Hansard -- Monday, March 1, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 21, 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

Introductions by Members		8875

Private Members' Statements		8875
	Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow)
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Ocean ranching
	B. Belsey
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Oil and gas
	R. Visser
	B. Belsey
	What do Vimy Ridge, Sir John A. Macdonald and D-Day have in common?
	K. Whittred
	R. Stewart

Motions on Notice		8883
	High school and post-secondary education of aboriginal youth (Motion 67) (continued)
	B. Locke
	D. Chutter
	Hon. T. Christensen
	R. Stewart
	V. Anderson
	B. Belsey
	J. Wilson
	Promotion of Canadian beef (Motion 3)
	W. Cobb
	D. MacKay

D. MacKay: Today I'm pleased to introduce two guests from Smithers. I have two guests down from the beautiful Bulkley Valley. They don't come down very often so when they do come, I'm very pleased to be able to stand and introduce them. I'd like to introduce Fred and Teresa Reitsma. I'd just like to qualify that a little bit further by saying that later on this morning, at about 11 o'clock, there is a motion being put before this House talking about the beef industry and the food safety issues we have in British Columbia. I would ask the House to please help me welcome Fred and Teresa Reitsma to the chamber.

P. Nettleton: Politics and science are on a collision course over the BSE or mad cow situation between Canada and the United States. The U.S. has talked of the necessity of finding science-based solutions to the BSE crisis, but now apparently that has just been talk. Truth is quickly falling victim to expediency, which will only continue to harm ranchers and producers in both countries who are caught in the middle of these games and political posturing that are now international in scope, with over 50 countries banning U.S. and Canadian beef.

This is not the time for blunders and short-term political solutions. The world is monitoring how we handle this situation because they barely have their own BSE situation under control, even with stringent regulations and controls in place.

European and Asian testing continues to show up further cases of BSE. The U.K., for example, had a further 763 BSE-infected cattle in 2003. The same is to be expected here in Canada as well as in the U.S. if we commit to greatly expand testing. The answer is not to sweep it under the rug, as the U.S. is attempting to do at the present time. It's time to face the facts, raise our standards and deal with the BSE risk in an open and honest manner.

I realize that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has a dilemma on its hands. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. If through increased testing more BSE cattle are found, exports can be further damaged. However, if testing isn't expanded, an epidemic could break out through cross-contamination. For example, cattle-derived pig and chicken feed has been found mixed in with cattle feed at more than 30 percent of feed mills tested in the United States. "Say it ain't so and it will go away" is not going to happen. Such a band-aid solution will not help Canada's beef producers in the long term. A long-term solution needs to be worked out truly based on the best science available with assistance and cooperation from other countries outside of and in addition to the United States.

It's an election year in the United States, and the same is likely in Canada. Politics is playing a major role already in this and every other issue that may prove contentious at election time. A political solution does not exist for BSE, but a political and financial decision needs to be made for the cattle industry, which is on the verge of collapse. What matters here is the intent on two issues: ongoing relief for the ranchers and producers; and the honest pursuit of a science-based resolution to BSE and animal disease control, which will likely encompass a lifestyle change for how the industry and the Ministries of Agriculture operate — both federally and provincially.

What is the current and accepted science in curbing and controlling BSE? As discovered by hard-hit countries in Europe, including the U.K., a cattle-to-cattle feed ban and a one-in-four cattle testing program — although superior to Canadian and U.S.A. measures — have still proven inadequate to fully halt BSE in Europe, as noted by the new cases found in the U.K. and Japan. In Great Britain blood transfusion is suspected in a new case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of mad cow disease, which is serious cause for concern.

One hundred percent testing of all cattle at three years and up needs to be seriously considered if we are to save the beef industry in Canada. In the U.K., through the process of biomagnification, it took only one BSE cow to infect more than two million cattle and kill 153 people so far. Biomagnification is the process by which toxins — in this case, BSE and the transmissible prions — build up or multiply in each successive link in the food chain, even possibly infecting the ground in which the carcass was incinerated. One hundred percent testing would ensure the opening of the Japanese and European Union markets to Canada. Also, country of origin would no longer be a problem if we tested every animal. The U.S. would then have to choose to go with full testing or lose markets indefinitely.

Cattle blood products are still being fed to cattle in Canada. Blood and spleen samples of infected cattle have shown BSE prions, as have some meat samples. I am still pressing for a complete ban on animal content in any and all animal feed, as I have been doing personally since May of 2003. The U.S. has banned the use of cattle blood in cattle feed; Canada has not. That's an issue for both the B.C. Minister of Agriculture and the federal minister to address.

Also in Europe, the BSE commission is now considering banning the use of tallow in milk replacer. Another BSE high-risk factor that needs to be addressed is

the advancing deboning procedures employed to maximize meat volume. Scientists are quite certain that the two original Alberta cows with BSE had the same prion configurations as those of over two million BSE cattle in the United Kingdom. More than 500 purebred U.K. cattle were imported to North America during the time that BSE was spreading, but no one knew what it was. All but a handful of those cattle disappeared for lack of records. They would have entered the food chain, and the BSE infection from that time is still infecting North America.

Japan and South Korea want all U.S. and Canadian cattle tested for BSE and the safety of U.S. beef exports assured before they will resume importing. The U.S. is resisting full testing for BSE, erroneously stating, for example, that the value of the beef product to Japan would not justify the cost of testing each animal. Does Canada want to follow on this path, placing cost and politics ahead of public safety? Does Canada want to follow the U.S. example of concealing research evidence in an attempt to open the borders of Canada and Mexico in order to justify to Europe that the North American crisis is over? Is this the kind of help Canada wants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whereby borders are opened based on falsified or incomplete research?

Bending science to make it fit a policy or political decision is, at the least, unethical and further endangers the industry and the consumer. U.S. Agriculture secretary Ann Veneman is a former food industry lawyer and lobbyist and has representatives of the National Beef Cattlemen's Association and other industry groups among her top staff members, the New York Times reports.

P. Nettleton: It is a senior scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture who has blown the whistle on the department's attempts through top officials to pressure the USDA scientists to prematurely declare food products safe before it has been scientifically confirmed.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to respond to the member's statement today about BSE and the impact on the ranching community in British Columbia and in Canada.

First of all, I want to say that certainly he has correctly identified a lot of the issues with respect to BSE. He talked about the political aspects of that issue. He talked about the need to have decisions based on good science, and that is my starting point.

We had the one cow on May 20. Canada did a full investigation. On August 8 the United States made an announcement that would lead to a staged opening of the border based on the best possible science. Then we had a second cow.

I want to confirm that the full investigation in the United States is completed. The OIE panel — that's the international panel looking into that incident — is also completed, and the agencies in the United States are collating that information and will be proceeding on the basis of good science to make some decisions.

I think it is very important to emphasize that Canada and the United States are in what the OIE classifies as a minimal-risk category. That is a result of discussions that have been held between Canada, the United States and Mexico with the OIE. With this second cow in the United States, it simply confirms that the United States is in the same category.

That is somewhat different than the situation in Europe, where we've seen massive numbers of cases — about 180,000 cases through the 1990s — and Japan, where there are a lot more cases. The government response has not always been the same level of thoroughness as in Canada and the United States, so there is a different risk category for North America at this point compared to either Japan or Europe.

I think it's very important that we continue to move forward with good risk analysis and good science to go with it. On that point, on that basis, there is very active discussion between Canada and the United States. In our recent visit to Washington, D.C., we certainly had the opportunity to talk both to the issues of science with the people in APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in the States, and to the political side. In talking to the senior people in APHIS, they clearly indicate that they are intending to move ahead. They are intending to move ahead by, very shortly, posting for further comment the interim border-opening proposal that they had tabled last November, which mainly involves allowing live cattle from Canada to go to the U.S. for slaughter or for feeding for slaughter. That proposal, in the very short term, will go for comment. The comment period will be 15 to 30 days. All indications are that after that, the people in APHIS will make some decisions.

