Hansard -- Monday, March 29, 2004 a.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 10 (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

Point of Privilege		9767
	R. Stewart

Private Members' Statements		9767
	Moving to a sustainable health care system
	R. Hawes
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Commercial strata taxation
	G. Halsey-Brandt
	J. Nuraney
	Burnaby Hall of Fame
	H. Bloy
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Regionalization of health care in the East Kootenay
	B. Bennett
	W. McMahon

Motions on Notice		9776
	Expansion of oil and gas industry (Motion 1) (continued)
	V. Roddick
	R. Visser
	D. MacKay
	J. Bray
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Support for volunteers (Motion 68) (continued)
	H. Bloy

Deputy Speaker: Members, I have a message from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville: "I am medically unable to attend the Legislature today, so I write to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege."

R. Hawes: I rise today to speak about sustainability in our health care system and what we have to do to become sustainable. I know all members and certainly most of the public have heard many times that what we are doing in health care is not sustainable. I know, too, a lot of people say: "What does that mean? What do you mean it's not sustainable?"

So I want to talk about a few of the things that make our health care system unsustainable and then what we need to think about — the kinds of things we need to think about — and are thinking about to make the health care system sustainable.

I see three things that make our health care system unsustainable and what we have to do. There's the financial aspect. The cost of health care is one of the items that makes us unsustainable. The number of people that are working in the system with skills are, like all of us, aging and going to retire. We're going to face a skills shortage in the health care system, and that skill shortage could make our system unsustainable unless we do something about it. Lastly, the usage of the system itself by those of us who, perhaps, could take better care of ourselves and be more accountable for our own health care outcomes could help to make the system more sustainable.

First, I want to talk about the financial aspect. If you look at what we're doing first and foremost as a government, the types of reforms we're going through and the things we're doing are because we recognize that the costs of health care have been skyrocketing out of control, and they themselves force our system to be unsustainable — that rapid rise in costs. If you look at some of the things we're doing, within those things there are demonstrations of why things are out of control.

The lab system in this province would be a very good example of that. We're paying in this province more than 30 percent on average per capita more than other provinces in this country for private lab services, for the people who take your blood when you need a blood test or any of the number of tests that you could be sent out for a lab test for. If you look at what we're paying, it is so far out of line with our neighbouring provinces that it just cries for something to be done.

In British Columbia we pay an average of $115 per capita for lab services, where the next closest province, I believe, is Ontario at $91 — significantly different. What we've done is that we're looking at lab reform. We are starting with a 20 percent reduction — that's what we asked for — in costs from the private labs. There's about $60 million. That would also include the public labs, incidentally. There's about $60 million that will come from that, and then there will be a request for proposals being considered that, hopefully, will allow even greater savings. The usage of labs has been skyrocketing, but the cost for each service is so high that we have to do something about it. We are doing something about it, and the money that's saved from that will go directly back into improvements to the lab service and into patient care.

The other thing we looked at, and it has been much vilified by some…. Bill 29 was put in place shortly after this government was elected because we recognized that the costs of some of the support services, in our acute care particularly, had risen so dramatically under the previous government that they themselves were unsustainable, and our health care system was being pulled apart by a cost push from support services. We put a tool in place to allow our health authorities to take money from health services, better rationalize those costs and put those savings into direct patient care, particularly with the professionals. As you know, Mr. Speaker, very shortly after our election — because the previous government ignored or did nothing with the professional side in terms of wage increases for quite a period of time — we were faced with enormous, enormous cost increases very shortly after taking office. This has really, really pushed the cost of health care.

First and foremost is the financial side. We've got to get that under control, and we're working hard to do that. The second part would be the looming skills shortages. Mr. Speaker, as you know, many of us are of the baby-boom generation, and as we move through the thousands of us that are marching towards retirement and into old age — where the costs are the highest, incidentally — included in that group are our nurses and our doctors. As we already face skill shortages in these fields, and as the years pass and more and more retire, these skill shortages will become more acute. That must be dealt with.

To deal with it, we have opened many, many new seats — hundreds of new seats — in our nursing colleges. Also, we have increased the number of seats in our medical schools, including now putting in a faculty of medicine in the University of Northern British Columbia, to produce more British Columbia–educated doctors. We are working very, very hard to increase the number of medical seats in both the University of Victoria, as my colleague says, and UBC. So we are work-

ing to address that looming skills shortage. That's going to take, though, a great deal more work. These new trained professionals don't just fall off at the end of a few months. It takes many, many years to see the fruits of that endeavour, although we will see that.

Also, I always feel bad when we're out trying to attract doctors and skilled medical people from other parts of the world, particularly when we look at getting specialists and skilled people from Third World countries that are already suffering. To go out and try to take those people away from where they're really sorely needed to me has always seemed to be a bit of a shame and something we shouldn't really be doing. I know training more at home is going to help us considerably.

The last part I did want to talk about — one of the most ignored parts of our health care system — is preventative care. I know from sitting on a hospital board, from sitting on a community health council before the last government got rid of them, that when we look at budgets in health care, you start with the best of intentions around preventative medicine. Then you hit the cost squeeze in your budget. Always the first things to go are initiatives around preventative care, because preventative care actually doesn't pay dividends until quite a ways down the road. For so many years in this province we have been fighting fires; rather than proacting, we have been reacting. That kind of change to make our system sustainable has to start to happen. One of the ways is when we start talking as a province in a realistic way about: how do people take control of their own health care outcomes?

I've asked the Minister of Health Services if he would respond to this, and I'm very grateful that he has agreed. I want to turn it over, then, to the Minister of Health Services.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member has touched on some very important challenges that we have in the health care system going forward. We are facing cost pressures of 7 to 8 percent a year in growth in just maintaining the status quo in our health care system. When we start looking at economic growth, fortunately we're now up to forecasts in excess of 3 percent, which is excellent news for all of us. But 3 percent economic growth is not going to cover that sustainability challenge. We have to also bring our costs down. I think the member mentioned a few of the areas where we are having some considerable success at bringing the cost pressures under control as we go forward.

One of the things we know is that the advances in the health care system are succeeding in allowing us to live longer lives, but it's a much more costly health care system. New medications and new technologies are considerably more expensive than the technologies we were utilizing in the past. We have to be able to make sure we can budget for those going forward.

The skills shortage is one that the member talked about. We are developing a ten-year human resource plan for the health care system to make sure that we, in fact, can forecast what our needs are. How many of those health care professionals are, in fact, going to be retiring in the coming years? We have to make sure that we don't rely on poaching health care professionals from other jurisdictions and other countries, as the member suggests. We have to make sure we can provide those career opportunities for young British Columbians. We need to make sure we can train an adequate number of nurses and doctors and midwives and nurse practitioners, etc., to make sure that we can meet those future needs.

We have had considerable success. Today there are almost 2,000 additional students in nursing education programs in this province compared to two and a half years ago. As the member mentioned, we're expanding the UBC medical school to almost double it by the year 2006, with satellite campuses in Prince George and in Victoria, to make sure those needs are met in the future as well.

One of the things the member should know is that we've also put in place a forgivable student loans program so that students who are going into nursing programs, medical school and other health-related professions are entitled to have their student loans forgiven if they agree to stay and practise in an underserviced part of British Columbia once they graduate from those programs.

But I think the third element is the one that we have to put increasing emphasis on, and that's one of prevention — to make sure that our health care system is, in fact, sustainable in the future. When people talk about prevention, they think: "Well, I should eat properly, and I should stop smoking, and I should get more exercise." Yes, those are all important elements of prevention, but we have to look at it much broader than that as well.

