teachers, parents, administrators and politicians — has an integral role to play in ensuring that every member of our community benefits from education in the broadest possible way. We're involved in education because we care. We care about our society, our children. We care because we want to make a difference.

We want to be able to impart knowledge, skills, abilities. We want to instil confidence in our children so that they can succeed in a rapidly changing world. You know, when I started teaching, the emphasis in education was on those proverbial three Rs — reading, writing and arithmetic. We still maintain that focus today — and rightly so, only now we call it literacy and numeracy — but we have broadened our educational focus to develop thinking skills, judgment, problem-solving and teamwork. We had to.

As society changed and the pace of life dramatically increased over the past 40 years, education also changed. We are now part of what Marshall McLuhan once observed was the global village. We have moved from an industrial economy, one in which the expectation of life was to work for the same company for your entire life, to a global economy, one in which individuals change jobs every few years and are likely to have two or three different careers before they retire.

To underscore just how dramatically our world has changed, allow me to quote from a recent article in the Globe and Mail. According to the article, a college in Wisconsin just released its sixth annual mind-set list to faculty to help them overcome the cultural reference gap. It states that most students entering college this fall were born in 1985. To these students, there has always been an AIDS screening test, gas has always been unleaded, computers have always fit into backpacks, and test-tube babies are now having their own babies.

That's like me standing here and saying there have always been movie theatres and radios. Just think: it was 20 years ago when we witnessed the onrush of fax machines, cell phones and notebook computers. Look where we are today. With all of these technological advances came the expectations of instant access to information and instant decision-making. However, concurrently with the technological and informational revolution, our social structure is also changing. We know that Canada's and B.C.'s demographic profiles are changing. Provincewide, the student enrolment in K-to-12 is expected to decline by over 9,000 students in the next years. This fact alone, together with a roller-coaster economy, poses a serious challenge to the maintenance and enhancement of a quality education in our K-to-12 system in British Columbia.

Turning to the post-secondary system in British Columbia, we know that they, too, face similar fiscal pressures and challenges, but our universities, university colleges and community colleges are all aggressively working to resolve these issues. Lifting the six-year tuition freeze was not necessarily a politically easy or popular decision with some students and parents. However, the reality is that continuing the freeze would have meant untenable fiscal pressures on the post-secondary system.

We do no favours to our students by forcing them to add on an additional year to their studies just because they could not complete their required courses within the allotted time frame due to course unavailability. However, working to resolve the fiscal situation confronting our education system is absolutely vital, but it is only one part of the overall equation. The larger issue is: how do we better prepare our students for the new realities that will face them in our global economy?

The concept of lifelong learning has gathered considerable momentum in the past two decades. Governments, educators and the public have readily accepted the reality of this concept and are grappling with establishing an education system that assists people to accomplish their educational goals on a sus-

tained basis. We must ask today: what role should all of the stakeholders in the educational field take on? What will they contribute to the debate in order to deliver a first-class education system?

Given the new realities, the question also becomes: how will the central players — the school districts, post-secondary institutions and the government — coordinate their efforts to include the new partners, such as industry and unions, in order to maximize the learning experience? We know that technological innovation and the restructuring of the workplace have left many workers discovering that their current technical skills are obsolete. We also know Canada faces a skilled worker shortage. Therefore, it is the responsibility of our education system to look at change in order to address this critical problem. While traditional applied technical education must still be offered, we must look to new ways and new attitudes in order to produce a well-rounded and highly skilled individual who is able to compete in today's global society. It is critical, therefore, that new partnerships with educational institutions, corporate management, community organizations, unions and government be developed if we are to capitalize on our collective strengths.

Ultimately, however, the question of lifelong learning and job adaptability lies with the individual. How do individuals capitalize on the existing strengths of the education system, and how do they further their educational goals? For starters, I think we need to look at an attitude adjustment of not just students but their parents in reference to skills training. It is not only essential to our economy, but from an individual's perspective, skills training leads to well-paid jobs and an opportunity for security. It is imperative that we incorporate and pursue the value of skilled training in our educational planning.

Access to a quality education is essential to an individual's success in life, whether by traditional modes such as the classroom or by more modern techniques like on-line learning. Remember, our public schools are on line and connected with the Internet and the vast resources that it offers, as are our post-secondary institutions. So then the fundamental question may be: should we and how can we better integrate our K-to-12 education system with our post-secondary system?

I'm looking forward to the response by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

R. Nijjar: Thank you to the member for Delta North, with whom I've had the pleasure of working on several education committees. We converse regularly on what direction we need to go as a province.

We discuss these things, because we truly need to look at the direction we have been going. Historically, if you look at the last 40 years in British Columbia, we've had successive governments that have not invested in our post-secondary system. Partly, it was philosophical. The philosophy of former governments was that we are a natural resource province and our natural resources are so abundant, especially in forestry, that we do not need to invest so much in post-secondary — that the jobs will be there today and for the future.

We fell further and further behind other provinces in the number of post-secondary seats available to our students, so today we find ourselves where our government, even if we were to invest to great, great numbers, invest a lot of dollars — more than any other province in the history of the country — invest in creating post-secondary seats…. We would still be futile in ever achieving even a provincial average in the next, say, ten years. We are so far away from that total. That is coupled with the fact that post-secondary participation rates of our youth — youth being 15 to 24 — are one of the lowest in the country, the second lowest in the country. Also, the job market participation rate of our youth is second lowest in the country.

Collectively, of course, we all agree we have a great educational system. It is the envy of the world. Other countries come to us to be able to duplicate what we have and to ask for our expertise. We should use that to our advantage, and we should be proud of what we have. But just like our health care system, we cannot say that because we have a great institution, let's not make any changes, and let's not look at it because by making changes, that means you are saying you don't have a great system. Just like we make changes to our homes as they age over the years, we're doing it because we care about the system. We're doing it because we know that times have changed.

The member for Delta North explained how our job markets have changed in many ways, how technology has changed our society and, therefore, how the expectations and the needs of our students have changed. Approximately 73 or 74 percent of parents of a child in grade 8 expect their child to go to university, but only 18 percent of students actually go to university. There's a great gap. We have, very generally speaking, a view in our society that if you go to skills and trades — if you work with your hands; if you go to school to become a plumber, a drywaller or a electrician — somehow you're dumbing down the system, that it's a lesser diploma or certification than if you're going to university. We really have to get away from that, because the world is changing and the job market's changing. Eighty percent of the jobs in 2025 will require a skills and trades certificate; only 20 percent will require a university degree.

I'm very proud that I was part of the Select Standing Committee on Education's report to the Legislature last year, along with my colleague. We made a lot of important recommendations towards creating a system that is a lifelong learning system — where the post-secondary system is actually integrated into the high school system; where at grades 10, 11 and 12 there's a true integration — not the type of system we have today where, sure, at some university or college or through the CAPP program, you'll receive some information on the direction you may want to go that depends on some theoretical interest you might have as a student.

I'm talking about real integration, where it's not just integration between the local university and your

school, but the region. While that may stir up a lot of anger and a lot of angst in our communities, the reality is that if we want to meet the needs of our students, we have to look at the integration and regionalization of our school system. We cannot continue to live in the archaic mind-set that K-to-12 is separate and should remain separate in all ways from the post-secondary system. We are cheating our children by doing that. I recommend to everybody that they take a look at the Select Standing Committee on Education's report to the Legislature on that matter.