Now, in talking to these people with other provincial ministers and in talking to the state directors of agriculture — all the elected people we met with — there was certainly a recognition that it's time to move on and that it is in the interests of the United States to, first of all, work out things with Canada and Mexico. That's the process we're in right now. There's recognition that there will be no credible opportunity to discuss potential border openings with all of the countries the member mentioned that have closed borders to the United States. There will be no opportunity to do that unless Canada and Mexico are able to reconcile, on the basis of good science, their situation trading in North America.

Speaking to the political side, there was certainly, first of all, a recognition that the United States is in the same category as Canada. That recognition exists not only in the food safety agency but at the elected level. There's a recognition that we have to move forward together on a harmonized basis in a North American integrated market, as we have always been. There is significant political motivation in the United States. In

some of the industry — certainly part of the beef industry, part of the packing industry — the jobs issue and consumer interests dictate that they move ahead with a border opening with Canada.

P. Nettleton: Funding needs to be allocated for research and development of a BSE test that can be conducted on living animals. In the meantime, there are alternative and more efficient testing methods available that the USDA is dragging its heels on considering due to the political and industry pressure close to the BSE issue. Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the Nobel prize-winner who explained the cause of mad cows, produced a rapid mad-cow test which the USDA is now reluctantly considering.

As a layman researching this issue, I'm beginning to understand the complexity and magnitude of this problem. The actual risk to the public of contracting this disease, which resides primarily in the brain and spinal cord of infected cattle, is minimal but certainly not zero. The problem is: allowing it to proliferate through denial and ignoring the science. Certain ethnic groups in the U.S. and Canada insist on purchasing and consuming animal parts, such as cow brains, which are high risk. This is a situation that needs to be addressed, particularly in light of the recent case in England which may have been transmitted via blood transfusion.

Where does all of this leave the ranchers and producers of our province? With a debt load and a product surplus, they are caught in the middle of an international crisis not of their own making. How much can the government be expected to do in these difficult times? As I have stated, the provincial government should not wring their hands and say it's a federal problem, and I am sure the minister will agree.

I note that the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture has not surveyed or fully assessed the extent or the nature of the hardships relative to the uniqueness of the B.C. cattle industry when compared, for example, to Alberta, where the majority of beef is raised to slaughter. It causes me to wonder how much the federal assistance is geared to or is appropriate to B.C. applicants. What I do know is that there is a need in the B.C. cattle industry that is critical. I'm sure the minister knows that and would agree with that. It is imperative that it be addressed and be addressed soon.

B. Belsey: I want to speak today about ranching. I'm sure some of you might wonder what a coastal MLA, an old salt like myself, might know about the topic of ranching, but the ranching I want to speak about is ocean ranching.

Ocean ranching is a form of finfish aquaculture that is practised around the world. Unlike fish farming, ocean ranching includes the release of smolts into the wild to fend for and feed themselves. The ocean rancher relies on the legendary homing ability of these fish to guide them back to the point where they were released for harvest. The ocean rancher very carefully takes full advantage of the inherent instinct these fish have to return to their place of origin.

In other words, in ocean-ranching aquaculture, the fish are only cultured for a short period of their life cycle and then released into the wild to mature, whereas in fish farming the fish are kept for their entire life in pens. Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages specific to their industry. Certainly, both industries have helped to reduce the sport fishing and commercial fishing pressure on our wild salmon stocks, but neither industry is free from controversy. Today I would like to take a little closer look at ocean ranching, its benefits and some of the concerns — and certainly the interest among first nations communities in the possibility of pursuing this form of aquaculture.

The Alaskans to our north have participated in aquaculture for many years. In Alaska the term "aquaculture" means ocean ranching. An association known as the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, or SSRAA, incorporated and manages Alaska's ocean ranching. Today there are a large number of hatcheries participating in ocean ranching across southeast Alaska. The industry is well developed in Alaska, with the targeting of some hatchery fish released into specific areas within the region as targets for the commercial fishing industry. The remaining fish are managed by SSRAA in terminal areas for brood stock, cost recovery and the rotational fisheries.

One very important aspect of ocean ranching is the designation "common property," which means that the fish become available to everyone and the property of no one when they're released into the wild. These cultured fish, once mature, can be captured as common property in a variety of fisheries.

The initial phase of SSRAA came about in the seventies, when the Alaskans experienced about a 70 percent decline in their fish stocks. The Alaskan government began restorative measures, and fishermen demanded a role through lobbying efforts. Fishermen did not want private aquaculture or ocean ranching similar to the Oregon experience. They preferred to have fisheries in which they could participate and not face competition with large corporations. Instead, they pushed for non-profit regional associations which allowed them input into the policies and discussions. The enabling capital to fund the association was available through the large revenues generated from North Slope oil and gas development revenues. That's an interesting point. Imagine offshore oil and gas helping the fishing industry.

The issue in British Columbia concerning ocean ranching lies solely with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Any movement towards developing and improving the ocean-ranching industry in British Columbia waters can only take place with the approval of the federal government DFO.

Ocean ranching has attracted the attention of first nations communities in many coastal communities. First nations are currently determining if a broad-based

partnership or coalition can be established that is willing to consider ocean ranching as a potential economic opportunity for British Columbians in coastal communities. Last fall I attended a meeting of the northern Native Brotherhood of British Columbia and met with specific groups who were very interested in ocean ranching or terminal fisheries, which is another form of ocean ranching.

Let me just digress here a minute and explain quickly what a terminal fishery is. We're all familiar with the normal salmon cycle — how salmon hatch in rivers and creeks, how they head for open water, return upon maturity, swim back to the location in which they hatched and then spawn and die. A terminal fishery is slightly different. The salmon are hatched in captivity and then released into the wild in areas that are considered non-productive salmon-bearing grounds. When they return to that area, they're caught, processed and sold. Brood stock is gathered from the returning fish and hatched for next year's release.

To the biologist, the hatchery breeding procedures for both ocean ranching and terminal fisheries release into the wild genetically altered salmon through the selective breeding process employed by each hatchery. The returning fish to any stream could mix and undoubtedly have mixed with the natural wild breeding salmon and result in an offspring that is not genetically pure for that area. Right or wrong, this is perceived as a problem by many.

Another concern with ocean ranching is the pressures these extra fish, when released into the wild, may place on the natural food supply. The concern is the possible reduction of this food supply for the indigenous wild salmon in the area. For the ocean ranch, the cost of raising fish to the point of release, the catching, the processing and the marketing of returned salmon must show a profit. This can be challenging as the fish, once released, become common property and can be caught by both the sportsman and the commercial fisherman.

I'll sit down now and let the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries respond.

Deputy Speaker: In the gallery today I have three members from the Sechelt first nations. We have Chief Councillor Garry Feschuk. We have their finance person, Barbara Joe, and we also have Lenora Joe, who is with the Sechelt band's education…. I would like the members of the House to make them feel very welcome here in Victoria.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I am pleased to respond to the member's statement on ocean ranching. Ocean ranching involves rearing juvenile fish in land-based hatcheries, as the member has said, and releasing them into rivers and oceans where they complete their life cycle and then return to their point of release for harvesting. Ocean ranching has been practised mainly with chum and pinks in terms of salmon. I do know that some people have practised a form of ocean ranching, a very basic one, in that they've held live halibut that have been captured for future sale. They've held them for a period of time for future marketing, thereby retaining a fresh product and being able to market as the market allowed.