If you look, for example, at some of the chronic disease management approaches that this government is taking, they are also part of prevention. We're saying that individuals who have diabetes or who have asthma or depression or congestive heart failure, for example…. These are all chronic conditions that we should be managing in a primary care environment and not waiting until they get to such an acute stage in their illness that they have to rely on our acute care hospitals to treat the crisis management elements of those particular illnesses. Through proper preventative approaches we can work with the patients and work with health care professionals to make sure their needs can be met before they get to that crisis stage.

When we start looking at prevention and making sure that there is appropriate utilization of our health care system, it really is a very broad spectrum. But I think the underlying message the member is bringing forward is the key to it. Individuals have to take personal responsibility for their health. They have to make sure that they are getting appropriate exercise, following an appropriate diet and managing their health challenges at the early stages, not waiting until they get into a crisis environment.

With that, I will look forward with great interest to the member's closing comments.

Just in closing, I'm glad the minister did mention that it is more than just looking at your individual health, although that's a very important part of it, particularly when you consider that some of the highest-cost chronic conditions within health care are things like type 2 diabetes, which is completely preventable. Through proper exercise, through diet and through lifestyle control, type 2 diabetes can be almost eradicated.

That is very important, but there are other parts of prevention that I think bear some kind of discussion. Among them, in order to decrease reliance on the health care system, a healthy environment is required. I'm so pleased about the position this government took, for example, on the SE2 issue in the Fraser Valley to try to maintain a clean airshed, where we were successful in having the National Energy Board turn down a transmission line, making it much more difficult for that plant to be built in the Fraser Valley and thus ensuring some enhancements — or at least no further deterioration — to the airshed in the Fraser Valley.

We have legislation for water control to ensure clean water for British Columbians in this province. That's a very essential part of health care. I'm pleased that we're taking initiatives in that field. One of the things that is required to make a sustainable system with all three of the needed parts — financial, skills shortages and usage — is a government that has the courage to do things that, at times, aren't overly popular but are necessary to make sure that our children and our grandchildren are going to have a health care system.

This government has shown through its actions that it does have the courage to step forward with bold new initiatives that are really needed, and we are not going to cave in because of political pressure and do things that are not in the best interests of our children and our grandchildren. The previous government spent ten years doing that, and we as a government are not going to do that. The hard choices sometimes aren't overly popular, but I think, by doing what is right and not what is politically wanted, we are best serving our future generations.

I want to congratulate our Minister of Health Services for his work in that area. In closing, I also want to mention one of the coming menaces, and that is within the drug and alcohol field with our youth and the crystal meth invasion in this province. It has invaded other parts of the world. It is one of the most insidious drugs that our kids can get into. It will take a massive education program to ensure that our kids aren't getting hooked on this terrible, terrible drug.

I do want to mention, in my own riding, Fraser House in Mission looks after drug and alcohol treatment. I recently heard of a 14-year-old girl there who has been permanently brain-damaged because of the use of crystal meth — only trying it one or two times. The drug itself is just deadly, and we've got to work to educate our kids to keep away from that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time, and I thank the Minister of Health Services for his comments.

G. Halsey-Brandt: Today I'd like to comment on a growing issue within a segment of the business community in British Columbia. In a nutshell, small business operators who carry on their business in commercial malls or business parks that are strata-titled are at a significant financial disadvantage to their competitors in large, single-owner malls or business parks. They are at a disadvantage because the property taxes that are passed on to lessees to pay are significantly higher in strata-titled malls and business parks than they are in single-owner malls and business parks.

The assessment and taxation of real estate in British Columbia has existed since our province was founded in 1871. The assessment and taxation process was modernized in 1974 under the Assessment Authority Act to ensure uniform property assessments across this province. Property assessment and taxation in British Columbia is a two-step process involving B.C. Assessment and various tax authorities, such as local governments.

B.C. Assessment is responsible for assessing property, its value and its classification — for example, whether it's a residential single-family home or a manufacturing plant on the land on which it sits. The home, then, may be assessed for $300,000 and the manufacturing plant, for example, for half a million dollars. Each tax authority then applies its tax rates to assessments to determine the distribution of property taxes in each class — or, in other words, how the burden will be distributed amongst all properties — such as residential, business, farming and industrial. For example, in many communities, if we use just a random number and say that the value of residential is 1, often the tax ratio for business could be 1.5 or industrial at 1.5 or 2 — in other words, twice the amount of tax that they would pay for the same value as a residential piece of property has.

Property assessment is calculated most often on the market value of the property. Generally, market value is determined by comparing the sale on the open market of similar properties and improvements. However, in the tax assessment of single-owner shopping centres, business parks, hotels, rental apartment buildings and similar commercial operations, the value is more often determined by the amount of income generated by the property from the renters or leaseholders, with maintenance and depreciation factored in. Because relatively few properties in this description change ownership, there are few comparables. Since the properties are purchased as an investment, the income potential is the chosen method of valuation for assessment purposes.

This system of assessment for these types of businesses has served us well historically. However, in the early 1970s a new type of real property ownership was introduced — that of strata title ownership, such as a condominium, the apartment in which I live. It was

primarily used for residential properties until the late 1980s, when it became widely used in commercial malls, hotels and light industrial or business parks.

B.C. Assessment now had the option of appraising each unit within a mall or suite within a hotel, as they could trade individually, easily and frequently in the marketplace. Typically, over the past decade the trading value of these units has most often far exceeded the revenue generated within them as a business. Unfortunately, as the vast majority of commercial tenants rent their premises on a triple-net basis, they are responsible for paying the taxes. This has created an uneven playing field wherein tenants in single-owner malls and business parks pay much lower property taxes on a square-foot basis than their competitors operating in strata properties.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this unfairness of taxation as it relates to competing businesses is to use some examples from my own constituency of Richmond Centre. Because of the different calculation approaches adopted by B.C. Assessment for the strata and non-strata properties, the owners of strata malls have to pay up to two and a half times the tax paid by owners of non-strata malls. This situation exists even where the two types of malls are located side by side in the same business environment. In my constituency it exists to such an extent that it's even used in advertising to attract tenants to non-strata malls.

A task force of concerned business people in Richmond carried out a survey of both types of malls. For the years 2001 through to 2003, the assessed values of strata properties were 23 percent to 255 percent higher than those of non-strata properties. This survey compared seven malls in the commercial heart of Richmond. Because the taxes are passed on to the small businesses occupying the units through their net rent, those small businesses in the strata units end up with these higher costs. This makes it very difficult to compete with their non-strata competitors.

I could go on with other examples in my community, but I know the member for Burnaby-Willingdon wants to outline similar issues in his constituency.

J. Nuraney: I am pleased to be able to join my voice to that of the member for Richmond Centre in outlining the increasing disparity between the taxes paid by strata and non-strata commercial and industrial properties.

Just a few years ago a new, large commercial mall and hotel complex was completed at the corner of Willingdon and Kingsway in Burnaby, which is in my riding, called the Crystal Mall. I understand that the mall itself has over 280 strata units. Adjacent to the Crystal Mall is the Metrotown mall complex, with hundreds of rental units but only two or three owners. The situation here is similar to the one in Richmond.

With the continuing growth and investment in Burnaby, a number of strata-title business parks have been constructed. These are usually configured with the retail or business area in front and a warehouse or an assembly area in the rear. Again, we often have the same situation as exists in the strata malls, where the income generated in the business located on the premises does not warrant the level of taxes paid. The taxes are calculated on the basis of what the strata units are buying and selling for in the real estate market and bear little relationship to the profitability of the business contained therein.

Our government ran on a platform of support for small businesses in British Columbia. We have cut the corporate tax rate for small business and made working conditions more flexible. As a result, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has found that small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia are more optimistic about their business prospects over the next year than anywhere else in Canada. The number of small businesses in British Columbia increased 3.1 percent in 2002, following three consecutive years of decline. As we know, small businesses provide 58 percent of all private sector jobs. We now need to assist them to continue to grow and flourish by permitting municipalities to adjust tax rates to allow a level playing field.