A lot of what we talk about is — let's face it — all about who's going to have a say in what direction we're going to take. That's the reality. It's not that we disagree that all these things are important, as the member pointed out. Elected officials, either school board trustees or provincial legislators, are responsible for the policy direction. We have to have a system that allows the public to have control of the policy direction through their elected officials. It's the responsibility of this government to ensure that it happens as we forge further.

R. Masi: I want to thank the member for Vancouver-Kingsway for his most thoughtful remarks today on this most important subject.

You know, I think we have to pose some questions relative to the topic of where we're going in education, and we have to ask things like: is there value for our students in better integration between all levels of our education system? What benefits can we derive from such integration? Is more integration the answer to address our needs as a society? I personally think the time has come for us to look a lot more seriously at bringing the K-to-12 and the post-secondary system together in a meaningful cooperative effort. I know the member for Vancouver-Kingsway mentioned that there are some attempts at it now, but in fact the results are still skimpy. I think we have to take a whole new look at where we're going in the coordination, articulation and integration of the two systems.

At the same time, we need to understand and outline that it all costs money and the various costs that are associated with the delivery system of a meaningful education system. How can we deliver a quality education system while acknowledging the fiscal and demographic constraints we face today? We know that British Columbia is a vast province. In Europe, it would be many countries. We're looking at, in fact, a very serious problem of regionalization, as the member from Kingsway pointed out. It's high time we started to examine this situation more seriously.

What are the strengths that we can offer nationally and internationally, and how can we capitalize on them as a province? We do a good job here in the K-to-12 system, but we're doing sort of two separate jobs. Let's think about how we can articulate better. Who are our partners in this endeavour? What do they bring to the table? Ultimately, what benefits can be derived for our students?

Finally, we have to ask — and we always ask this question: what are the results we're looking for? What are the measurables that we can identify and agree upon that would be essential to our success in this endeavour?

P. Sahota: According to Canada's Urban Futures Institute, 9.8 million Canadian baby-boomers are approaching retirement. The number for this year is 225,000. By 2020, the number retiring every year will be 425,000. Today there are six workers for every retired person. By 2020, there will be three workers for every retired person. Thus, as the workforce decreases, it still has to maintain or pay for the increasing number of people over 65.

Today seniors make up about 13 percent of B.C.'s population, and none of us are getting any younger. In 25 years, 21 percent of all British Columbians will be over the age of 65. In 30 years, almost 25 percent of Canadians will be over 65. Combined with the aging population is a trend in the western world of decreasing birth rates.

In addition, we're healthier than ever before, so we're living much longer. In fact, when the age 70 was selected in the early twentieth century as the age of eligibility for the government pension, life expectancy was 60 to 65. Today Canadians who reach 65 are expected to live another 20 years. As a society, indicators like this are great news, but along with indicators like this come challenges.

These kinds of demographics are presenting a number of challenges for governments and institutions. One of the challenges that has arisen is in the area of mandatory retirement. I was talking to a number of my colleagues earlier today, and one of them actually said to me: "You should be the last person worried about something like mandatory retirement." Perhaps there's a bit of selfishness on my part, because I want to make sure my generation is treated fairly. As those who are nearing the age of retirement, perhaps like my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission….

P. Sahota: They should also have the opportunity to choose when they want to retire.

The age of retirement varies among jurisdictions. Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, as well as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, view mandatory retirement as discriminatory. The U.S. retirement age has now been raised to 67 and is expected to be raised again. It is also interesting to note that countries like Australia and New Zealand recently abolished mandatory retirement. However, mandatory retirement exists in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Ontario and here in our province. As mentioned, in the other four provinces mandatory retirement at any age is viewed as discriminatory.

I believe we need to at least consider the discussion and begin the dialogue. This issue was brought to my attention by a number of my constituents. One was a psychiatric nurse who believes her experience can be used to the benefit of patients and the entire health care system. She believes her age doesn't get in the way of her ability to do her job and that she should have the option to continue working. Furthermore, she also pointed out that compulsory retirement is especially hard on women, many of whom stay home to be with their children in their early years and enter the workforce in their late twenties or early thirties. Since women live six or seven years longer than men, we need to make sure that if they choose to work past 65, they should be allowed to do so.

A recent Conference Board of Canada report confirms this. Fifty-something women are hanging on to their jobs longer than previous generations. She also pointed out that at least this way she can decide if she wants to work part-time or full-time. Another constituent told me just a couple of weeks ago that even though he isn't near the age of retirement, there is hesitation by employers to employ someone who is in their early sixties. It is precisely these kinds of cases that we have to be watchful of. We know the ability to work does not stop at 65. We want our citizens to continue being active past the age of 65, retiring at a time of their own choosing. Some people want to continue working, and others want to ensure they're financially prepared to take care of themselves when they do retire.

We also need to consider other challenges when looking at this issue. B.C., like the rest of Canada, is currently facing a skills shortage in some sectors of the workforce, partially as a result of the aging population. Shortages will get worse — particularly in nursing, education and skilled trades — and we will need older workers in the years to come, especially if they're willing to give their expertise, their wisdom and their knowledge. Keeping older workers means institutions maintain their valuable experience. They keep their institutional knowledge. We often speak of people as the most valuable resource. They are, because of the knowledge that they bring with them. Experience, knowledge and know-how — that is the important part of the human capital.

We also need to look at other challenges when discussing mandatory retirement. For example, there is a concern amongst some employers that in physically demanding fields, older people may not be able to physically handle their duties. We need to be mindful of that and make sure that we take all that into consideration. Recently the proposed elimination of mandatory retirement in Ontario gave rise to a number of potential pension and benefits issues, since it would no longer be acceptable to treat Ontario workers over the age of 65 differently from their younger counterparts. We need to make sure that this forms part of the discussion.

It is our responsibility to make sure that people are treated with care, respect and dignity, and are subject to the same laws as those who have reached that magic number of 65. Those who want to retire should be able to do so at 65; those who want to work past 65 should be given the choice to do so. What we need is to be flexible and adaptable and to find unique ways to fit the changing world around us. We need to be creative in the face of all these challenges.

B. Lekstrom: I would like to thank my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds for bringing up what I feel is a very important public policy issue. I think for years we as governments across this country and around the world have failed sometimes to adapt to the advancement of society. When I talk about that, something that jumps to mind is — as my colleague indicated — that since a number of years ago, things have changed. The advancement in technology in our health fields has allowed us to live longer and live healthier throughout society. That's a good thing.

Along with that come some challenges, though. We aren't talking about mandatory working past 65. I think that's a key issue to point out here. We're talking about the issue of mandatory retirement, which in many people's eyes is felt to be discriminatory. People, once they turn 65, don't lose their ability. They don't lose their competence or willingness to work but in many cases can't carry on due to what, as I indicated earlier, in many people's eyes is a discriminatory issue on age. That has been dealt with by law, though, so you can't go back and put a case of age discrimination on this.

What we have to look at is the ability and willingness of the people in society if they want to work. The issue is quality of life. What we strive for in society — whether you're 40 years old, 20 years old or 70 years old — is to be able to get up every morning, to enjoy waking up and opening your eyes, and to enjoy the day ahead of you. I think we've all seen that when a person reaches 65 and has their retirement, the next day they wake up and have no job to go to. It is very much a problem for a lot of people.

I know that I myself look forward to the day when I'm able to retire and enjoy doing things that I think I would enjoy. Today at my age, which isn't that old, I'm not that close to retirement. My views may change in 20 years. That's what life is all about. Twenty years ago today, I can tell you, I didn't envision myself standing in the Legislature being the representative for Peace River South, but as times change, we adapt our lives to the changing times before us.