In B.C. enhancement activities such as the federally funded salmonid enhancement program have similarities to ocean ranching. This program was initiated in the 1970s to augment stocks for commercial and recreational fisheries but now primarily focuses on enhancing, preserving and rehabilitating natural stocks. In Alaska ocean ranching is used primarily to augment wild stocks for commercial fishing purposes. Other models of ocean ranching include private for-profit commercial hatchery programs, public resource programs and private non-profit hatchery programs.

A number of proposals for ocean-ranching opportunities in B.C. have been made over the years. Some wild fish stocks are diminished, and private enterprises have proposed enhancing wild stocks for commercial purposes. Although the province generally supports the principle of common-property fisheries for the benefit of all, interest in ocean ranching in B.C. is giving cause to further consider its potential.

It is important to note that the federal government, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, has the final say on ocean-ranching programs. Ocean ranching, as the member has said, can also provide economic benefit for B.C.'s coastal communities, including first nations.

The common-property fishery in Alaska has benefited from the increased salmon runs, which can partially be attributed to the enhancement program, and they do have a very major enhancement program in Alaska. However, private not-for-profit hatcheries, in many cases, have not been able to fully recover their costs and still rely heavily on funding from the Alaskan government.

Developing an ocean-ranching program policy in coordination with the federal government, which has regulatory authority over most aspects of this activity, is an interest of our ministry. We can do that under the framework agreement that we have with the federal government, including the overall agreement — the Canada–B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers — and then the Canada–B.C. MOU on aquaculture development.

We have the option of exploring the possibility of piggybacking an ocean-ranching program on an area management approach for aquaculture, which is currently under development. This approach could be applied to assist in developing a staged approach to the implementation of an ocean-ranching program.

I thank the member for his interest. I know that in Prince Rupert there certainly will be opportunities to explore the ocean-ranching program, and I look forward to working with the member and his community on greater endeavours in this area.

B. Belsey: I thank the minister. I know he is pressed for time. He has a meeting starting at 10:30, so I do appreciate him responding to my statement.

In closing, I would just like to point out a few facts. Finfish aquaculture appears to me to be a natural fit for first nations given their history in the fishing industry. They are people of the salmon. In the community that I represent we have the Tsimshian nation, and they are very involved with the salmon. They have an anthology that dates back many years, stories they tell about the salmon. I'd just like to read from one of the books that they provided me. It's an anthology told by the Tsimshian people.

There is much speculation out there about what is right and what is wrong regarding finfish aquaculture, including ocean ranching. One thing that one cannot dispute is that we struggle as a world as the demand for food continues to grow. No one can deny the fact that salmon is an excellent source of relatively inexpensive protein. British Columbia has that opportunity to provide the world with much of that protein, which is badly needed.

R. Visser: Today I want to spend a few moments talking about the possibilities for offshore oil and gas in British Columbia. People of the North Island have long talked about the possibility of constructing a new and exciting industry off their shores. Since the late 1960s, when exploration stopped, we have seen this industry develop around the world. These resources are exploited in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and countless other nations. Closer to home, the U.S. has offshore oil and gas industries in Louisiana, Texas, California and, closer to home, Alaska in the Cook Inlet just north of Prince Rupert. Here in Canada we're producing or exploring in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., Quebec and, surprisingly enough, even in Lake Erie in Ontario.

I want to stop for a minute and compare and contrast two jurisdictions. In 1967 Norway and British Columbia both started an offshore oil and gas exploration program. Shortly thereafter, British Columbia stopped, with moratoriums through the seventies and eighties by the federal and provincial governments. Norway kept going. Last year it was found that they have $140 billion in a heritage trust account. British Columbia is $30 billion in debt. There's a bit of a difference there. It's not just about the money for our communities on the coast of British Columbia. It is about seeing these opportunities being exploited and understood around the world and developed, in a sense of having to sit on the sidelines.

How can British Columbia move forward? How can we reach out to those coastal communities? How can we reach out to those first nations and, indeed, the rest of this country and bring them on board and have the moratorium lifted? Well, we need to build capacity in this province — on the coast, across the province and across this nation — a capacity of information and understanding. This will help us build confidence. We need to reach out to those people in those communities, where they live, with this information. That includes first nations — the Kitasoo, the Kyuquot, the Quatsino and the Haida — in their own communities.

We need to be careful and not overestimate the benefits of this industry or its potential. We cannot underestimate the risks. We have to plan, as we move forward, for both. We have to take honest risk assessments from safety, environmental and economic perspectives. We have to use precautionary principles as we move forward. We have to use best practices and inventory those practices around the world that are working the best, accumulate them here and use them as the starting point. We have to use that starting point and then adopt the principle of continuous improvement. We have to succeed again and again and again and be better and get better and better. We have to set targets about safety and the environment, and we have to meet those goals.

The provincial government is going to take a lead in this. We have information sessions carrying on throughout the coast right now. We have mentioned it in the throne speeches, and the Premier has mentioned it on several occasions. We have allocations in the budget, and we have an offshore oil and gas team. We want to reach out to that federal government and have them walk with us on this path of exploration and understanding of the potential of this industry.

Norway has four million people. British Columbia has four million people. Norway has a northern coastline. British Columbia has a northern coastline. We have similar weather patterns. We have some differences, but we have similarities in other jurisdictions. They have built one of the best standards of living in the world. British Columbia shouldn't be far behind.

We need to build this confidence. We need to build this regime, this regulation, this path going forward — the framework for success. It's not going to be easy. We're going to have to reach out to everyone we can, because the stability and confidence that our regulatory

world can provide is going to have to bring the people of the province on board and then subsequently bring the industry on board. It is this industry, the offshore oil and gas industry, that is going to provide the money and the investment — the billions of dollars of investment — it is going to take to see and realize some of our goals.

B. Belsey: Mr. Speaker, through you I want to thank my colleague from North Island for bringing this topic up and giving me the opportunity to speak to it.

He has shared with us, certainly, a vision for the future and where we should go. I think maybe what I will talk about a little is a bit of the past and where we've been with offshore oil and gas. You know, few realize that as early as 1913 we explored for oil and gas on Graham Island, part of the Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii. We spent a number of years looking for oil and gas on that island. There are areas on the island where oil comes right up to the surface.

We moved offshore in the sixties. Shell Canada drilled eight wells offshore — six in the Hecate Strait and two in the Queen Charlotte Sound. Chevron undertook marine seismic work. The interesting thing is that with all that drilling that has gone on — certainly the offshore — using 1960s technology, there was never a spill. There was never an impact, a noticeable impact, on the marine environment — the flora or the fauna. Today we have 2004 technology. I personally think it is safe.

I hear some of the criticisms or concerns of people, and I want to talk a bit about them — drilling mud, for example. Years ago there was diesel fuel used in the drilling mud. The fines were dumped overboard, and there were heavy metals in that drilling mud. Today the industry has changed. The drilling mud comes to the surface, they separate out the fines in the oil, and that is taken onshore and disposed of in safe disposal areas — designated areas.

We hear about earthquakes in the Hecate Strait and the Queen Charlotte Sound. You know, there are B.C. engineering firms that are world leaders in the design of drilling rigs, believe it or not, that are used in some of the most earthquake-prone zones in the world. That's B.C. technology. So of course if we move drilling rigs or drill ships or jack-up rigs or semi-submersibles or whatever into our coastal waters, they're going to have to be designed, and we have the people that can design them.