Over the years the owners of stratified shopping malls have launched appeals against their property tax assessments to the Property Assessment Review Panel and the Property Assessment Appeal Board. The appeals have been unsuccessful because the assessment system in British Columbia in the strata category remains fixed on the property-sales approach rather than on the income approach used in non-strata malls.

As a matter of record, in May of 2000 a signature petition of 400 stratified shop owners was submitted in the Legislative Assembly calling for a resolution to the differences in assessment. No action was taken by the government in power at that time

I believe the time has come for the review of property assessment policy in British Columbia to deal with strata-title issue and bring back a balance in taxation for small and medium-sized businesses. After all, all they are seeking is fairness and an equitable treatment.

G. Halsey-Brandt: As is evident from my earlier comments and those of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the problem in the tax system for commercial and industrial properties is indeed serious, and it's growing. I would estimate there are probably over a thousand commercial strata units in Richmond and probably several hundred in Burnaby plus others in Vancouver, Surrey and other large urban centres in the province. The longer it takes to address this inequity, the more strata units will be built and, hence, the more difficult to bring about shifts in tax categories to create a level playing field for all small business.

Business owners have suggested that two new property classes be established: business strata and light industry strata. The assessment system could then value the strata units on either the sale value or the income-based approach. It would then permit individual municipalities in British Columbia to adjust their

mill rates to level the playing field for all types of business and light industry. It would let each municipality decide how the amount of taxes should be distributed amongst types of businesses and industry.

In British Columbia we have nine different property classes, and all properties must fit into one or another of these classifications. This can create difficulties as property uses change and evolve in our province. We must be flexible enough to consider additional classes if circumstances warrant it. I note that in the province of Ontario they have seven major property classes, but that in addition to the major classes, municipalities may have up to six additional classes. In turn, these now 13 classes may be further defined by specific subclasses.

While in B.C. we have only one business class, Ontario allows its commercial class to be divided into subclasses for such uses as office buildings, shopping centres and parking lots. This refinement of uses allows municipalities to adjust their tax levels to fit their community tax profile and strategic land use and job creation objectives.

Having mentioned the Ontario system of classification, there is another part of their tax system for small business that might be of interest to British Columbians. Recognizing the importance and the fragility of the small business sector in our economy, I understand that they have a graduated tax mechanism available to municipalities. For example, businesses with an assessed value of less than $200,000 have the lowest tax rate; properties between $200,001 and $500,000, the average tax rate; and properties with a value over $500,000 have a higher tax rate. This mechanism can be applied to commercial or to industrial properties.

Small business is one of the greatest contributors to jobs in our economy yet one of the most financially vulnerable, especially in their startup years. Perhaps giving these small businesses a helping hand might be in the interests of all British Columbians.

We want our economy to move forward, and we want to allow all business types to compete under a fair tax structure to achieve their potential. I trust that the board of the assessment authority and that the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, which is responsible for property tax policy in British Columbia, will engage with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the business community to review the property strata tax issue.

H. Bloy: I rise today to talk of a hall of fame, first. Unions and government can work together, and they do work together to ensure a prosperous and stable economy for British Columbia. The more unions and government work together…. This helps to ensure a stronger economy. There will be more jobs for working families to do, more jobs to work at and more than just surviving.

More jobs usually mean more union jobs. The private sector unions have worked closely with the government to create new jobs. A number of new initiatives have taken place where the government is promoting the trade and industries that support high-paying jobs, industry training to get more young people into skilled trades…. These skilled trades are traditionally union jobs. We're promoting the film industry, we're promoting the forest industry, and we're promoting all the other resource sectors — again, very well-represented union-paying jobs.

I would like to talk about recent strides made last year in union contract negotiations, resolution and partnership with government. Over 10,000 IWA workers affected by the coastal forest industry dispute came to an agreement when the minister sat down and spoke with the employer and the unions, and they came to a conclusion. I'm going to talk more about that at the end of my speech, but what I want to talk about is that there is also a hall of shame.

There are some things that happen in this province that are very shameful and hurtful to working families in British Columbia. CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, is threatening public safety in my riding of Burquitlam. A constituent recently provided me with a disturbing letter that this House should know about. On February 18, CUPE Local 23 president Bill Pegler sent a notice to its members at Burnaby city hall and the Burnaby RCMP detachment. This letter suggests that the union leadership is planning to hold illegal walkouts and militant protests that could potentially jeopardize the safety of our families and our police officers. CUPE plans to call this a democracy day.

There will be serious impacts of this democracy day on public safety. I say: shameful of the CUPE leadership for not contributing to Burnaby in a more positive way. Will CUPE telephone operators answering 911 take calls? Yes, they will take calls, but under what stress from union leadership and under what working conditions? These are highly skilled positions and are filled by very committed people. Where will this added stress not complement their ability to provide a focused and quality service?

The last thing any paramedic needs, the last thing any firefighter needs, the last thing any police officer needs is extra stress and diminished support and capacity to do their job. These services are essential, and the CUPE leadership should not be advocating to abandon their responsibility to the people.

Similar democracy day letters have been distributed to other parts of B.C., and CUPE may wish to threaten every family in British Columbia. The protest that CUPE is planning is supposed to be militant. When I hear words like "militancy," I can't help but think of the anti-poverty protesters in Vancouver who smashed windows and began looting Pacific Centre a couple of years ago. The CUPE-planned day of democracy is nothing less than irresponsible on the facts that this will put public safety at risk when the very nature of these jobs is to promote public safety. These are admirable people being asked to do things that will harm the public. This is not the membership; this is irresponsible CUPE public body leadership.

It also appears that Burnaby NDP Mayor Corrigan is allowing CUPE strategy sessions to take place in the workplace during work hours. This means these illegal walkouts and militant protests are being organized during hours when municipal workers are supposed to be doing their job. Taxpayers in this city work very hard for every dollar they earn. When tax money is used to pay a public employee, that employee should perform the job that they're paid to perform.

All levels of government have an obligation to ensure their workers are living up to the responsibilities that they're being paid for. It is too bad that the NDP feels it is okay to waste tax dollars to organize political protests. Burnaby's mayor's complacency on these issues is a slap in the face to taxpayers, pure and simple. A political protest strike is, in short, an infrequent, politically motivated work stoppage. Such action is not allowed to have any significant adverse impact on the public interest.

In this case, I feel a strike of this nature would have an adverse impact on the public interest. I am sure that CUPE will argue that there is a political protest strike. This strike will create a day of hazard, not democracy, which makes the strike illegal. Political protest strikes that hurt the public interest have no place in our community. CUPE is putting its NDP political interests ahead of the people it's supposed to be working for — the public. I am sure CUPE will state that this is a political protest, but I say it is a day of hazard, where it puts an unacceptable risk to family, children, police officers and firefighters. It is a recklessly politically motivated attack on the safety and security of our communities.

I would now like to ask the hon. Minister of Skills Development and Labour for a response.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's interesting that in this province, probably more so than any of the other provinces in Canada, the public sector and particularly the public union bosses are actually a surrogate political arm of the NDP. They have been a very strong part of that political organization.

I was pleased to hear the member mention, first of all, the actual labour peace there is, where there is a fair amount of goodwill and agreement that's been reached during the course of the last several years. I think many people would be surprised to know we've had over 28 public sector agreements that have been negotiated at zero-and-zero and some with concessionary agreements during that period of time.