We have to make sure we can look at this public policy issue and have a frank discussion with the people we represent and the people of British Columbia to hear what their views are, to see what they think about this issue. Personally, it seems hard to believe that a hard-working individual — whether it's a male or a female — reaches the age, wants to carry on and finds they can't. I face that very issue with a gentleman I employ within my office, an incredible worker. He works very hard for me, does a tremendous job and is quickly approaching the mandatory retirement age, so we face some challenges there.

The issue we're dealing with today is one that I'm very happy has been raised. I think it's been talked about around coffee tables for many years. It's talked about around the kitchen table when you get people who are approaching that age wondering what they will do with their lives. It's work, traditionally. When many of us get up…. Many of my colleagues have been working better than 40 years. To think that that magic day comes and all of a sudden we have to wake up one day and enjoy our retirement with no work schedule before us…. For some that's not appealing. It's actually a detriment to their health. Many times we've seen people who, once they reach that age and don't carry on, are unsure what to do.

We have to look at better planning for retirement. We have to make sure we address the issues of pensions. I know that'll be a discussion topic when this issue goes before discussion for the public to address this.

Overall I'm very happy and proud to stand and respond to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds for raising this important issue. It's one I believe is due for a full discussion throughout the province and one that I think will overwhelmingly be endorsed by the public — to say this is about choice. Let people have their choice and make up their minds. If we have people in society that are willing to get up and go to work, my goodness, certainly age shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether they can or can't.

P. Sahota: I want to thank my colleague from Peace River South for responding to this very important issue.

I want to close with something I read in the paper recently by a senior citizen. The headline was "Wisdom of the Seniors Should Not Be Overlooked."

This is exactly the kind of thing we need to address. He points out that the U.S., Australia and New Zealand all encourage companies and businesses to hire the wisdom of seniors. I want to thank my colleague from Peace River South once again for responding to this very important issue. I do think we need to look at the changing world that is around us, and as this issue gains a lot of attention, we need to respond in the most appropriate way.

Deputy Speaker: For our final private member's statement, the member for North Coast.

B. Belsey: I am honoured to represent a part of my riding — the beautiful, pristine Nisga'a Valley and its people. Since being elected in 2001, I have had the pleasure of visiting the valley several times. The Nisga'a have shared with me their food, their friendship, their history, their culture, their concerns. They have shown me patience and understanding and friendship that will never be forgotten. They also have shared with me their unique sense of humour when they referred to me as their brother — this fair-skinned, red-headed politician in a room full of dark-skinned, black-haired native politicians. They're wonderful people, and I always look forward to my next visit to the valley.

I would like to share with you, my colleagues, and the people of British Columbia some history and some experiences the Nisga'a have shared with me over time. First some history. The first recorded encounter between the Nisga'a and Europeans was in 1793, when Capt. George Vancouver's expedition arrived in Observatory Inlet within the Nisga'a traditional territory. In 1876 the colonial government of Canada enacted the Indian Act and arbitrarily passed it on the Nisga'a.

The Nisga'a have lived in their traditional territory since time immemorial. Prior to the imposition of the Indian Act, the Nisga'a had developed an elaborate society based on communal responsibilities. Their economy was based on natural resources, and they developed a complex trading relationship with all their neighbours. I'm sure most of you have heard of grease trails. These were the trading routes used by the Nisga'a people when they packed the oolichan grease inland to trade for certain types of food and clothing. The Nisga'a used their rich culture and spoke their own language while living a traditional life according to their own ancient laws.

The Nisga'a successfully governed themselves for many generations prior to the Indian Act. Then, for 124 years the Indian Act eroded the pride, the dignity, the independence and the self-determination of the Nisga'a.

Despite this negative impact and their experience with the Indian Act, the Nisga'a have survived. In 1880 the Nisga'a traditional territory was unilaterally declared Crown land, even though no treaty was ever signed by their leaders or government. In 1887 the Nisga'a sent a formal petition to the Privy Council in London to secure recognition of the right to their territory. They were denied. Eighty-six years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its landmark decision in the Calder case.

Formal negotiations on the Nisga'a land question between the Nisga'a tribal council and Canada finally began in 1976. In 1991 B.C. formally joined, marking the event of the tripartite negotiations involving the Nisga'a, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia. The tripartite negotiations eventually produced the Nisga'a final agreement. Subsequently, it was duly considered, approved and ratified by the Nisga'a nation in a historic referendum. Concurrently, it was duly considered and proclaimed into law by the B.C. Legislature and Canada's House of

Commons. The final challenge was met on April 13, 2000, when Canada's Senate approved the Nisga'a final agreement. The effective date of the Nisga'a treaty was May 11, 2000.

The intent of the Nisga'a all along was to negotiate their way into Canada to become full participants in the social, political and economic life of Canada. Through the self-government provisions of the treaty, the Nisga'a can determine for themselves the most effective way they can achieve their participation. As for the treaty, the Nisga'a Lisims government is built on both democratic principles and traditional values.

The Nisga'a treaty is consistent with and protected by the Canadian constitution of 1982. To the Nisga'a, self-government means freedom to live by their traditions and to live with the consequences of the decisions they make. Even with the treaty, the Nisga'a cannot do everything in isolation from the rest of Canada. The treaty contemplates intergovernmental relations being developed to facilitate coordination between all levels of government.

The Nisga'a treaty is not a book of guarantees. Rather, it is a book of opportunities. When closely scrutinized, the treaty can be better appreciated as innovative and far-reaching. Nisga'a government authority is concurrent with the federal and provincial authority. Nisga'a government has exclusive jurisdiction on the Nisga'a lands, and it has the power to make laws in 14 different areas that are natural, integral and essential to the Nisga'a.

The treaty is just three years old, and already British Columbians, Canadians and the international communities want to know: have they been successful? Have they produced prosperity? In consideration of these questions, the Nisga'a are beginning to question the criteria for success imposed by non-Nisga'a. The concepts of gross domestic product and debt-to-equity ratio are foreign. They are irrelevant in this context. As an alternative, the Nisga'a have developed their own ways of measuring the wealth and well-being of their people. After all, unless success is defined by those who seek it, it will remain an elusive goal and an objective devised and evaluated by someone else far removed.

Has the Nisga'a government solved all its problems? Certainly not. It has re-empowered the Nisga'a with the tools of government to determine their own fate. This is not a story of loss and assimilation. This is a story of rebirth and recovery, a story of a proud and self-determining people — the people of the Nisga'a.

"The canoe has landed." These were the words of Dr. Joe Gosnell, Sim'oogit Hleek, used to articulate the culmination of over 100 years of negotiations with the federal government, the provincial government and others throughout the province — negotiations that saw generations of family members pick up where elders left off to paddle the canoe to its final resting place.

Hon. G. Plant: I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the member's comments. I have learned a lot over the last couple of years from the member's own experiences in learning about the Nisga'a and the Nisga'a final agreement and the hard work he has done to bring onto the floor of this Legislature his insight and experience in learning about the people of the Nass Valley. I have learned some more again this morning, and I appreciate that.

The history of the relationship between the province of British Columbia and the Nisga'a people can break itself down into the details of dates and actions but really can be best characterized, I think, by two broad themes or ideas: first, the theme of denial; and second, the image of a wall.

For far too long, it seems to me, in reviewing the history of British Columbia, the government of British Columbia existed in a state of denial with respect to claims made by the Nisga'a and thought that the denial itself represented a resolution of the issues presented by the Nisga'a. Denial almost never presents a resolution of any issue, and it certainly never was a pathway to resolution for the issues presented by the Nisga'a. Instead of producing resolution, it produced a malaise that characterized this relationship for years and years, which arose from a failure to resolve or even to take serious steps toward resolution of long-outstanding grievances.