We hear often about hydrocarbons in the water through oil spills. There was an interesting report done by S.L. Ross Environmental Research that estimated about a million metric tonnes of hydrocarbons get into the marine environment annually. In their analysis they identified where the percentages are: 21.5 percent in tanker accidents — not in a drilling program but in tanker accidents; 9.2 percent is pumped in from bilge being pumped out of ships. Mother Nature herself contributes about 6 percent in natural oil leaks. I have heard from fishermen who fish in the Hecate Strait how they can pull up their crab traps and some of them will have oil on them. There is natural seepage. And 1.5 percent — less than 2 percent — gets into the marine environment from drilling programs.

We hear about the concerns for weather in the Hecate Strait, the Dixon Entrance, the Queen Charlotte Sound. We hear about wind. The winds and the storms in that area are nowhere as severe as those they get in the Atlantic, yet they drill there safely.

We hear about wave action. Again, the Atlantic is much more severe. The weather there is much more severe than we have off our coasts. We don't have to contend with ice. They contend with ice off our east coast and certainly in the Atlantic.

Job opportunities. You know, I had an opportunity to work in the Arctic during the Dome drilling years up there. I was a commercial diver up there, and I saw how people were employed in that industry.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the member for North Island for the opportunity to talk about oil and gas.

R. Visser: I do share the enthusiasm and have been trying to catch up to the member for North Coast with his broad understanding of this industry.

I think it behooves us in this province to create an industry that leads the world in the creation of wealth and opportunity for our people. I think we can lead the world in environmental management and in human safety — worker safety. I think we can focus on continuous improvement, and I think we can leave a legacy of technology and innovation. Most importantly, we can rekindle the spirit of entrepreneurialism and success in the communities along British Columbia's coast.

We've got some very specific areas and concerns that we have to address. We have lots of environmental assessment and monitoring to do. We have to figure out and build a fiscal regime. Who shares in this wealth? First nations, the province, the federal government.

We have to identify and recognize regional benefits. How do we build in success for communities from a jobs and economy perspective? How do we manage the tenure issues, the rights issues, the lease issues and the auctions and the ownership of those? How do we deal with the jurisdictional issues with the federal government, the provincial government, the coastal communities and first nations? How do we foster and generate cooperation in a sense that we can all move forward together?

We also have to build the operational world — the regulatory world for operations. Those will be activity-specific requirements. They're going to be around exploration and the use of seismic. We need a regime for that, which builds confidence. For the exploratory drilling and production drilling — we need to build confidence there. For the production and transport of offshore oil and gas — we have got to have a regulatory world for that.

Ultimately, we have to have a regulatory world and a policy and a goal around decommissioning and tak-

ing apart this industry and what kinds and types of legacies it will leave. It has to leave positive legacies in this province and not just money. It has to leave a sense of innovation, a sense of spirit. It has to leave a sense that here in British Columbia we can achieve anything that we want to achieve, that we can reach new goals, that we can set new standards, that we can lead this world. I think an offshore oil and gas industry is one of the great places we can start.

K. Whittred: It's my privilege to rise in the House this morning to bring Education Week into the calendar. We all celebrate, I'm sure, the schools in our communities and the hard work and dedication of our educators across the province.

The topic of my presentation this morning is: what do Vimy Ridge, Sir John A. Macdonald and D-Day have in common? Well, according to the Dominion Institute, these are all events from Canadian history or persons about which Canadians know very little. In fact, according to the Dominion Institute, 44 percent of Canadians think that D-day marks the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 54 percent could not identify Sir John A. Macdonald as Canada's first Prime Minister, and 76 percent of teachers of history are embarrassed by the lack of knowledge Canadians have about their history.

Today — and what could be more appropriate than a former history teacher? — I want to shine the spotlight on a history program that I think is trying to alleviate some of those issues that are addressed by the Dominion Institute. In keeping with our theme of both the budget and the throne speech of bringing out the best in British Columbians and being the best that we can be, my topic today is about those values.

The spotlight today is on a program called the Begbie Contest. So, what is the Begbie Contest? Well, first of all, let me just mention to the House who, in fact, Mr. Begbie was. Matthew Baillie Begbie was sent from England to the new colony of British Columbia in 1858. His job was to bring law and order, and with the assistance of others, he brought that law and order. He was a man known for his fairness. He treated people alike whether or not they were miners, whether they were black, whether they were Chinese — whatever. They were all included in his law and order mandate.

The one thing Begbie was known for was that he had a pan-Canadian attitude. He was one of the history figures in British Columbia that really was instrumental in bringing British Columbia into part of the nation from sea to sea. But more important to our purpose is why the Begbie Contest was created.

About ten years ago a group of teachers of history — some of them active, some of them retired — got together and said: "You know, in our schools we have a multitude of outlets for students who have mathematical abilities or science abilities. We have science fairs, we have math contests, but we have nothing for those students who tend to excel in those kinds of skills that we find in history."

So they decided they were going to try to put together a competition that would reward those students. It would give students in high school an opportunity to compete for prizes about their knowledge of Canadian history, but this wasn't to be a contest of trivia. It was, in fact, a contest about those kinds of skills which students develop in studying history. These skills are those that give underlying discipline in many cases to almost any subject. I think it was Winston Churchill who said, "Study history. Study history. It is the secret of statecraft," believing that the kinds of values and skills you learn are those that are needed to be a great nation.

The purposes of this contest were to increase the profile and popularity of Canadian history among students, parents and the public. It was to give students an opportunity to examine the common knowledge that educated citizens have in order to make informed decisions about the future. It was to expose students to primary sources that are used by historians and to introduce them to the sort of historical discipline that is needed by scholars. It was to challenge students to think critically about historical and contemporary problems.

One of the really big problems teachers sometimes face is that while critical thinking is an essential skill that everyone wants to develop, it is a difficult thing to measure and to test. This was to be a means to do that, and of course it was to encourage academic achievement at a time when the world is becoming increasingly competitive. These were all reasons why this particular contest came into being.

Now, where does this particular program want to go from here? It has been operating in the province for a number of years. Its goal is to become a truly national contest from province to province, right from Newfoundland to British Columbia. For the last several years it has been available in both languages so that students can write the exam in either French or English. However, like many organizations, it's been tough sledding for this organization. They have formed themselves into a society. They have got sponsors. They are expanding their horizons. They have now gone to the stage where they are a society and are able to get donations that are tax-receiptable. They have contracted with a variety of organizations in order to pursue their goals. Over the next few years, I'm sure, we wish them well, and we hope they will continue to expand their program. Certainly, they are hoping there will be a greater variety of students and larger numbers as the years go by.

R. Stewart: It is my pleasure to respond to this exciting topic of history and how we as a province can help celebrate the excellence of our students and help foster outstanding understanding by our students and by our classrooms of all manner of things that are very important. The member for North Vancouver–

Lonsdale makes some interesting and, I think, really important and informed points about the kinds of celebrations and nurturing we can do of those types of critical thinking that are really important as we try to bring out the best in British Columbians. It is, I think, particularly important this week, Education Week, that we look at those sorts of things.

About two weeks ago I was sent out by our children to pick up a movie from the local video store, and they were relatively disappointed when I brought home a documentary. The documentary I brought home was given two thumbs up by the most famous of the critics. It was called Spellbound, and it documented the experiences of eight young students as they went through the United States national spelling bee — which of course as a literary or a literacy contest is a lot different from the one we're speaking about here, but it really speaks to the kinds of issues that we're dealing with.