Judging by the rhetoric one would hear and see and read, you would think there was no way any settlements could ever be reached in this province. In fact, in the public sector domain there has been substantive agreement reached. More importantly, if you were to look across the spectrum of labour relations for the last three years in this province…. In the year 2000 there were 88 strikes. That was under the former NDP administration, virtually controlled by the public union bosses. There were 88 strikes during that period of time. In the year 2002 that 88 number had fallen to 18 strikes. We had 18 strikes in 2002, in total in the province. In the year 2003 we have had eight strikes. So in fact, by an administration that balances the aspects of employees and employers, of unions and companies together, and by working with concentration on improving the economy and having the parties work to that aim, you actually will find there is a much greater likelihood of labour peace.

The member also mentioned the work that was done in regard to the IWA and the Forest Industrial Relations council, a very large undertaking in which — again, with assistance by government — the two parties were able to agree on a process which did require the government bringing through legislation. The parties had agreed to that; they just couldn't agree to the dotting of i's and crossing of t's to get an agreement on paper. We did that.

Now, we did that before Christmas, where the concern was that if that particular strike was to go past Christmastime, we would have seen a shutdown in the industry that could very well have gone late May, July. The impact on that, in very short order, would have been on the pulp industry. Pulp and paper mills would have been closed down as well. At this point today, we would have seen great disruption in the economy and the work place for working families, both on the woodworking side and on the pulp and paper side and actually permeating right through the entire economy and small business sector of our community.

As the member mentions, this so-called day of democracy or work protest, or whatever it is, is really nothing more than that. You know, it would be interesting to know where the leader of the opposition actually stands on this. Carole James, as the leader of the opposition, should be out front. Does she agree with CUPE fostering and trying to encourage this type of political unrest, which is going to cause jeopardy for people if it actually takes place? Or is she, as she responsibly should be, standing up and saying that is not the way to carry on in a democratic situation as we have here in British Columbia? Clearly, she will have her task set out as the public union bosses want, once again, to be able to control this province.

Let's be clear. For the decade of decline this province was run by the B.C. Federation of Labour, the HEU, the BCTF, the BCGEU and the BCNU — the B.C. Nurses Union. That was the organization that was running this province, and we know what took place during those ten years. It wasn't for working families. In fact, we saw a huge reduction in good union jobs in this province during that period of time. Let's not have the wool pulled over our eyes in this situation that it has got anything more to do than simply this: this group of people, that leadership, is prepared to jeopardize their own membership and the economy of this province for their own political gain. They had ten years where they drove this province into a decade of decline, and we have to make sure people understand that they are again at work in this province, in this type

of way of trying to pretend that there's great disruption in the workplace and with people when, in fact, it has nothing more to do other than the fact that they want the power to be able to operate this province and to put it back into a decade of darkness.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Skills Development and Labour for bringing a cool head to British Columbia, for bringing resolve to a number of issues that had been left lingering over the last ten years of an incompetent NDP government. I want to thank him for the reduction in strikes and for putting families in British Columbia back to work. The more families that are working in British Columbia, the better it is for the economy. Investment comes to British Columbia when families are working, because the outside world looks at us and says: "This is a stable community. We can invest there, because we have a government that we feel comfortable with, that will protect the rights of workers and that will protect the rights of investment dollars."

The new contract focuses on encouraging a stronger economy. The province has been able to balance its books. By doing that, by the government balancing its books, it has had an upgrade in its credit ratings. This upgrade in credit ratings puts hundreds of thousands of dollars back into the B.C. economy to provide money for health, education, social services and to pay off the debt. This is what we mean by good job management, because the more money and investment that come into the province, that creates more jobs. When that creates more jobs, a number of those jobs are union jobs.

Once the government gets rolling, as we have been, and the economy is truly increasing, many great things happen. Over the last year or so, my colleagues from Burnaby and I worked extremely hard with this government and the Burnaby fire department. Between us, and because of the work of this provincial government and my colleagues and I, we were able to bring the 2009 Police and Fire Games to Burnaby. This is the second-largest event in the world for sporting events next only to the Summer Olympics.

It's with these remarks I want to end on Burnaby. I truly want to thank the minister for what he has done. I want to thank the unions that are working with the minister to make this a better province, to create jobs — real secure, paying jobs for families that they can more than just survive on; that they can make a living on. I say: shameful to the disgusting acts of the CUPE local unions that are trying to destroy this province all for political gain. They have no feeling for the people that live in that province. I'm talking about the leadership of CUPE, not the membership. It was a member from CUPE that brought me this disturbing letter and said: "Look at what my union's trying to do. I'm embarrassed by what they're trying to do. I just want to do my job. I want to do the best I can for the people in Burnaby and for the people that pay me, and that's the taxpayers." There is only one taxpayer.

Again, I would like to thank the minister for the great job he is doing, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

B. Bennett: Today I'm talking about one of the national trends in the delivery of health care services — that is, the regionalization of services, particularly in rural Canada, using my region of the East Kootenay as a case study.

Regionalization is often the whipping boy for criticisms of changes to health care, whether we're talking B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Maritimes or Quebec. Sometimes this criticism is well founded, but often the criticism is founded on a natural fear of change and a lack of information. People often worry that regionalization equates to something that is bigger, more corporate and less accessible. Many people hear the phrase "corporate management" in relation to our six new health authorities in B.C., which are down from 52, and they envision a bureaucracy that has lost its humanity. Corporate in this context means only that the health authority is well organized and accountable and that expenditures of resources must be linked to outcomes for patients.

Of course, regionalization also sometimes means closed hospitals. Three hospitals have been closed or are closing in B.C. Negative perceptions develop, and that is understandable. But can these negative viewpoints on health care regionalization be squared with the actual patient outcomes from across the country? According to the first annual report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information in Ottawa, health outcomes for Canadians have improved markedly in the past ten years.

Over the past ten years, what has happened across the country? While the delivery of health care services in most provinces has been regionalizing since the early 1990s, B.C. is actually one of the last provinces to embrace regionalization. In the Kootenays our restructuring was announced in April of 2002, just two short years ago. In the other provinces, Alberta regionalized in 1994 and further in 2003; Manitoba in 1997; Quebec between '92 and '98; and Nova Scotia in 1996. Saskatchewan undertook a dramatic shift to regionalization in 1992 under an NDP government. Over 50 hospitals in Saskatchewan were closed, compared to the three in B.C. Saskatchewan is one of several provinces that illustrate just how much the process of regionalization is not uniquely a B.C. Liberal brainchild, as our political opposition would have it.

Denise Kouri, who is the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Analysis of Regionalization of Health, states that there are four positive reasons for jurisdictions to move towards regionalization of health care services. Her first reason is the integration of services along a wider continuum of care. In the East Kootenay we had six community health councils, one

for each of our major communities. Each town's hospital did a little surgery. Each community health council focused on the relatively narrow benefits to the town and the surrounding area. Their fellow citizens expected no less. The result of this city-state kind of perspective was a lack of cooperation between hospitals and health care professionals from town to town. For the most part, 24-7, reliable, consistent surgical coverage was not available in our East Kootenay hospitals. Even at the hospital in Cranbrook, which was in name the referral centre for the East Kootenay, access to surgical coverage was sporadic and unreliable. This is true of not only surgical coverage but coverage for the other core medical specialties like obstetrics.

Patients in the East Kootenay had a right to expect specialized medical services in their home region. When the IHA announced in April of 2002 that the hospital in Cranbrook would indeed become a regional referral centre, physicians, community leaders and the general public in the smaller communities in the East Kootenay were understandably skeptical. They had been through this exercise of calling it a regional referral hospital before with previous governments, but the funding and the commitment just were never there. Specialists were recruited to Cranbrook in the past, but they would burn out and move away. This happened because of the lack of commitment to a regional approach by the previous government and their refusal to make some necessary but politically unpopular decisions for the best long-term interests of the people in our region.