The second thing, it seems to me, that is produced by this history is the image of a wall — that is, a wall between communities rather than a bridge between them, a wall that separated communities rather than a bridge that connected them. For too long the relationship between British Columbia and the Nisga'a looked more like a wall than a bridge.

There were some pretty important keys to success in overcoming those barriers. In particular, I want to just mention a few things that seem to me, as an observer, to be critical elements of the success that the Nisga'a have had in turning that wall into a bridge.

First of all, obviously for many, many years there has been a passionate belief, a passionate commitment to a cause and to a new relationship with Canada and British Columbia. But it seems to me there have been a few other things that have helped lead to success. One is patience. Goodness knows, you always need lots of that if you're going to resolve any issue involving government. Another is strong political leadership. The Nisga'a have enjoyed that for many, many years. Thirdly is perhaps also important: the fact that the Nisga'a came to government as a group of first nations representing a larger community with much in common, and they have stayed together as that group throughout all the years they have worked to establish the success. I think those are all important elements of why the Nisga'a achieved success.

What is it that success means? I think that success in a new relationship with the Nisga'a and, more importantly — given what the member has talked about — success for the Nisga'a really is the same kind of thing that all of us want for ourselves, our families and

our communities. We want autonomy. We want to be self-reliant. We want to find ways to encourage economic development, to make social progress, to ensure that our children have access to education and that we all have access to health care. We want our governments to be fiscally accountable, and we want them to be democratically responsible.

The member spoke about the desire of the Nisga'a to have full participation in our economy, and it seems to me that the extent to which that becomes a reality will be and must be a measure or a marker for the success or failure of the Nisga'a final agreement. The agreement puts in place frameworks, structures. It creates opportunities. It establishes rights and responsibilities. It builds a strong platform for this relationship that now exists. It really amounts to the construction of the bridge to replace the wall. But frameworks and structures are not enough. What is needed over time is a will to implement those frameworks and structures. That will needs to be present and persistent if this agreement is to continue to realize what the Nisga'a wanted to realize.

The early indicators, I suggest with respect, are very positive, and British Columbia is certainly willing to continue to do everything it can to make this agreement a success. I recognize that there will be challenges ahead. The Nisga'a recognize that there will be challenges ahead. But with goodwill and good purpose and the strong foundations of this agreement, I believe we will meet those challenges and achieve the hopes and dreams of all of the people of the Nisga'a and the Nass Valley who worked so hard over so long to make this agreement a reality.

B. Belsey: I would like to thank the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston for his insight. I'd just like to give you three quick examples of the difficulties that the Nisga'a face today. A commercial fisherman from the Nisga'a Valley went into a community outside their territory, their land, and tried to purchase some commercial fishing gear. When the bill was being added up by the merchant, he explained that he would need his DFO licence or he would have to pay all the taxes. Well, that Nisga'a fisherman explained that he doesn't have a DFO licence. They've negotiated, through their treaty, their own licensing process. That merchant didn't understand why he could not produce a DFO licence.

That's one challenge. Another example is when the Nisga'a go outside their territory and they make a purchase, they're often asked for the federal government status card. Well, the Nisga'a don't necessarily have to carry those anymore. They have a Nisga'a photo identification card. So to be asked to produce the federal government card in order to get the tax relief that they negotiated into their specific treaty is difficult for them, because not all of them have those anymore.

Another example is the challenge they face when they go into the financial lending institutions. The Nisga'a go to try and borrow to possibly start a business or build a new home, and many of the financial institutions — certainly at the grass-roots level — have not taken the time to understand that land possession in the Nisga'a Valley can be used as collateral.

These are examples that the minister talked about, which are walls and not bridges to other communities. The future of all British Columbia has never been as bright — for me, for you and for the Nisga'a Lisims people. Understanding the Nisga'a final agreement is a challenge for all of us. Working within the agreement is a challenge for many. I hope this topic and this opportunity will help some understand how important this issue is to me and to my constituents that I represent who live in the Nisga'a Valley.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to personally thank Councillor Kevin McKay for his wisdom and assistance in helping to gather the facts and the history of this very important treaty. Councillor McKay is a member of the village of Laxgalts'ap government, and he is, like you, the Speaker of the Nisga'a Lisims government.

Hon. G. Plant: I call public bills in the hands of private members and private members' motions, in particular. I believe there is a motion of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — No. 9.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 9 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

D. MacKay: My motion can be found in the New Era document, and I'm going to read from the New Era document where it says that we will continue as government to pressure the federal government to scrap the mandatory gun registration and put those resources into fighting crime.

This morning at 6 o'clock I was up cutting moose meat for a Hungarian goulash that I will be serving to the government caucus at our next caucus meeting on Tuesday, October 28. The purpose of that statement is to advise those listening that the moose I referred to was shot with a rifle. It was not beaten with a stick, a rock or a spear or some sharp object. It was shot with a rifle. Hunting in this province and in this country is a sport. It's something we've been doing for years.

First of all, Bill C-68 is a piece of federal legislation, and I'd like to remind the House why we're here talking about Bill C-68. Bill C-68 was introduced following a horrific shooting in Montreal by a chap by the name

of Marc Lepine. He shot and killed 14 young women on December 6, 1989, at the University of Montreal. The shock and horror of that day was felt across Canada and still is today. That is the reason I'm speaking today and I'm opposing Bill C-68.

What is the purpose of legislation? Governments create legislation to protect the public from harm. The protection can be from personal harm or from loss of property. We have to ask: do we need new legislation to protect us from what happened in Montreal?

Let's look at what the intent of that legislation is. The legislation requires all gun owners in Canada to register all firearms. This is in addition to the handgun registration we have had in Canada since 1934. I would remind members that people are still killed today with handguns, in spite of a handgun registration that's been with us for a long time.

I'm going to take you back now to 9/11 and that terrible tragedy that happened in New York City. Three thousand people lost their lives on September 11. They didn't lose their lives because of handguns; they lost their lives because some people had box cutters. Because of box cutters, a sharp instrument, 3,000 people lost their lives — not handguns.

I'd like to read to you what the definition of a firearm is: "A firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and is capable of causing serious bodily harm or death to a person…." That's what a firearm is.

What else is a firearm? What else can be considered dangerous? I would ask the members in this chamber to look at the glass on my desk, the blotter on my desk or the desk itself, my chair or the Speaker's chair. They are all inanimate objects. They were made by humans to serve as tools for specific purposes. A firearm is an inanimate object. It was made by humans to be used by humans. None of these inanimate objects are capable of doing anything without human interaction.

The objects I mentioned, excluding the firearms, are here because we brought them here. A firearm is no different. It must be picked up and used by a human. The use of firearms is a source of entertainment and hunting for some people. The only one thing they have in common is that they all require human interaction to make them do what we want them to do.

This begs the question: do we, as legislators, regulate the behaviour of wrongdoers to protect the public from human objects? It also begs the question: do we have legislation to protect people from the unlawful behaviour of those who use objects such as firearms?

Let's stop for a moment and look at the Criminal Code of Canada, specifically at offences dealing with firearms. In our existing Criminal Code of Canada I found, on a cursory examination, 24 sections that deal with the use of firearms in Canada. Section 85 is a good example. It talks about the use of a firearm during the commission of an offence. It carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment and a minimum of one year consecutive if a firearm is used in the commission of an offence.