The United States national spelling bee has become an institution over many years. It followed these students from very diverse backgrounds and the way in which they were able to study, learn and really focus on that one subject in order to improve the excellence they had achieved in their local school, their local school district and their local state in pursuing outstanding education. We saw these students. Some were from very disadvantaged backgrounds, and some were from backgrounds that were tremendously advantaged. There was one student whose father had done everything — had hired tutors and everything — to make certain his child had the best possible opportunity. Another family, a young single mother that was trying her best to raise her child in New York, had a completely different experience, of course, and a completely different reality. Neither of them won the contest, but actually we were very impressed to see the types of words they were able to spell, and my children were, quite frankly, spellbound watching this movie.

I raise that because of the focus we can have on making certain that outstanding programs can be put forward by outstanding teachers and really have a deep impact on students. As the Select Standing Committee on Education toured the province, we met with a great many teachers and specialty teachers like the French teachers association and the music teachers. We saw in them the passion they had over their subject area. I know that history teachers, as well, have a tremendous passion for the teaching of history and the importance of learning history. I also know, though, that a great many Canadians know almost nothing about Canadian history, as the member says. And she's right. We don't know who our first Prime Minister was. We don't know the origins of this country — both the first nations origins and the European settlers as they came in. We don't understand it as well, perhaps, as we know Roman history or American history.

I think that this contest is one of the ways we can help focus attention on the tremendous history of Canada and learn so much from it. I applaud teachers across the province, and I particularly applaud these special teachers who have stepped up to the plate and decided there is a way they can help. There's a special way they can help foster a greater focus on a subject area that they believe is tremendously important. For those teachers with that kind of passion and that kind of drive, I applaud them, and I thank the member for raising this issue.

K. Whittred: I want to thank my colleague for the bridges that he built in his own personal family to this particular topic. That was really how I wanted to wind up my comments today, by looking at the bridges that are built by a program such as this.

Going back to the theme again of our government, particularly in the throne speech and the budget, of bringing out the best, this program that has been developed by very dedicated teachers in the province of British Columbia says reams about emphasizing the need for student achievement. It provides an opportunity for students to have one more way in which they can excel. It looks at culture and examines the roots of culture. It brings about relationships of institutions.

In this project alone we not only have the involvement of schools, but we also have teachers, of course, as we've mentioned. We have UBC and Simon Fraser involved. We have parents involved. We have organizations such as the Dominion Institute supporting this project. So we get a great deal of cross-institution conversation going on.

It is cross-linguistic. We have this available in both languages. Perhaps most importantly, it is across the country. It's one more way in which we are building bridges coast-to-coast with our provincial counterparts.

Further, it's one more way in which we address issues around literacy, on which the Premier places so much importance. There are many, many ways to be literate. Of course, to have knowledge of where we've been gives us the ability to look into the future. Certainly, cultural literacy and historical literacy are very important components when we talk about increasing the literacy of British Columbians.

I would like to conclude with a personal tribute to two people. One is Charles Hou; the other is Gordon Smith. They are now both retired from the profession of teaching history. They continue to volunteer many, many hours to this particular project. For that I thank them on behalf of the students of British Columbia. I thank them for providing this outlet for B.C. students to excel and for allowing those students who participate their moment in the sun.

Deputy Speaker: Members, pursuant to standing orders, unanimous consent of the House is required to

proceed with Motion 67 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

The Fraser Institute report released this past February was, to say the least, bleak in its report card on B.C.'s education system as it relates to aboriginal student achievement. My Surrey colleagues and I, along with our school district, realize the importance of improving quality education received by aboriginal students, as well as the importance of achieving solid results. Surrey school district has one of the largest numbers of off-reserve aboriginal students in the province.

However, what the Fraser Institute report did not recognize was the improvements that have been made in the last two years. In 1996-97 completion rates for aboriginal students were only 31 percent. In 2001-02 those rates improved to 37 percent. In '03 and '04 the rates broke into the forties — 42 percent of completion. Overall, government has improved the system by some 11 percent. It is not time to crack the champagne, but it is not something that should be overlooked either.

Our challenge now is to identify what has worked well in 2004 and how we can further improve on those policies and strategies. For starters, government for the first time ever has implemented enhancement agreements focused on improving quality for aboriginal students. Local aboriginal communities, school districts and the Ministry of Education have worked together to develop these agreements, which reflect each aboriginal culture.

In Surrey we have a very large Métis culture which also works with the school district. Currently, nine school districts have already signed agreements, and 23 are in the works. By 2005, 60 school districts will undertake the enhancement agreements — a phenomenal achievement and, I believe, a unifying, realistic goal.

The answer to achieving better results for our aboriginal students is not simply funding, though the government has generously funded $41 million in '01-02 and $44 million in '03-04. Most importantly, the funding has been targeted, used to pay for direct costs related to aboriginal language programs, aboriginal support service programs and aboriginal education programs — all of which are endorsed by the community itself. Government has promised that it will continue to target funding, because it has helped in creating the best results possible.

Along with targeted funding comes government's practice of tailoring programs to local needs. Recognizing the complexities of districts and the uniqueness of students is why implementing a local strategy is so critical. The idea of localizing responsibility, of granting school districts freedom over services, has only been in place since our government took office — an interesting fact for all of us. Providing the greater autonomy, flexibility and freedom for school boards so they can deliver educational services that meet local needs without any babysitting from Victoria is practical and is starting to work. Strong, collaborative working relationships with trustees, educators and aboriginal communities are taking root, contributing to ongoing efforts to increase the school successes of our aboriginal students.

Finally, accountability contracts have been introduced. These contracts will focus school boards on student achievement, another mechanism that enables government to closely track the results. If we can identify the strategies that work best in what areas, we can achieve better results — plain and simple.

D. Chutter: It is my privilege that I rise today to respond to Motion 67, proposed by the member for Alberni-Qualicum. This motion is particularly relevant to my riding, given that Yale-Lillooet has a large and diverse population of aboriginal people and is home to over 20 different first nation bands. Looking, for instance, at school district 74 of Gold Trail, this school district is composed of 17 bands and three different languages. It is this kind of diversity that creates a challenging situation when talking about education.

Historically, aboriginal people have encountered a number of obstacles, from unemployment and substance misuse to land disputes and illiteracy. When I try to think of how we can best address some of these issues, particularly aboriginal education, the first thing that comes to mind is our greatest asset: our children. Children are our future, and the rewards received when witnessing a child succeed and mature into a successful adult are invaluable. Why, then, have aboriginal secondary completion rates been lower than their non-aboriginal counterparts? What can we do as government to help them reach an equal playing field?

I am sure we all agree this is a complex issue, and it would certainly be great to have a clear-cut answer or solution. As government, we are making great strides around aboriginal education, and the results are promising. However, we must acknowledge that there's still a lot more work to be done.

The Ministry of Education has dedicated a significant amount of time and money towards the issues raised by Motion 67. Progress is already happening. The number of first nations students to graduate from secondary school is up to 1,555 from 1,372 last year. The ministry has developed aboriginal enhancement agreements that are to improve the quality of education for aboriginal students while nurturing their cultural roots. To date, the ministry has signed nine such agreements. In 2002-03 the Ministry of Education dedicated $44 million to aboriginal education across B.C.

The constituents of Yale-Lillooet are far from the urban centres of the province, which contributes to some of the difficulties that first nations encounter relative to their urban counterparts. Maintaining rural communities on equal playing fields with ones from more urban centres is a considerable undertaking, especially without similar levels of technology. As we move further into the twenty-first century, the Internet has become the door to the rest of the world, as we all know. B.C. is an enormous province, contributing in part to the digital divide that exists between the rural and urban communities. We're finally bridging this divide by giving students their high-speed upgrade. John Allison Elementary and Riverside Intermediate are among several schools in Yale-Lillooet that will benefit from high-speed Internet access. This is just another stride toward increasing literacy and improving post-secondary attendance among aboriginal youth.