The East Kootenay Regional Hospital is now managed and funded as a regional hospital. Nine new specialists have been recruited to the hospital over the past two years. The East Kootenay Regional Hospital, although still developing and still struggling to fully reinvent itself, is light years ahead of where it was just two years ago.

The second advantage of regionalization is a greater focus on upstream strategies such as health promotion and prevention. Our grandmothers used to tell us that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Regionalization allows for more joint planning between governmental bodies and community organizations that have traditionally acted as islands. There are untold examples of how the lack of information and bad personal habits dragged down the health care system. Taking a regional approach to health education and prevention allows the health authority to deliver programs across the region that are consistent, using the best, most recent research and the most effective communication tools.

It has been difficult to invest in the health of people in the future when there are so many who need immediate resources today, but the province and health authorities will continue to search for ways to increase awareness about strategies that prevent illness and injury. As our society ages and we have fewer and fewer taxpayers, prevention and public education will become one of the only ways that the survival of our health care system can be assured.

The third advantage to regionalization is more meaningful public participation. I must say, quite frankly, that this particular advantage of regionalization across the country — more meaningful public participation — has not yet manifested itself to any great extent in our region. In the interior region, the reorganization was rolled out in April 2002. I know that the IHA has attempted to consult with the public, but for the first year and a bit, the appearance to many of us was that they simply didn't have the time to talk. They were just too busy doing.

It is critical to the system that the public learns to have confidence in changes to the health care system. Regionalization, although it does bring many concrete benefits to people, must be explained to the public, and the public must be given fair and adequate opportunities to be heard by and to feel respected by health care managers and planners.

It is true that some self-appointed groups want to speak for everyone. Often their modus operandi is not constructive, and their motives are often political. Then there are the majority of people in our communities who just want to understand why decisions are made and who will gradually learn to have confidence in the new ways of delivering health care services if they're treated with respect and are listened to.

The fourth and final advantage of regionalization is more appropriate governance. Having said what I just said about the need to develop better models for public consultation, there are immense advantages that come from regional governance. I recall a conversation I had with one of the managers of a smaller community hospital that wasn't able to move a piece of equipment down to the regional hospital in Cranbrook until after we did this regionalization process. That piece of equipment sat in a closet for three years and wasn't used, and when it was moved down to the regional hospital, it served hundreds and hundreds of people, including many of the people who lived in the small community where the equipment was stored in the closet.

I will leave it there and allow my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke to respond.

W. McMahon: First, I would like to thank the member for East Kootenay for raising an issue of great importance and for highlighting the progress that has been made in the East Kootenay region. I certainly agree with his comments and stress that the regionalization of health care is of equal importance to the constituents of Columbia River–Revelstoke. These changes are having a significant impact on the residents of my riding as we develop a strong, sustainable health care system in British Columbia.

For the first time ever, we have a truly regional hospital, and a truly regional hospital is something the people in this region have needed and wanted for many years, long before we began restructuring. I can't tell you how many stories I heard in the past about patients having to travel to Vancouver or out of British Columbia to get the health care services they needed.

Patients were taken away from their families for services that we should have been able to provide in the region.

There is a big difference between travelling a couple of hours to get the health care you need or travelling sometimes ten times longer than that distance to get those services. Having a regional hospital means that Kootenay residents not only can see a specialist and have surgery performed in their home region in most cases but can also have the peace of mind of knowing they don't have to travel great distances. Families are also able to travel to visit their loved ones in the region rather than sometimes having to go out of province.

Establishing a regional hospital is critical for a number of reasons. In the past we have had a difficult time attracting surgeons and specialists, because services and surgical facilities were spread too thinly. Doctors prefer to work in clusters so that they don't burn out and they have the support they need to practise effectively. As the member for East Kootenay pointed out, since we restructured two years ago, nine new specialists have been recruited to the regional hospital — not to mention that the interior health authority recently announced $21 million in capital funding that will go toward the East Kootenay Regional Hospital so that major upgrades can begin. This is great news for all residents and will go a long way in supporting our regional hospital.

While we are moving forward and services are improving, we must acknowledge that these changes have not been easy, especially for the people in Kimberley. The interior health authority's decision to close the Kimberley hospital was extremely difficult not only for the community but also for me. For a long time, people were unsure of what services they would be able to access. I spent a lot of time on this issue, and I know how tough the restructuring of health care has been.

It is vitally important that we work with the community to make sure they have the services they need. In doing so, interior health needed to secure primary care for residents.

I want to commend the city of Kimberley for their tireless work to make sure the residents will get primary care. The city has purchased the hospital, and about a month ago Mayor Ron McRae and I announced an agreement that will see the health authority lease 6,800 square feet of space. In July we announced that Kimberley will get $2.5 million for the new health care centre to deliver primary care, which ties in with my colleague's second advantage of regionalization and the focus on upstream strategies such as health promotion and prevention.

The centre will have a number of professionals there. Advanced practice nurses, home care nurses, public health nurses, community rehab therapists and respiratory therapists are just a few of the professionals that will be working from that centre. We are getting closer than ever to our goal, and the Kimberley primary care centre will be complementary to the East Kootenay Regional Hospital.

The third advantage of regionalization is more meaningful participation. We know that when it comes to health care, we can never be satisfied. One of the things we must do a better job of is communicating plans to residents, and my colleague spent some time speaking about that. Health care is everyone's priority no matter what your age, your background, your gender or your career. I appreciate that at times we haven't been good at telling people what our plans are for improving health care. It has caused anxiety and confusion, and ultimately it slows progress. Patients and all residents deserve to know what is going on. Besides improving access and services as we have done, we must also improve our communication. I agree with the member from East Kootenay, and the IHA must work harder on consultation with people, listen to their concerns and clearly communicate ways to address their concerns.

In closing, no matter how great the progress is to date, we still need to do more. We're still in the change phase. Yes, we are seeing real results, and we are offering services that are far superior to what we had before, but we want more. There is so much that can still be done, and I only want to see our services improve further.

B. Bennett: I would like to thank my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke for responding. She and I, and probably she in particular, have the political scars to show that we've been through a fairly difficult transition in health care management over the last few years.

Regionalizing the management of health care is, I think, one of the most important, positive and far-reaching changes our government has made since 2001. What can appear like services being withdrawn or reduced in your community, in a regional context can lead to improved access to specialized medical expertise and enhancement of services for everyone in the region. Research shows that outcomes received by patients from regionalization are very positive. There is a good example in Saskatchewan, where there now is general consensus of the health boards that regionalization is moving the province toward its health goals.

But of course, with change comes an obligation for health authorities and elected people to provide information on that change. Why is the change necessary? Why have the managers made the particular decisions they've made? Is my community being shortchanged? Is the community down the road getting something we don't have? Will I have to drive 30 minutes? Will the service after 30 minutes be superior to what was available under the old way? These are all valid questions. But the most important questions are: No. 1, will the regionalization of health care services result in a system we can afford and maintain and that our children and grandchildren can afford and maintain; and No. 2, will the regionalization of health care services result in better patient outcomes and better health overall for

V. Roddick: I rise today to recognize the motion that is before us, the tremendous potential of the oil and natural gas sector in British Columbia, and to support exploring all opportunities to expand this sector.

We need to increase our economy to pay for the services we all desire. Every single community is faced with an incredible challenge in the next while to be able to expand and grow and pay for these services.

Heavy industry — which is what oil and gas is, plus forestry, mining, etc., — is faced with 50 percent retirement in the next five years. What are we going to do with this particular issue — 50 percent retirement in the heavy industry? We need to go out and canvass and get people to move to this province and invest in this province. One of the most scary statistics, which one of my colleagues sitting opposite has imparted to me, is that 30 years ago — and my children are in their thirties, so that doesn't seem that long ago to me — there were eight workers for every senior. Today, a mere 30 years later, there are only three.