There are 25 other sections that deal with the illegal use of firearms. If you use a firearm during the commission of a robbery, you're going to do one consecutive term in addition to the time you get for the robbery, if they proceed with that particular section.

I'd just like to talk for a few moments about section 85. I haven't been able to find how many people have actually been convicted under section 85 of the Criminal Code, which carries a mandatory one-year consecutive sentence. I suspect the reason that happens is that when people are charged with a criminal offence and the use of a firearm, a deal is made and section 85 is dropped because it's going to carry a one-year consecutive sentence to anything else. That is usually what takes place for a guilty plea, and that's wrong. That section is designed to punish people who use firearms. We don't need Bill C-68 to do what section 85 could do for us.

What we, as government, should be doing is insisting that Crown counsel proceed under section 85 when a firearm is in fact used during the commission of an offence. So let's stop for a moment and have a look at Bill C-68, and see what it's done and what has been the cost of this legislation. This program has almost exclusively targeted law-abiding citizens — hunters and sports shooters — not criminals. By definition, they are criminals because they do not comply with legislation.

To date, eight of the provinces and territories have opted out of the administration of the gun registry, and I am pleased that B.C. was one of them. It does not track 131,000 people prohibited from owning firearms. To date, it has licensed only two million of the government's estimated 3.3 million gun owners. The list goes on. There are more, but time prevents me from listing them right now. This is not a one-time process; this is an ongoing process. A five-year firearms licence renewal will follow the implementation, and the gun registration is taking place now.

I would just like to quickly read a couple of letters I received from constituents on how strongly they feel opposed to Bill C-68. This one is from Mike Puhallo, and it's directed to Mr. Bush. It reads:

           We wish you good luck in your war
           as you stand upon the brink
           of your big chance to prove your manhood
           where your poppa chose to blink!
           You know, we were on our way to help you
           with everything that would fly or float
           but our helicopter fell out of the sky
           and kind of busted up our boat.
           If you need help for a ground attack
           I'm afraid we just can't be the ones
           because our army clerk in Petawawa
           forgot to register our guns.

I have a constituent from Burns Lake, and I'd like to read just a part of the letter he sent to the government of Canada. He says:

In support of my motion, what we have to do, as government, is target individuals — individuals, not objects. So I encourage all members of this chamber to support my motion, to ask the federal government to scrap the gun registry and put that money back into policing and the court system to deal with what I consider to be a more than adequate existing policy.

P. Bell: I rise to support Motion 9, but I come at it with a bit of a different perspective, I think. I come at it from the perspective of one who was born in urban British Columbia and now lives in rural British Columbia.

I spent the first 20-some years of my life living in Vancouver. I recall that at the time, if you had walked up or down the street and visited 100 homes, you might have found half a dozen guns in all 100 of those homes. Now, living in Prince George, if you went up and down the street and visited 100 homes, I suspect you would find 300 or 400 in that same number of homes. It's a different culture. It's a different lifestyle we choose to live, and certainly hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation are a large part of that culture.

I think it's important from the diversity perspective of British Columbia and of Canada that this government take a firm stance, as we have done, with regard to the firearms registry. I am very pleased with the actions of our Attorney General, our Solicitor General and our Premier in this matter. They have very clearly said to the federal government that we do not see this as an efficient use of money to take a billion dollars over the years, completing in '04-05, and to spend it on the registry.

Surely, there is a better method to combat crime. That really was the original intent of this bill — to combat crime — as opposed to actually registering firearms, as the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has identified. If you were going to register everything that could be used in a crime, it would be literally impossible and overwhelming, and I think that is, quite frankly, what the federal government has found.

We have an opportunity here. We have a new Prime Minister coming forward within a matter of months. I believe he has an opportunity to reach out to rural British Columbia and rural Canada and say to them: "We understand that perhaps there have been some mistakes here, and we need to revisit this particular piece of legislation." People want to feel safe in their homes, and ultimately that is the key. That is where people want their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent. They are not interested in having it spent on a bureaucracy that has been developed around this particular initiative and, certainly, padded the pockets of some government employees.

I find it very disappointing that the federal government has gone down this road with this strategy. I think it makes no sense, and it certainly has done nothing to protect Canadians throughout our wonderful country and British Columbians throughout this province. I think we're better off to take that same billion dollars and put it directly into front-line policing, which is ultimately what the best solution is for the safety of Canadians and British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 2 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper. Shall consent be given?

D. Chutter: It's my honour to rise in the House today to speak to Motion 2 standing in my name on the order paper:

This motion recognizes the incredible contribution of resource development in rural communities to the health and education infrastructure of all communities. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, rural British Columbia has been termed the heartlands, and for a very good reason. It is our resource communities that ultimately drive the provincial economy, and the revenue generated from the heartlands provides the resources necessary to support health care and education in every corner of British Columbia. Natural resource industries contribute billions of dollars in revenue to the province each year.

The heartlands generate 70 percent of B.C.'s more than $30 billion annual exports, and on a per-capita basis, the heartlands generate three times the value of exports that B.C.'s major urban centres do. Those revenues go a long way toward improving our health care and education systems. Those revenues help us to build new schools in urban areas, where the population is booming, and those revenues help us meet the rising costs and increasing demands in our health care system. Over the course of the next year, we estimate health and education funding combined will rise to $16

The key to any industry is its workers, and when we talk about contributions of resource industries, we need to remember that each and every worker contributes greatly to our services in British Columbia. Beyond personal income tax, they support their local economies by buying goods and services and paying provincial sales tax. Whether it's forestry, tourism, mining, oil and gas, agriculture or fishing, the value of these industries cannot simply be measured in terms of dollars and cents. Those industries help people buy homes, raise families and put their children and grandchildren through college and university.

I'm proud to represent a region of the province where all the major industries, whether we're talking forestry and mining or agriculture and tourism, provide jobs for people and contribute to the overall wealth of British Columbia. The people in my riding have a blue-collar work ethic. We work hard and are extremely proud, knowing that the work we do contributes greatly to the overall growth and well-being of British Columbians from Vancouver to Fort Nelson, from Victoria to Campbell River. In Merritt and the Nicola Valley you will see ranchers, loggers and miners up well before dawn, headed off to work. Those industries and employees have been the backbone of Merritt for years, and I believe it is important to recognize that they are also the backbone of the entire province.

The contributions from workers in Merritt, Lillooet, Lytton, Hope, Keremeos, Logan Lake, Boston Bar, Spences Bridge and Princeton have all gone a long way to meet the health and educational needs of all British Columbians, and people in this region are anxious for more opportunities. We want to create more jobs and contribute even more to the needs of British Columbians. In Hope and Boston Bar, for example, green energy projects are in the early stage of development. Those projects will create jobs and contribute to the province's energy needs. In fact, the energy sector already provides more than $3 billion a year in revenue to government to support the services that we most value.

In Princeton activity continues to develop coalbed methane. Just the exploration process alone is creating jobs and helping the community. Mining exploration just south of Kamloops has the potential to reopen Afton Mine, which will create opportunities for business and workers in nearby communities such as Logan Lake.

We are committed to expanding resource development in rural British Columbia, the heartlands. The forest revitalization plan will provide new and exciting opportunities for the forest industry. The plan will make it easier for communities, first nations and the value-added sector to access the fibre they need to create jobs. Forestry contributes 25 percent of B.C.'s gross domestic product, making it an enormous contributor to the local economy. We have already made a number of changes to mining policies to encourage exploration, which is on the rise and will result in more jobs and opportunities for heartland communities.