These are some changes that are taking place in the Ministry of Education. When we look to the Ministry of Advanced Education, we can see similar improvements taking shape. The Ministry of Advanced Education has committed over $1.3 billion in funds to aboriginal post-secondary education and training. These funds support a variety of programs such as business, trades, social service, tourism and forestry, and the list goes on. These education choices give students more opportunities — opportunities they might not have had in the past.

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a school in my riding of Yale-Lillooet that I see as an inspirational success story. The Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, otherwise known as NVIT, had its start in 1983 housed in a basement with a meagre 13 students and three instructors. Here developed the essential premise to bring quality post-secondary education to aboriginal students. Now NVIT is quite at home on a beautiful new $9 million campus boasting modern teaching facilities, with over 230 students and 21 qualified instructors. A fully accredited provincial institute, NVIT offers courses transferable to UBC, UNBC and SFU while at the same time maintaining high-quality, innovative and relevant courses for first nations students.

Key to this discussion, NVIT prides itself on an 84 percent aboriginal student body. The area that is so noteworthy with NVIT is the emphasis on first nations culture. The institute works with local bands in the community to provide post-secondary studies within a context that includes first nations culture and values. I commend all that they have accomplished.

I was fortunate enough to be invited to speak to a second-year forestry class at NVIT earlier last month on opportunities in the forest industry. I spoke to them about the economic advantages of a strong sustainable forest industry, adaptable forest practices and how the aboriginal community can contribute to and benefit from our new forest policies. I also talked about the upcoming opportunities in forest-related research. We have dedicated $4.4 million to universities, the private sector and the Pacific Forestry Centre for forestry research. This investment will offer tremendous prospects for upcoming grads. Another commendable mention goes to the Ministry of Advanced Education for seeing the potential in NVIT and committing $75,000 to an aboriginal community economic development business administration pilot program.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the potential is abundant. We are now in a position to cultivate what we have begun. By encouraging community participation, directing relevant forms of study and constantly reviewing and revising our approaches, we will develop a productive, efficient education system and increase opportunities for aboriginal students. In the future, I hope we can highlight the shrinking disparity between aboriginal and non-aboriginal high school graduation rates. As for the present, I'm proud of the progress we are making.

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm pleased the member for Alberni-Qualicum has brought forward this motion. It is clear that this government's goal is to increase achievement for all students. The recent Fraser Institute report served to highlight that when it comes to our aboriginal population, we do still have considerable work to do. That, quite frankly, wasn't news to those of us in government and in particular the Ministry of Education, for one very good reason.

That is that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada to actually track the measurement of the outcomes for aboriginal students separately from non-aboriginal students, so that we can have this information and know how we're doing and whether we need to look at new approaches to try and improve results for aboriginal students. Every year the Ministry of Education publishes a report. It is titled How Are We Doing? because we want to know where we're serving aboriginal students well — any of our students well — and where we need to make improvements.

While both the How Are We Doing? report and the Fraser Institute report point out that there is much work to be done and our aboriginal students are not enjoying the success that non-aboriginal students are, in general, experiencing in our schools, the fact remains that if we look at the trends and at how we're doing versus a few years ago, outcomes for aboriginal students have improved. In fact, last year the high school completion rate for our aboriginal students was nearly 46 percent, and while it's a number that none of us can really celebrate, it is an increase of 13 percentage points from 1996-97.

The trend, at least, is in the right direction. But clearly, when more than half of aboriginal students are not finishing high school, all of us need to do more. That's why this government is working with school districts and aboriginal communities to improve achievement and choice for aboriginal students through aboriginal enhancement agreements and district accountability contracts. It is worth actually noting the wording of the motion put forward: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes the need to work with Abo-

riginal communities to improve the high school completion rate for Aboriginal students, and to promote the pursuit of post-secondary education among Aboriginal youth."

Certainly, the member for Alberni-Qualicum recognizes that it is only through working with aboriginal communities that we are, in fact, going to make significant improvements in the outcomes for aboriginal students. So far, government has signed aboriginal enhancement agreements with nine school districts, and the purpose of those agreements is to help aboriginal students succeed while respecting their culture. My ministry is continuing to work with 26 other districts on agreements, with the goal of completing agreements with all 60 school districts by 2005. That is a lofty goal, but it is one I am committed to pursuing to ensure that when we look at student achievement in this province, we are looking, too, at ensuring our aboriginal students are along for that achievement.

Accountability contracts that have been introduced by this government include information on aboriginal student achievement and on plans to improve those outcomes. What we see when we look at the accountability contracts and ask districts to focus on what they're doing well and where they need to make improvements is that almost all districts are starting to focus their efforts on aboriginal achievement. They're recognizing that when they look at how their aboriginal students are doing, they're not doing well enough. Districts need to look at how they can improve those results for their aboriginal students and how they can look to other districts around the province to see what's working and what's not working so that that progress can be made.

There are, as I've said, some very promising results to report. The Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlotte school district has enjoyed outstanding success recently with its early childhood literacy and speech language programs, particularly for aboriginal students. On the most recent foundation skills assessment tests, reading results for grade 4 students increased to 75 percent from 52 percent the year before. That's an outstanding increase in one year simply by focusing resources and attention where they need to be focused to improve that achievement.

The district also supports building math skills at home and at school and offers teachers extra support for developing teaching strategies. They have workshops, in-class demonstrations and family math activities. They also have interventions for children who are at risk in math. It is by identifying where the risks are and, again, where an individual district or an individual school needs to perhaps refocus and pay more attention that school planning councils and accountability contracts are actually bringing very significant changes in results and are resulting in improved student achievement in schools around the province, including for aboriginal students.

In the Nicola-Similkameen school district, teachers are using the picture-word method to help students learn to read. This is a relatively innovative approach that builds on first nations oral language traditions and uses photos of local scenes, such as a moose on the road or an elder catching a salmon, to help them identify words and pictures. Teachers then use the photos in a highly structured, organized way to help students use language — like first focusing on nouns, then verbs.

In fact, this morning I had an opportunity to meet briefly with some folks from Sechelt, talking about the challenges they see for aboriginal students in their district. The Sunshine Coast school district, district 46, has focused on improving the aboriginal student graduation rate. Schools there are working with aboriginal groups to offer aboriginal language and culture programs, and they've also been conducting interventions for students at risk of dropping out. That — again, by focusing attention — is getting good results. The district reported that the graduation rate for aboriginal students was 56 percent in 2003 compared to only 12 percent in the year 2000. That's a 44 percent increase over a three-year period, because the district recognized that there was a problem, that there was work to be done, and they're working with the aboriginal communities to make that progress.

The ministry has also been researching other jurisdictions that have had success with aboriginal achievement. That's an important thing for this ministry to do — to look around the world, not just in British Columbia but beyond our borders to the rest of Canada and in fact around the world, to see what other jurisdictions are doing in trying to improve achievement for certain student groups, and in particular aboriginal students. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Australia and Hawaii all have programs that have enjoyed different measures of success in addressing the needs of aboriginal students, and all of them have practices that we can learn from.

I had the pleasure last week of meeting with the first nations education steering committee, or representatives from that committee, including Chief Matthew. They, too — rightly so — are concerned about achievement for their students, and I look forward to further meetings with them so that we can focus on what is our common goal of improving outcomes for aboriginal students regardless of where they live throughout the province of British Columbia.

It is clear that aboriginal students have made important gains, but there is still a good deal of work to be done by all of us. Integrating cultural perspectives into the learning environment is key to the successful education of aboriginal students. Aboriginal communities recognize that; they're telling school districts that. School districts are working along with the provincial government to ensure that aboriginal culture is a meaningful part of the education system, so that aboriginal learners can do better. We are designing and delivering education services with increased involvement by aboriginal parents, educators and the community — including, specifically, the aboriginal community.