How are we going to sustain the services under these circumstances without incredible investment in our oil and natural gas as well as other natural resources? We have this wonderful natural resource, for heaven's sake. Let's expand it. Let's expand this into education and jobs and bring people into the province. We need this growth. This isn't just about oil and natural gas; it's about all natural resources. We still have to eat to live. With more people in this province, it's going to help agriculture.

This can all be done environmentally. We can look at all aspects of offshore oil and gas and inland oil and gas and do it environmentally. Dear heaven, let's be realistic. We aren't prepared to return to the cave. Listen to what we as a government have promised — that this province is committed to adopting a scientifically based, balanced and principled approach to environmental management.

With this comes all sorts of different standards and different ways, because of modernization, that we can look at things — emission standards, for instance. We used to have beehive burners, and you couldn't see your hand in front of you in the lower mainland during the winter. Now what we've done, because of the incredible technology which can go in and filter out of a smokestack, is pass legislation that it's not what you burn but what comes out of the stack that's important. Another issue is the diesel we burn. It's still not up to the calibre of Europe, even though it's supposed to come in, in 2006 — the same standards. That is an issue with the cars.

We are slowly but surely bringing in environmental procedures that make our environment a better place to live. We will do the same with oil and gas exploration.

The majority of our population in the lower mainland is 50 percent of the revenue of this province. The other 50 percent comes from the heartlands. We in the lower mainland are dependent on our natural resources.

If we want our families to expand and grow, to be able to receive the day-to-day services that they desire, oil and gas will help us get there.

R. Visser: I think it's important that we take every opportunity in this Legislature to stand up and talk about the expansion of the economy — the growth of the economy, building a bigger economy in British Columbia — right across British Columbia in all of its regions.

One of the industries that I think can help contribute to that is the expansion of the oil and gas industry. We have seen some incredible successes in the last few years in this industry in the northeast sector of the province with last fall's auctions in oil and gas rights south of Dawson, which brought in nearly half a billion dollars. The last numbers I have are from March. They were just announced over the weekend, and it was $17.5 million.

Auctioning those rights off and getting that activity where you're having 95 to 135 oil rigs and crews out there in the field working has generated an incredible amount of economic activity in that region. We've known for years down in our part of the area that somewhere up in the northeast around Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Fort St. James…. All of those places were experiencing an economic boom. Things were happening in their communities.

We knew it because a lot of our folks from the North Island were leaving to seek opportunities up there. People were going there to work on the rigs or in the service industries or just in those communities to build homes. Some of them were going up there to invest. They were building those homes. They were buying land, putting up subdivisions. They were building the strip malls and investing in businesses in and around the area because they had some exciting economy, because they had opportunity, because there was a sense that they could get ahead there. In many cases, they were leaving our part of the world.

It's time we turned that around, and I think British Columbia has tremendous potential to turn the corner in the oil and gas industry. There are a few areas we can work on. There is conventional on-land development. We can move into places like the Nechako basin and other sectors of the province that have not yet been explored but that do have some exploration potential. It's going to take some time, but if we're diligent and creative and if we put the right regulatory framework

in place — like we have now — the industry will come and they will create those opportunities.

I think we have other types of opportunity as well. The one closest to the minds of the people I represent is the opportunity around offshore oil and gas development. It is estimated that there is just shy of ten billion barrels of oil in the offshore basins off Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlotte basin between Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Included in that is about 115 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in those basins as well.

We don't know it's there. We suspect it's there because it has the same geological formations that other parts of successfully explored and exploited parts of the world have. We think it's there, but we haven't been able to go look for it because back in the seventies it was decided we were going to have a moratorium on exploration. Today that's where we stand. It's a no-go zone.

I believe and I think we as a government believe we can turn that. We can make a difference. If we approach this properly, if we think clearly about this and if we start right from square one with a conversation with the people of the province and a conversation with the people that live and work in those areas in and around these basins, we can slowly and steadily move forward and build a regime that will allow us to be successful, allow us out there to exploit those natural resources.

Why do we want to do it? I want to do it because I want the same sense of opportunity to develop in Port Hardy as has been developed in Dawson Creek. I don't know what the vacancy rate is in Dawson Creek, but my guess is that it's not the same as it is in Port Hardy. In Port Hardy almost half of the apartments are empty and available for rent today — 50 percent. The number is 47 percent.

We need to grow this economy. Places like Port Hardy, Port Alice, Port McNeill, Sayward, Campbell River and Port Alberni all stand to benefit from us — the governments, the people — moving forward.

That's a lot of potential. If we build the system properly, if we converse with these people, if we start from the foundation that it can be done and that the environment is paramount in this discussion, and if the enhancement or the protection of and the management of risk surrounding the development are paramount, then we can get past things like oil spills, seismic work, drilling muds, earthquakes — all of those environmental issues that come up. We can get past those.

Why do we know we can do it? Well, we know we can do it because the offshore oil and gas industry exists all around the world. We have one of the largest untapped potential reserves in the world, and we're just letting it sit there. I think we can do a lot of work. I think we can include first nations; I think we can include communities. I think we can have this discussion about moving forward. We are having the discussion. In parts of my constituency the vast majority feel that this is where we want to go.

We tell the story a lot — I tell this story a lot — about two jurisdictions in the world. One is called Norway; one is called British Columbia. Both of them started offshore oil and gas exploration in 1967 or thereabouts — '68 or '67. One decided it couldn't go forward and has placed its opportunity in a moratorium. The other said: "Yes, we can build a nation on this. Yes, we can build an economy on this. Yes, we can build our future on this." Slowly but surely they have steadily built an incredible industry that minimizes completely the risks of that kind of development and has allowed them to build an economy that is in some cases, frankly, the envy of the world today.

A few things changed for them in 1996-97. They have four million people; we have four million people. We're in this northern hemisphere; they're in the northern hemisphere. We have roughly the same size coastlines. Since 1967 they have been able to put in, in excess of $140 billion — billion with a "b" — in the bank in a heritage trust that they can draw the interest on to provide services to their people.

They have 60,000 people working in that industry. They have cooperation agreements between aquaculture — finfish aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture — in that industry. They have been successful in building on their coastline an economy that all of us are envious of. In British Columbia we parked that potential in 1967 or 1970, and we've not looked at it since.

It's time we looked at it. It's time we grew this economy. In 1967 the oil rig that went out and did some work on the offshore was built right here in Victoria by Victoria workers in the Victoria shipyards. Today we have some of the leading experts in this world on offshore oil and gas development. They live here, and they work all around the world. I think it's time we gave them the opportunity to work at home, to bring some of those lessons they've learned from around the world and allow them the opportunity to teach us how to build an appropriate and successful industry.

We have other industries too. It's not just offshore oil and gas; it's not just on-land conventional oil and gas. We have coalbed methane. Some argue there is a trillion cubic feet on Vancouver Island alone that we could go and develop. Now, that's going to be complicated and complex. I understand that, but if we just say no, if we always just say no, as all of our opposition says…. Whether it is the NDP or the Green Party or whether it is Carole James or Adriane Carr, they all say no. If that's the starting point, I see little opportunity for success in the future. I think that we have to think about these things. I think we have to start slowly, building them step by step by step.

There are coalbed methane opportunities in the East Kootenays, there are coalbed methane opportunities in the northwest of British Columbia, and there are coalbed methane opportunities on the Queen Charlotte

Islands. If we're smart, if we learn from all of the experiences around the world and if we apply sound science and hold the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of our environment as the fundamental founding principles of our efforts, I don't see how we could not be successful.