The Premier announced in May a Rocks to Riches initiative that will see our government dedicate $2.1 million to a mineral development strategy. I am one of 15 MLAs who sit on the mining task force, which is gathering information on how we can bolster the mining industry through changes in our regulation and policies.

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management has proposed a new working forest policy that will give forestry more certainty and confidence. That will certainly benefit all resource industries, such as tourism, mining, oil and gas, agriculture — all of which contribute greatly to our health and education systems.

I believe these initiatives will make our resource industries stronger, and if our resource industries are stronger, our ability to provide services to all British Columbians will be stronger. That means a stronger health care system and a stronger education system.

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the hard-working men and women in the heartlands for their contributions to this province. We live in the greatest province in the greatest country in the world, and we should never forget their contributions towards this.

R. Visser: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes I think it's important that we as legislators and leaders remind ourselves of some of the larger and more simple truths that we have in our lives. I'm thankful to be here this morning to speak to my colleague's motion: Be it resolved that this House recognize the contribution of resource development in rural British Columbia to the health and education infrastructure of all communities.

Think about this. Come up to the North Island — forestry, mining, tourism, aquaculture, independent power production, oil and gas, and other primary industries. Companies like Boliden, Quinsam Coal, Stolt, Heritage, Marine Harvest, Canfor, Western-Doman, Interfor — those that are involved on the land, extracting value. Think of the companies like TimberWest sawmill, Quinsam Reman and others that are in primary breakdown, remanufacturing and value-added. Think of the contract loggers, the consulting foresters, the equipment manufacturers, parts and supplies, accounting and legal, engineering work and road construction.

I live in a part of the world that is a complex and integrated web of primary production, supply and the building of an economy. I live in a part of the world where we export a great deal of what we do and convert those exports into foreign currency. We generate that first dollar. It's that first dollar that cycles through the economy again and again and winds up producing for all of us in British Columbia, health care, education and other social programs.

I like talking about these things. They're important to me; they're important to my constituents. They're important to those folks who sit on that line cleaning fish and adding value to that fish at the aquaculture plants, at the packing plants. They're important for

those guys out on the hillside who drove all day on a day like today, where it's raining 30 millimetres, and they're going to put a choker around the log and drag it to a landing and send it to a sawmill. It's important for those guys on the greenchain that are pulling lumber. It's important for the folks underground. It's important for all of them that we understand and value their contribution to this province and what we are trying to build for all British Columbians.

What concerns me about this debate, and what prompted me to get to my feet on the floor of this Legislature, is the ignorance, the disregard and, frankly, the contempt among the people that are seeking to be the leaders of the NDP in this province, those folks who want to be the Premier of this province. Perhaps if they snuggle up to the Green Party a little more, that will help them in the polls. Perhaps it's just that they don't live or never lived in resource communities and don't understand the connection that we have to creating that first dollar. Either way, their statements so far in their leadership debate should send a tremble through what we call the heartlands of British Columbia.

Let me start with aquaculture. Here's what some of their candidates, the three candidates from the Island, had to say. Carole James: "Reinstate the moratorium on open-net fish farms." Nils Jensen: "Fish farming only in closed-containment pens." Leonard Krog fumed: "I won't buy farm fish, and I won't eat farm fish."

It's pretty clear to me those NDP leadership candidates are not on the side of the workers in my constituency. It's pretty clear to me that they don't understand. It's pretty clear to me that they haven't done their research. They haven't done their homework; they haven't looked at the science; they haven't applied the science. They haven't travelled out there and talked to those folks who work and deliver, for all British Columbians, value and that first dollar.

Carole James promising to reinstate the moratorium is akin to sending the signal that you're not welcome in British Columbia and exacerbates some of the problems that her previous government brought to that industry over the last decade of poorly sited farms and bad environmental regulation — all things that we've changed as we opened up this industry and provided them opportunity. Mr. Krog's comments emphasize the contempt that many NDPers have for this industry and the people who want to make it work, make it sustainable and turn it into what it's always been — and bring that out to the public — a science-based, honourable profession.

So they wipe out fish farming. You know, you win some; you lose some, I guess, if you're in the NDP. No more fish farms. That's fine. There's always oil and gas. Well, I don't think so. Carole James says no to offshore oil and gas. Nils Jensen said the moratorium should be extended. None of them has the guts to back an initiative that can create an immeasurable sense of incredible wealth for the province of British Columbia. They're saying no to folks in Prince Rupert; they're saying no to folks in Port Hardy. They say no to folks in Campbell River; they say no to folks across British Columbia. In fact, they're saying no to people in North Vancouver, in Victoria and all those shipyards that could potentially see the benefits of the development of a resource like this. Shame on them.

If our opportunities don't exist off the shores of Vancouver Island according to the NDP, maybe we can look underground. Maybe we can look up and down Vancouver Island and across British Columbia for coalbed methane. No, we're not allowed to do that, either, in the NDP world. You know, it's shameful. In fact, Carole James said that oil and gas is not a viable long-term solution for resource communities. Maybe you want to tell that to my colleague from Dawson Creek or Fort St. John or folks who want to build a future in Prince Rupert or folks like me who live on Vancouver Island, where there are coal seams and coalbed methane.

Maybe those aren't long-term jobs. Maybe Dawson Creek and the north is a figment of our imagination. Maybe the $418 million that was bid last month for oil and gas south of Dawson Creek was a figment of our imagination. Maybe that $418 million won't contribute to health care and education. I defy the people of the NDP to go and tell the people in the province of Alberta that oil and gas doesn't provide a long-term future. I defy them to go to Norway and tell them that offshore oil and gas doesn't provide them with a long-term viable future.

What about Mr. Krog saying: "What about independent power production? What about green power? What about those great opportunities that are developing across British Columbia, four of them on northern Vancouver Island?" Mr. Krog had the decency to say: "I applaud the government for getting Hydro involved in wind power, but I'm not happy about it being produced by private producers." You know, I just don't think he quite gets it. I just don't think he understands the value of the private sector and the way that we can unleash them, that we can draw in this money, that we can bring in this investment and see it returned to the people of this province.

Things like the wind farm in Holberg, Raging River near Port Alice, the three run-of-the-river projects in Nootka Sound — four, actually — and Green Island Energy that wants to convert a pulp mill into a cogeneration facility in Gold River, one that shut down years ago — this is private sector investment. They're coming to towns like Gold River, Tahsis, Zeballos, Port Alice and Holberg. They're going to generate property tax. They're going to take a hillside and turn that into valuable real estate that will be taxed by the municipality so that those municipalities can provide services to their citizens.

I don't understand why Leonard Krog and the rest of those leaders are so against private sector investment, are so against the development of independent power producers and all that they can offer to a Vancouver Island that is, frankly, power starved. Shame on those folks.

I think probably some of the most murky comments I've heard to date in the leadership — and I haven't even touched on forestry; I think I'm going to save that for another day — were from Nils Jensen. He says: "Increase taxes on industries that are negatively

affecting the environment." Where does he want to start? Around whose neck does he want to put his fingers? Whose jobs is he going to go after? Is he going after forestry workers on the North Island? Is he going after the oil and gas workers in the Peace River? Is he going after the fish plant workers in Prince Rupert? What is it they're trying to accomplish here?

We have a lot to be proud of in this province for the way that we generate wealth, the way that we approach the land base from a science perspective, the way we integrate all of the values that present themselves on the landscape and try to accommodate as many of them as humanly possible. Whether it's in forestry and the results-based Forest Practices Code, whether it's in mining and our reclamation and bonding strategies and the environmental stewardship practices they have to institute along the way, whether it's in ranching and the range practices act that we have brought forward…. Maybe it's in oil and gas. We just do it very well here.