Helping aboriginal students succeed in school is part of our commitment to ensure a quality of education for all students, and I'm confident that in continuing our work together, we will continue to see improved student achievement for our aboriginal students.

R. Stewart: I'm particularly pleased to hear the minister's words related specifically to the role that aboriginal parents can play in furthering the topic of this motion, if you will. It's very apparent that the best support for a student is a parent — that, in fact, parents can play an incredibly important role. I know that parents who themselves have had the opportunity of post-secondary education often find themselves in the best position to support their students' educational aspirations. Therein lies one of the challenges that we have generationally as we examine this issue of aboriginal education.

When the Select Standing Committee on Education toured the province — and the Minister of Education was along with us at that time — one of the cities we visited was Queen Charlotte City. There we spoke to aboriginal students and teachers of some of the aboriginal students from Queen Charlotte City, Skidegate, Sandspit and Massett — communities that are very different from the urban community that I live in.

Coquitlam-Maillardville is very different from those rural aboriginal communities or communities where aboriginal populations play a very key and important role in the education system. As we move forward and focus on the results that we're trying to achieve here, we must remember that in the last three years aboriginal graduation rates have risen significantly, from 37 percent to 42 percent. However, that fully means that we are not doing what we need to do for a good half of aboriginal students who do not get to the point where they are able to graduate from high school. Therefore, the world of opportunity that opens up to a high school graduate and to a student that goes on to university or some post-secondary education is not available in the same way to these students.

We have to work with aboriginal communities across the province. We must make sure that those communities and aboriginal parents are at the centre of our discussions as we look to find more and more solutions, programs and methods of reaching aboriginal students and making certain they are able to achieve the best that they can be.

I visited the community centre of the Kwayhquitlum band in Coquitlam about a year ago, and I was very pleased to see the work that community does with its own students. We have to, at the same time, remember that society owes a great deal to these aboriginal communities in making certain that they are able to move forward with education programs that not only are relevant — culturally relevant and relevant to their communities and their needs — but also actually achieve the results they set out to achieve. This is one of the biggest, most important things that our government can do — improve the education results for aboriginal students.

It is one of the most important things that we will be able to achieve. That is why we must focus so much attention on it. That is why we must make certain that the resources are there for these students. We must make certain that we think outside the box, that we embrace all kinds of new solutions that can be put forward by aboriginal communities, aboriginal leaders and aboriginal students in trying to address the needs that these students have in ensuring that they reach the kinds of potentials that they have — a very bright potential. I'm confident for the future as we continue to improve those grad rates and as we continue to make certain that our education system meets their needs.

V. Anderson: It's a privilege and an opportunity to share in this discussion this morning on the motion that we should be working with aboriginal communities to the end that high school completion may be an operational opportunity for students of the aboriginal communities. I think, though, in light of the many discussions we have shared today, we have to remind ourselves of the historical context that has led to the difficulties that aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities are facing at this present time.

The historical context was that for many generations the divide, if you like — or the lack of inter-cooperation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal — was a very difficult process as other people came into the country, which was home to the aboriginal people, and became a majority and left them as being a minority in the planning and in the process. The kind of legislation that was undertaken in those early days, whereby the aboriginal people were almost contained within what we called reserves, when their life was managed by the federal government in almost every condition, when their students were taken from their families and put into schools a long way from home…. All of this history is part of the context of the situation in which we are at the present time.

Over the last few years a great deal has changed, with the recognition that we must work with and respect the abilities and opportunities of the aboriginal people in our communities of today. I'm particularly interested that we are saying we must work "with" the communities, because that is a major shift, a change that we have undertaken, and I'm not sure we have totally comprehended the implications of that even at the present time. For a long time the phrase was that we would work "for" aboriginal people. We would do things for them and not enable them to make their own decisions to go about their activities in their own way, to have their own values and culture at the top of what they would do as they would interrelate and cooperate with us within the community.

This shift of working with aboriginal communities and with aboriginal peoples, as my previous speaker indicated, has to have a large focus on working with aboriginal families, as our ministry of community and

children development has been doing in the last few years. We need to work with the parents and recognize that there was a generation of parents who did not have the opportunities to be good parents to their children because they were separated from their children. It had an effect upon that group, who are now the parents in our community. There is a real shift in working in the community with the parents — not just in the schools but also to recognize that the schools are part of the community.

This is equally true and perhaps more true in the urban situation, where our young people are interacting with each other on a regular daily basis. They're forming friendships with each other. They're forming the opportunities to express themselves, to play together and even to marry each other and to have families that carry the cultures of various traditions.

Our institutions are often slow to change. Our institutions are behind the realities of our community in that they're still operating with curriculums that do not take into account the history from which we have come. Nor do they take into account the present reality of working with each other and building a common community in which the values of all the people of the community are interrelated with each other.

It is interesting. In calling ourselves a multicultural community, one of the realities is that for many years the aboriginal community resisted being a part of the multicultural community, because the multicultural community referred to people who came from other parts of the world and became a part of our communities here within Canada. They had certain needs and certain opportunities that we needed to respond to and relate to and adjust to and learn from. The aboriginal community commended that multicultural approach, but they also wanted to say: "We are not part of that kind of community. We have a culture of our own which is different. We were here before the others. Our culture was suppressed. It was not recognized." The valid opportunities of the aboriginal people, which we have all benefited from, were not necessarily a part that all of us recognized, even though it was part of our heritage.

I am delighted to have this opportunity and this discussion to say that we need to provide and support the opportunities of aboriginal people to respect their values, to highlight their values and to have the opportunity for their values to be incorporated into our educational system. Whether it is in aboriginal schools or in schools where they are a part of other students within the community, I think this focus on the values, the culture and the learning process which is unique to the aboriginal community is very fundamental.

I remember in my work at the college working with adult aboriginal students. One of them, who was studying for the ministry, expressed it very well when he was comparing the kind of sermon I might present and the kind of sermon he might present. His comment in that particular case was that the aboriginal community thought in pictures. His comment was that if you can't draw it, you can't preach it. My response was: "I don't know how to draw. I'm in trouble."

The culture of the aboriginal people is to tell stories. I can understand that from my religious background, because Jesus told stories. He told parables. That's the way he taught. There is a method of learning that needs to be a part of the aboriginal students in order to value their heritage as well as to incorporate in our heritage what is right, wrong, black, white, good and bad. There is a different historical cultural value heritage that we need to respect, and as we respect that within any aspect of our schools system, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, we will provide the opportunity for these students to move forward.

I am delighted to have this brought forward so we can look at the opportunities that are there. We can give thanks for the culture and the values that the aboriginal people bring to us. We can work with their families, their communities and the individual students, but all in the context of respect and appreciation for their contribution to our society and our communities.

B. Belsey: I rise today in support of Motion 67 — to recognize the need for working with the aboriginal communities to improve their high school completion.

I am just thinking about what my colleague from Vancouver-Langara said — working with pictures and how the aboriginal people love dearly to tell stories. You don't spend much time in an aboriginal community and not hear stories. How true it is that they have some just tremendous history — and how they share it, wrap it up in a story and pass it on from generation to generation.

Getting back to the topic, I'd just like to make a few comments on the Fraser Institute's study on aboriginal education that has been brought out. As the Minister of Education shared with us, the only reason you can do that in British Columbia is the fact that we do track statistics. That's a fine example of how much we do care in this province about the aboriginal school achievements and how to work with them and how to measure how they're improving and what they're doing in the education system.