We know what can happen in the northeast. We know what can happen there for those communities. We know how they can grow, prosper and attract people from across Canada to live, work and raise their families in their communities. I think it's time we offered that opportunity to the balance of our province, to all of our regions, so I can go to those people in Port Hardy and say: "Doesn't it feel good to have started this back in 2001 — the slow, steady march towards opportunity and the sense that our communities have a future again?"

It's time we grew the economy in this province, and I think the development of oil and gas reserves in whatever form they come has tremendous potential for all British Columbians in every region.

D. MacKay: Motion 1 on the floor today was introduced by the member for North Coast. Given the fact he lives on the north coast, I suspect the motion he was referring to is the offshore potential for oil and gas exploration in this province.

It's something that's got to be done. When we look at the economy in the northwest part of our province, the rest of the province is moving along very well. The economic outlook for the province everywhere, with the exception of the northwest, is moving very quickly, creating jobs. I think that if we were to follow up on Motion 1 and do some exploration offshore, the potential for employment opportunities for people living in the northwest part of our province, on the northern part of Vancouver Island, is tremendous.

We heard the member for North Island speak about the empty apartment blocks on northern Vancouver Island. That's because the economy, I suspect, still has to recover on the northern part of Vancouver Island, as it does on the north coast. The potential for employment opportunities…. We only have to look at Norway. You heard the member for North Island speak about the potential for employment opportunities in Norway, with the population very close to what British Columbia has. In 1995 they employed over 60,000 people in the oil and gas industry. That's offshore. Probably one of the most staggering figures was the fact that they have set aside $140 billion in a heritage legacy fund for the people of Norway.

We had the same opportunity afforded to us here, and we shut the door on ourselves. We shut the door on the oil and gas industry, and today we are looking to reopen that opportunity to create some of the many jobs that are needed.

Newfoundland and Labrador have been doing offshore oil and gas exploration and actually producing oil and gas for a number of years now. They employ over 3,000 people directly in the offshore oil and gas industry. If you look at the spinoff effect of those jobs, it is usually 3 to 1, so there are employment opportunities for another 9,000 people in the offshore oil and gas industry. As I said, the employment opportunities are needed. They're needed in northern Vancouver Island as well as on the north coast and throughout the rest of the province.

It is interesting that when we look back at what Newfoundland and Labrador started with their offshore oil and gas industry, the federal government actually contributed financially as they went down that road to look for oil and gas offshore. All that we're asking for in British Columbia is for the federal government to come onside with the province and allow us to take that next step and start looking for that oil and gas.

The federal Minister of the Environment, who happens to be a resident of Vancouver Island, is opposed to exploring for oil and gas offshore, and I think that is wrong. But he is not the only one that's opposed to exploration for offshore oil and gas. I would like to read a couple of clips here from the Vancouver Sun dated Saturday, March 20, 2004. We have another party that is opposed to any activity that might create some employment opportunities for the people in the North Coast and North Island, and that woman happens to be Carole James, the leader of the NDP party.

I would just like to read a couple of quotes from her position on employment opportunities for people in the province. She says: "I believe, in the post-secondary world, we need to move to free or virtually free tuition." She doesn't say where she is going to get the money from to make that happen for those people that want post-secondary education. She also says the moratorium on new open-pen fish farms must be reinstated while we facilitate a systematic winding-down of existing open-pen farms. She wants to destroy the fishing industry for the people that live in the North Coast and Vancouver Island.

Then she goes on further to say: "I say no to offshore oil and gas — not now and not ever." This woman talks about free tuition for university students, but she doesn't say where she is going to get the money from. What she wants to do is shut down the employment opportunities for the people in the province, and I think that's really sad. And I sometimes wonder if the federal Minister of the Environment shouldn't have joined a different party than he presently sits in today.

As I said, Newfoundland and Labrador are producing oil. They produce about 300,000 barrels of oil a day.

When I flew down last night and sat in Vancouver Airport and looked at the number of people moving around our province, and when I look at the chamber today and look at everybody in here, we all travel back and forth to our ridings. We all travel back and forth in cars and some of us by aircraft. I would just like to talk for a moment about Vancouver International Airport, because it is quite interesting.

When you stop to consider that Vancouver International Airport consumes 3.5 million litres of jet fuel every day…. In order to produce 3.5 million litres of jet

fuel, they have to process 222,339 barrels of oil to get that fuel. That's almost what they produce off the east coast of our country. Honestly, we're not producing enough oil in this country to service our own needs, yet we rely on countries from around the world. We say to other countries: "Go ahead. You take the chance and produce the oil and gas we need in this province."

Looking into the future, I suspect that we'd better get at that oil and gas, because technology is moving at such a rate that it won't be long before we start burning salt water in our cars to get us from point A to point B. We are moving ahead. I can see the day down the road when oil and gas is going to be worthless, but it has produced $149 billion to the country of Norway. We have to get on the bandwagon and take some of the benefit for the people that live in this country. It is about time we moved with that.

Quebec and Prince Edward Island are now doing exploration offshore for oil and gas. When you look around the world, other countries all around the world are doing exploration offshore looking for oil and gas. The United Kingdom does it; Norway. The United States of America does it; Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, China, the Philippines, Russia and Canada, with the exception of the west coast of this country. Today in the United States of America there are 6,440 producing wells. All those wells that I'm talking about are offshore wells. They're producing oil and gas and creating employment opportunities and creating wealth for the people, for education, for health care and for all the social programs that the people need and want.

There is great opportunity here. I think we have to continue to move to allow us to get at the oil and gas that is offshore, or to see if it's there, and to continue other exploration efforts to find that much-needed and much-wanted oil and gas that creates so much wealth and so many employment opportunities. I'm pleased to stand and speak in support of Motion 1.

J. Bray: I rise in support of Motion 1 brought forward by the member for North Coast: "…resolved that this House recognizes the tremendous potential of the oil and natural gas sector in British Columbia and supports exploring all opportunities to expand this sector."

Some colleagues might wonder why, here in Victoria, I would stand up and support this motion, and there are several reasons. The first is that we have to recognize that in order for this province to move forward and for families — working families — in this province to move forward, we have to be prepared to look at all sectors of our economy — not blindly and not without regard for other issues such as the environment and other industries that may share the area, like the fishery, commercial and finfish and shellfish aquaculture, shipping and the various other interests. We currently have in place a major potential for working families in this province, and there's something called a moratorium that says we're not even interested. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. It doesn't say that by lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas, next week we're going to have rigs popping up off of Tofino and off of the Queen Charlotte Islands and in the Strait of Georgia. That's not what it means. It means that we're prepared, on behalf of working families in communities up and down this coast, to look at the potential.

The member for North Island made a very good point. It's not just that the jobs and the opportunities for working families are going to exist in small coastal communities. Victoria has an exceptional shipbuilding and ship maintenance industry that employs highly trained, highly skilled workers that bring in strong, family-supporting and community-supporting salaries right here in the capital region.

We know that for every rig that exists offshore, there are two to three supply vessels required in order to support that rig. Now, I don't know why we would want to tell the shipbuilders, the tradesmen, the welders and the architects in the Victoria area: "We don't even want to explore the potential for you to be able to do that work. We don't even want to take the chance that you might actually be able to stay here in Victoria and build dozens of supply ships for a coastal offshore oil and gas industry. We don't want to do that. In fact, we don't even want to explore the possibility that you could build the rigs here on the coast."

As the member for North Island also pointed out, in 1968 there was a rig built in Victoria. In fact, at the time it was purported to be the largest offshore oil rig in the world — the largest. Imagine how many union jobs, skilled jobs that can create. But oh no, the NDP said: "No. Never will we look at that." David Suzuki says: "No, no. Not interested." Adriane Carr says: "Oh, that's not a green economy."