For the NDP leadership candidates to stand up in public and say that these are dark days is shameful. To say that there's no future in this province for resource-dependent communities, that there is no future in this province for those folks who get rain on their lunchbucket every day — shame on them. I'm proud to support this motion. The resources in our heartlands communities provide a great deal of wealth for all of us in this province.

J. Les: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the motion presented this morning by my colleague from Yale-Lillooet. I wanted to rise briefly and address this motion because I find whenever I travel the heartlands of British Columbia, that is when my optimism truly soars. When we get to appreciate the vast resources of this province and how we have literally only scratched the surface of the exploitation of those resources to the benefit of our citizens, it is truly awe-inspiring. There can be no doubt as you look across British Columbia that a major segment of our future potential is going to come from the heartlands of our province.

We used to pejoratively refer to the heartlands as something beyond hope. I really am heartened to see that it is being excised, if you will, from our lexicon, because the heartlands are truly a great part of this province, represent fabulous potential, and the people of the heartlands only need to be given the opportunity to contribute very, very significantly to our economy. The heartlands have potential that we're not even aware of today. That has, frankly, been a historic fact, where quite often resources that are available — and of course always have been available — aren't useful until people find a particular use for those resources. For example, 100 years ago nobody knew what to do with the oil and gas resources or, in fact, how to get at them. Today they are a very significant contributor to our provincial economy.

Economies evolve, and the exploitation of natural resources evolves as well. It's not only that some of those natural resources come into play only when we find uses for those natural resources, but we also learn, over time, to exploit them in a much more environmentally sensitive and sensible way.

I had an opportunity this summer to travel to significant parts of the province with the task force on mining chaired by my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano. We visited many, many of the smaller communities in the heartlands of British Columbia and saw some very interesting things. In Ashcroft, for example, a plant that's recently been developed there, where they literally mine rock…. It's a very specific kind of rock that's very hard, and they process this material, and it becomes the grit that is impregnated into asphalt shingles — something I hadn't given any thought to before. As I watched this operation, with its hundreds of years' worth of supply of raw material and the 50 high-paying jobs that it has provided, I thought to myself: nobody thought of this five or ten or 15 years ago, but here we are today with this operation contributing very significantly, first of all, to the town of Ashcroft and, secondly, contributing financial resources to the province of British Columbia as well.

We also travelled to Barkerville — a community that, in the minds of many, belongs to the past history of the province. Well, I'm here to tell you that it belongs just as much to the future of this province. There is an awful lot of gold exploration going on in and around Barkerville, and I am convinced that the Barkerville area will become a major contributor of gold in the future. Of course, that will also help to rejuvenate the tourism availability of Barkerville and will help to rejuvenate that activity in Barkerville as well. We need to perhaps broaden our minds a little bit and think of how the transportation and infrastructure in and around Barkerville needs to be upgraded so that we can draw hundreds of thousands of tourists into the Barkerville area again every year.

Eskay Creek was a figment of someone's imagination only ten years ago, and yet today it is an operating gold mine in the northwest of our province employing 400 people, close to 200 of whom are members of the Tahltan first nation. It's a tremendous success story, providing employment in a part of the province that has been struggling financially and economically and, again, contributing resources to our provincial government.

As you travel the heartlands of British Columbia, you develop an appreciation, as well, of the vast farmlands that are part of the province in the Bulkley Valley, the Okanagan Valley, the Creston Valley and of course the Fraser Valley and a few other places in between. Many of these farmlands, interestingly, are underutilized or in some cases not utilized at all. They simply represent future potential.

When you see the Okanagan Valley, for example, and the way the winemaking industry has evolved and grown and progressed over the years clear through south to the American border, it is something to behold. When you understand as well, in the case of the Osoyoos Indian band, how they very strongly have gotten involved in that industry in a partnership with Vincor, where they soon will be western Canada's larg-

est wine producer…. I think these are things we should be very proud of, and these are the kinds of things we should be encouraging a lot more of.

The aquaculture industry. My colleague from the North Island referred to that in passing a few minutes ago. I was in Campbell River and in other North Island communities with him just about a year ago. What can be wrong with hundreds of people working in that industry, working in fish processing facilities, earning good pay and contributing to the province? There is so much more that can be done in a responsible aquaculture industry. The changes our government has made will enable that improvement in how that industry operates, and I'm very much looking forward to a significant expansion of that industry. I am convinced that it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. It is part of the natural bounty that we have in this province — this vast coast that we have, with the ideal growing conditions for fish — that can contribute again to the welfare of the residents of this province.

The oil and gas industry for many, many years was focused on the northeast of this province, and it is, of course, progressing westward from there. Again, vast resources — resources that we didn't even know existed ten years ago — are today providing for the basis of the $418 million royalty sale that we had here a couple of weeks ago.

As I said earlier, we've hardly scratched the surface. We've just begun when it comes to developing the economy of British Columbia. Ultimately, however, I think it's necessary to say, as well, that it is the people of the heartlands who will exploit those resources, and it is the people of the heartlands who will generate those economies. It's their initiative, it's their drive, it's their ambition, it's their enterprise, it's their commitment, and it's their knowledge. Those are the things that are important, in addition to the very availability of these natural resources, to have us all move forward.

I'm reminded of a placer miner, a lady in Likely, that we met a few months ago when we were up there. We asked her: "What is necessary? What do we need to do to help you in your particular industry?" She squared her shoulders and said: "You know what? All you need to do is just let us mine." I think that's what government generally needs to do: get out of the way. The knowledge is there, the desire is there, and the resources are there to really enable us to grow the future in British Columbia that we can all be proud of.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 29 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper. Shall leave be granted?

As you know, I'm always proud to stand and talk about Vancouver Island in this House. This past summer a private art gallery opened its doors in Nanaimo just a few steps away from the CIBC Centre for the Arts, which has been in existence for the last two years. This new culture business adds to the growing stature of arts in my community and the city and is a contributor to the rejuvenation of the city centre.

It's interesting, as well, that this past summer all reports I've seen indicate that tourism traffic in mid–Vancouver Island was significantly ahead of the previous year, bucking a downward trend in tourism numbers that has been seen in other parts of British Columbia and, I believe, across Canada. So I have to ask: are tourism and gallery openings connected? Well, certainly there's a correlation, and there's no doubt that the arts and cultural community the length and breadth of Vancouver Island is paying attention to tourism and to people who visit our Island in increasing numbers.

What's more certain is that one of our cultural icons in Nanaimo, the Bastion, did draw new visitors in 2003, because 2003 marked the 150th anniversary of the Nanaimo Bastion. It was built in 1853 as a Hudson's Bay Company fort, and it has been maintained in virtually its original condition by the citizens of Nanaimo ever since. It has even been moved twice and now stands 50 metres away from its original position, making it apparently ineligible as a location and a facility that would qualify for a national historic site designation, an issue on which I am working.

These examples from my constituency, just a small part of Vancouver Island, show how the arts and culture community is thriving. This activity is being replicated all over Vancouver Island. It's the development of arts and culture on Vancouver Island that provided one more reason why a poll of readers of the upscale Condé Nast magazine again chose Vancouver Island as North American island of the year in a recent poll. I know that the folks from Victoria want the bragging rights to this achievement in Condé Nast, but they shall not have it, because the reader poll was a win for the entire Island.