Some of the facts they brought out certainly should be a concern. British Columbia's education system, they claim, has failed the aboriginal students in the past. British Columbia aboriginal students fail more than 40 percent of the provincewide reading tests they write. The likelihood of an aboriginal student enrolling in grade 8, successfully completing their studies and receiving their diploma in the usual time is only slightly better than one in five. The aboriginal students take on average less than one senior-level provincial exam course, whereas a non-aboriginal student — the counterpart — is more likely to take nearly three of those exams.

Motion 67 reaffirms the commitment of our Premier and this province and the ministry's efforts to improve these numbers. These stats are a major concern to my-

self and many across my riding, because I represent…. About 50 percent of the constituents in my riding are first nations, so this is very important not only to me but to all of British Columbia.

I have stood in this House a number of times and questioned the Minister of Education on aboriginal education policy and achievements. The ministry has worked very, very hard and has seen improvements in aboriginal student academic performance results. The number of aboriginal students who completed high school has increased from 34 percent to 46 percent over the last five years. This is an increase of 12 percent, and it shows that improvements are being made.

The aboriginal grade 4 and grade 7 writing scores have increased 8 percent since 2000. The number of aboriginal students enrolled in English has increased from 31 to 36 percent. This fact — that more aboriginal students are enrolled in English 12 — is significant because that is a course that is a prerequisite for post-secondary education, and it shows there is an interest and a determination to get that post-secondary education.

The provincial government's Ministry of Education report How Are We Doing? confirms that the government is moving in the right direction with the new accountability measures. The aboriginal students have made gains, but there is still some more hard work that has to be done.

Helping aboriginal students succeed in school is part of our commitment to ensure a quality education for all students. We have already started to implement many of the How Are We Doing? report's recommendations. For example, better than two-thirds of the schools have committed to special strategies for aboriginal students in the 2002-03 accountability plans. Six districts already have aboriginal education enhancement agreements in place, and another 16 districts are in the process of developing them.

We have recently put in place an agreement to improve aboriginal students' achievements with the school district in Quesnel. In the words of the Quesnel school board chair: "This agreement will empower our aboriginal community and give them ownership over education of their children."

We have to ask ourselves: why aren't aboriginal students performing as well as other students? There are a number of challenges that aboriginal students encounter in the public school system. They include a feeling of alienation — of not having their culture, their history, their language validated within the curriculum; lack of role models within the public school system; past barriers of engagement between the education system and the aboriginal community; past negative school experiences of their parents.

Improved and successful aboriginal achievement in our education system is a priority for this government. Working closely with the aboriginal community will bring the results we all want to see.

J. Wilson: This morning I would like to comment on Motion 67. The ministry has done a lot of good work in this area. Before you can gauge where you're going and what you're doing, you first need to have some of the statistics available so you know at what point you started.

There has been a recognition for a long time that a lot of our aboriginal young people have not, perhaps, had the opportunities that other young people may have had in the education system. This government recognized this and got some work done to do a report to identify the number of young people, compared to the rest of the school system in the province, who were achieving significant results — who were graduating. They found out that that number was a lot lower than it should be.

We have targeted money directly to the aboriginal communities and the education of those young people. This money is already making a difference. We are seeing an increase already of roughly 5 to 6 percent in the graduation rates of aboriginal students.

It doesn't matter what ethnic group you're from; there is something about education that all of us recognize. It enables society to move forward with a better understanding of many, many things and life in general. It removes a lot of the barriers that are there for people without education — you know, fear, superstition. A little knowledge goes a long way in helping people help themselves. Whether you ever use that education or whether you simply want to have it for your own personal satisfaction is not the key thing. The fact is that once you acquire the education, it will better your life. If you want to take that into the employment field, you can look forward to a happier, healthier life. People who have education tend to have fewer health problems. They are more cognizant of the things they should do on a daily basis: exercise, diet — all of these things that affect our health. The knowledge that goes along with that goes a long way to creating a better lifestyle.

Now, when we look at the aboriginal communities in the province, we recognize that they've had, in the past, a rather difficult role. We tried at one point to assimilate them into our society. That was, in reality, a mistake. What this government is doing is going to the communities and saying: "What are the things you need for your young people in our education system?" That's important, because we can incorporate them into the public school system and provide some of the material or courses they feel are necessary for their young people. That's a big switch from the past, when we did not have the communication lines open with our first nations people. That's changed. I expect that in the next few years we are going to see a rather significant increase in the number of high school graduates, because we've gone to the communities, we've listened to their concerns, we've come back to our school boards, and we've targeted that money so those school boards can go out and create the programs that are necessary.

I'm happy to say that we had a gathering in Quesnel, and the Minister of Education at that time was there. It was a really good announcement where our school board was involved in one of these….

J. Wilson: The minister reminds me that she had a good introduction to the roads in the Cariboo in the wintertime. The road conditions on that day were somewhat less than desirable. On the way from the airport to our meeting, unfortunately, they slid into the ditch. No one was hurt; that was the good thing about it.

They no sooner stopped than someone stopped to give them a hand. They picked her and her aide up and gave them a ride to my office. Then we made the meeting and hardly missed more than a few minutes in time. That's a good-news story all the way around. Best of all, the Minister of Education did get an education on northern driving conditions. It was a bonus.

Anyway, it gives me great pleasure to be part of a government that recognizes the importance of education, the importance it plays in our future and in jobs for young people — all of those things that I've mentioned.

With that and noting the time, I would move that we adjourn debate on Motion 67.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 3 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

W. Cobb: First of all, I would like to encourage everyone to read an article in the Vancouver Sun today entitled "Staying Home on the Range." I think it's an excellent article, and it gives a little bit of insight into what the ranching agriculture industry is like.

The beef industry plays a big part in my riding with many small, family-operated ranches as well as some of the largest in the province. That article indicates some of those larger ones. The economic impact is huge, as the stockyards in Williams Lake have the largest volume of cattle processed anywhere in British Columbia.

The ranching community provides many jobs and is one of the stabilizers in much of my area. Even when times get tough, the jobs are always there. The ranchers have to feed their cows. They have to get in the hay. So that workforce is maintained.

The beef industry feeds British Columbians and many people outside B.C. as well as around the world. Yes, Canadians do deserve safe food, but we do that. We take all reasonable measures to ensure it is safe, and we need to actively promote that safety. Only one cow was found to be infected, and Canada and B.C. still have an excellent record of food safety.

When there is an issue on safety, we take immediate action. I think the Abbotsford chicken farm proves that. We have an excellent control on food safety and an excellent record. The borders should be open to our industry. As an example, when a single cow was found and was discovered to have come from Alberta, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency did a search that spanned four provinces and 2,700 animals to determine if that infection had in fact spread.

Our beef is safe. To show our confidence that it is safe, the member for Cariboo North and myself organized a giant barbecue for our constituents. We had absolutely no fear of anyone getting sick. After all, they all did vote for us, so we didn't want them to be sick. We were supported by the Williams Lake Stampede Association, the Cariboo regional district, the city of Williams Lake, the Minister of Agriculture, the chamber of commerce, Rotary, as well as the B.C. and the Cariboo Cattlemen's Associations. Over 3,500 showed up and they ate beef.

No one has anything to worry about with Canadian beef. It is safe. We need to work with our ranchers, the province, the U.S. and other countries to open up the borders for the benefit of all of B.C. — and Canadians, for that matter. I ask my colleagues for support in the promotion of safe Canadian beef and to push to reopen the borders for all our products.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased to stand and support the motion that was put before the House. However, my comments are probably going to take longer than the five minutes which are left on the clock at the present time, so noting the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.