This recognition of and vote of confidence in Vancouver Island didn't come just because of our scenery, enviable though that may be. No, Mr. Speaker, it came because people from across Canada, around this continent and the world are beginning to understand that there is lots to do on Vancouver Island, including lots to offer in the way of arts and cultural entertainment. Our Island culture extends way beyond the sophistica-

tion of the concerts, dramatic productions, dance and opera of the theatres of Victoria, Chemainus and Nanaimo to name a few, but also magnificent museums — some large, some not so large — that document the history of two civilizations and enable us to peer into the various histories that defined the towns and villages of this Island. This includes the unique cultures and languages of aboriginal peoples. I believe that aboriginal governments and individual artists are starting to understand the huge asset that this uniqueness conveys and how it provides yet another key to tourism and economic development.

Let's stop for a moment and look at how native art is being shown and exhibited across the Island, in addition to what goes on at the Royal B.C. Museum across the street. In Duncan the Quw'utsun' Cultural and Conference Centre, formerly the Cowichan Native Village, is one of the most popular attractions in the area and features cultural displays and demonstrations. In the village of Cape Mudge on Quadra Island, the Kwagiulth Museum houses exhibits and artifacts detailing the culture and history of the Kwagiulth nation. There are many, many other examples on this Island of how aboriginal people are mainstream in terms of arts and culture.

Let me offer another example from Nanaimo. The passengers from the pocket cruise ships that visit our port have shown themselves keen to buy aboriginal art, thus opening one more door of opportunity for our aboriginal citizens.

Our culture goes way beyond what we often think of culture, arts and theatre. It encompasses outdoor adventure, including some of the best sport fishing in the world. It includes our reverence for the orca and grey whales which transit the waters around the Island. It includes the culinary arts and viniculture in some of the province's newest vineyards. It takes in craftsmen and craftswomen and artisans who are creating remarkable items from the products of their minds and from local goods.

I hope members unfamiliar with areas of the Island outside Victoria are beginning to get the picture. It is a picture that is growing in stature, thanks to the efforts of a great many individuals who are committed to arts and culture development on the Island.

I want to focus for a moment on the Arts and Cultural Highway. The Arts and Cultural Highway was conceived as a tourism product for Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast. The Arts and Cultural Highway highlights much of what I have mentioned and much more. It is an initiative which had its origins with Karl Schutz, the mastermind behind the building murals that made the town of Chemainus world famous and brought new hope to an entire community. It is part of the growing development of a tourism industry that is having a huge impact on Vancouver Island.

The B.C. Arts Council 2002-03 annual report says that while 50 percent of British Columbians agree that arts and culture activities improve our quality of life, only 15 percent believe that the economy benefits from arts and culture activities. On the contrary, I believe that every community on this Island has a proud and vibrant arts and cultural community that is contributing to the economic renewal that is going on in this province.

I ask that this House support this motion and indicate its support to every person associated with our arts and culture community, who — through the application of their skill, talent and originality — are helping to improve our tourism industry and the Island economy.

J. Bray: I rise to very strongly endorse the motion by the member for Nanaimo. Although he made some reference to Victoria's vaunted position in cultural tourism, I accept the challenge of Nanaimo as well.

I'm really pleased that this issue has been brought forward, because tourism is a multifaceted industry, and one of the facets of tourism that I think is underrepresented in the lexicon that we talk about in general in society is cultural tourism. Here in Victoria we have established an incredible array of cultural activities that really enhance the tourist visit and the family visit to Victoria.

I thought I would start my comments just by reading a few statistics that I think members of the House might find interesting with respect to cultural tourism. It's important to put that into context when we talk about why arts and culture is so critical to the economy of Vancouver Island and, for that matter, the economy of many communities across British Columbia. For instance, Canadian galleries and heritage institutions attract 114 million visitors annually. That's an incredible number of people who go to those attractions either as an ancillary activity while on vacation or in fact as their main reason for travelling. Cultural and heritage institutions generate $4.6 billion in foreign tourist revenue per year. That, in fact, represents economic advantages to communities from people travelling from outside of the country. On Vancouver Island you can see that our portion of that would make a significant contribution not only here in Victoria but to communities such as Chemainus, Nanaimo, Campbell River, Port Alberni. It becomes quite critical.

Cultural tourism represents 31 percent of overnight travel from the U.S.A. to Canada. Almost a third of all tourism stays in our hotels are related to cultural tourism. It's not a small segment or an elite segment of our tourist traffic. In fact, it represents a significant portion of our overnight travel from the U.S. On Vancouver Island that becomes even more critical, because as we expand cultural tourism, it allows people to stay overnight in Chemainus to attend the dinner theatre or in Nanaimo or here in Victoria, rather than taking day trips over to Butchart Gardens and back. Cultural tourism represents an additional draw, an add-on to our existing tourist visits.

American cultural tourists spend $2.7 billion annually in Canada. In other words, our American visitors

who are coming up specifically to view arts and culture in Canada spend almost $3 billion per year — again, not a minor amount of money. Of all international trips, 37 percent include a cultural component. This market has been growing at 15 percent per year, which clearly makes it one of the fastest-growing and largest-growing sectors of the tourist population.

As tourists age, as their families start to grow up and kids are leaving home or doing summer jobs, those that might have spent the family vacation going to beaches and campgrounds are now looking for a different type of travel. Vancouver Island is poised to take great advantage of that new and emerging market. I think the member for Nanaimo raises a valuable point — that communities can take advantage of it. You don't have to have the biggest museum or the biggest art gallery to take part in what this new emerging group of tourists is looking for, which is unique history, unique art and unique culture.

Tourists who travel for cultural events spend 38 percent more than the industry average. We have a growing sector — one of the fastest-growing sectors — that represents a significant portion of the tourist economy, and they spend over a third more than the average tourists. When a cultural tourist visits Chemainus, they have a larger impact in that local economy than the average tourist does. In catering to and expanding that market for Vancouver Island, you will have a very significant increase in the number of people who are going to spend money in those communities.

Success in cultural tourism is based on the availability of authentic, quality cultural products. An investment in organizational and capital infrastructure precedes marketing. It's critical that as we move forward for cultural tourism — and as the member for Nanaimo mentioned — we have to ensure that we have the product there. Vancouver Island is well poised in that aspect. We have several different and distinct first nations here on Vancouver Island who have established their own cultural identity and are now marketing that to the world, and that is attracting people. We have incredible infrastructure in arts and theatres not just in Victoria but also in other parts of the Island.

Certainly, here in Victoria — and I'm so pleased that the member for Nanaimo raised this — with the passing of Bill 2 in the spring, the Royal B.C. Museum has now become a stand-alone institution. That has allowed it to raise more substantial revenue — through donations, family bequests and other ventures — to invest in new exhibits and new opportunities to showcase British Columbia's culture and history and, in fact, to be an anchor for Victoria's cultural precinct. That, to me, is a very exciting idea. It means we can focus Victoria not just on the family vacationer but now on the cultural tourist.

Right now the Maritime Museum is looking at how it can redefine its vision and come to government with some new ideas on how it can move forward into the future and showcase British Columbia's and Vancouver Island's exceptional maritime history. The Maritime Museum has one of the most extensive maritime collections in North America. I know that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is working with the board on that particular issue.

The other issue I've spoken to you about in this House is the support for the Victoria Art Gallery's new, expanded 33,000-square-foot exhibition space in downtown Victoria. The art gallery attracts 54,000 visitors per year in a small residential location. Being downtown next to the Royal B.C. Museum — part of the cultural precinct — it would be able to showcase blockbuster art events of the highest magnitude that would add to our tourism package in the culture area. I think Victoria is poised to be a leader not just on Vancouver Island and not just in British Columbia but, in fact, in Canada in the area of tourism and culture.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.