What that's telling working families in my riding is: "We're not even interested in exploring the potential." Well, I'm interested in exploring that potential.

You know, when you hear the stories of Norway…. A year and a half ago the Minister of Energy and Mines brought a group from Norway to meet with legislators and communities to discuss their offshore oil and gas industry and to discuss their environmental assessment regime and how they worked with communities, the commercial fishery and shipping companies to create industries that worked together. They're the world's largest aquaculture country. They use their coastline and their coastal waters for all sorts of things.

One of the people that came to this seminar was the former mayor of Stavanger, which is a coastal community that in the sixties had seen a decline in the commercial fishery, had seen families moving away — children having to leave to go to Oslo or even leave the country to find employment, leaving only the very young and the very old in the town. The town literally was dying on the vine. Now, the people of Stavanger weren't anti-environment. The people of Stavanger weren't saying: "We want to sully up our environment so that we have jobs." What they said was: "We need to explore what our opportunities might be."

That opportunity was offshore oil and gas. They created an environmental assessment regime. They created a company, Statoil. They started slowly, carefully, safely exploring and producing oil offshore. We've heard now that Norway, a country not dissimilar in size to B.C. in terms of population, has a heritage fund of $140 billion. The biggest political discussion in Norway is what to do with all the money. That's the biggest political dilemma they face: "Do we spend it now, or do we save it, grow it and use it to transfer to our economy at some future point in time?"

I would love to be an MLA in this House and debate something like that with Carole James, but Carole James doesn't want that debate. She doesn't want to discuss that kind of potential. When she says no offshore oil and gas now or ever, she is talking directly to working families in British Columbia to say: "We don't want you to have a future. If you live in Port Hardy, we don't want you to have a future." She says: "We want you to move down to the urban centres and need services, and we'll make sure that we expand all the social services in the world to provide your needs for you rather than allowing you to stay in Port Hardy and provide for your needs." She is telling shipbuilding families in my community: "We don't even want to explore the potential of you having years and years and years — thousands of person-years' worth — of labour building supply ships and maintaining rigs and instruments here in Victoria to support that industry. We want you to have no future."

It's funny. Carole James says: "I want to travel around and go from church basement to church basement and talk about the NDP." That's fine. How is she doing that? I haven't seen a photo or a news story yet of her and her bicycle travelling around from church basement to church basement — and those church basements lit by kerosene oil. I bet you she's driving a car. I bet you she's flying. I bet you she's relying on various forms of electricity generated by a number of different ways. She's certainly readily available to use petroleum, gas. I bet you she has natural gas in her apartment. She doesn't mind turning on the switch and using it.

She's just suggesting: let those who work in the Gulf of Mexico and those working families have a job. Let those who work in Norway and their working families have the jobs. Let those who work in Britain and their working families have the jobs. Let those in Nova Scotia and their families have a job. In fact, what she's telling the member for North Coast and the member for North Island is: "Send your working families to the east coast for the jobs. We don't mind using the resources; we just don't want people to be employed here."

I think that if Mexico, Britain, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Norway can produce offshore oil and gas safely using ten-year-old technology, 15-year-old technology, 20-year-old technology, we sure as heck here in British Columbia can safely produce offshore oil and gas using modern, brand-new, made-in-B.C. technology for the benefit of our working families.

I really do want Carole James to actually travel to Tahsis, Bella Coola, Prince Rupert, Stewart, Terrace and Kitimat and have a town hall meeting, bring out all the working families in those communities and explain to them why she does not want them to even explore the potential of working in that industry. I would love to see that town hall meeting, but she won't do that. She won't do that.

Here in Victoria, the potential for offshore oil and gas and international finance in shipbuilding, in instrument technicians…. We have three world-class post-secondary institutions right here in the capital region to train our young people to stay in this province, stay in this region and work in that industry. There's potential. The infrastructure is here. I think it is time that we move forward to explore it.

I bet you there is not a person in this Legislature that isn't concerned about the environment, that isn't concerned about seismic issues on the west coast of British Columbia. I also know, unlike the members of the opposition, that the technology being used for offshore oil and gas production is miles ahead of even when Hibernia came along. It is a new world for safe production and extraction.

I think it is time that we bring forward the potential for our working families in British Columbia to stay here, for our children to have a dream to stay here, to have good family-sustaining jobs in their communities on the coast of British Columbia. I look forward to the day that as a Legislature — because of offshore oil and gas, coalbed methane, the Nechako basin and other opportunities in our offshore and inland oil and gas — we are having the debate about what we should do with $140 billion in the heritage trust. I look forward to that, and I support the motion brought forward by the member for North Coast. I sure as heck wish Carole James would support working families as well.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise today to talk about the benefits of oil and gas extraction in British Columbia and the opportunities that are there in the province to continue that type of extraction for the benefit of all British Columbians, and not just for the benefit of British Columbians but for the benefit of our health care, our education systems, all of those services, the social services, that are provided — to be able to continue to provide those funds so that we can continue to have the quality health care, the quality education and the quality social services that we have in this great province.

Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that this last week there has been a lot of media around offshore oil and gas. There are a lot of things on people's minds along the coast, in the province and in other parts of the world because, let me tell you, other parts of the world are looking closely at the west coast of British Columbia because they see opportunities from around the world off the west coast of British Columbia in developing our huge oil and gas reserves.

If you go back to the sixties, and a little bit of updating in the eighties, the seismic data gathered at that time said there were about 42 trillion cubic feet and about ten billion barrels of oil on the west coast of British Columbia. That's with technology that we had, or the industry had, in the 1960s — the late sixties and early seventies — hardly the technology that is there today to be able to locate and pinpoint reserves offshore or onshore.

The ability for the industry, the technology that's been developed by people from around the world…. Interestingly enough — the member from Victoria just talked recently — there are a lot of companies in Victoria and Vancouver that actually develop that kind of technology and practise that technology and that work all over the world. Unfortunately, they can't practise it here in British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if we could have those people and those companies that do that kind of work around the world actually developing it for the benefit of British Columbians right here in British Columbia.

We have some huge resources in British Columbia in oil and gas. I mean, there is estimated to be about 110 trillion cubic feet of conventional natural gas. There is estimated to be 90 trillion cubic feet of coalbed methane and 18 billion barrels of oil. That's inclusive of offshore. We should remember that those who don't want us to actually go out and access that so we can have family-supporting jobs in the province say we should be careful that we don't run out of natural gas and oil. Well, in today's world we produce 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. We produce 14 million barrels of oil per year. We consume, domestically, about 45 percent of that 1.1 trillion cubic feet. We consume 55 million barrels of oil, so we're a little shy on the oil. We actually get some oil from the U.S. and we get oil from Alberta to be able to meet our needs.

I think it is very important that we start accessing those resources around the province so that we can become self-sufficient in those products. We use them every day. We use them whether we drive to work, whether we fly or whether we drive on an asphalt road. Pharmaceuticals, fuels, asphalt, clothing and plastics are all products — just to name a few — of our fossil fuel industry. Gas and oil — each one of us, regardless of whether you are Adriane Carr, Carole James or whoever, consumes some of that every day. Our families do.

You know, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has a number of records that it holds Canada-wide. One is the largest-producing gas well, in northeast B.C. Another one is that the largest land sale ever in the history of Canada was in B.C. We also built the first offshore drilling rig in Canada in Victoria harbour — I mean this Victoria, Victoria, B.C. — in the 1960s. Those are actually good things and represent what can happen. The jobs or the work that comes from that kind of investment is huge. It's good technology.

I want to close by saying that in northeast B.C. we have the area I come from. I'll just quickly give you the size of my constituency. It is the size of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island in land mass — just my constituency. In that part of the province we drill about 1,100 wells a year of gas and oil. Compare that to Alberta, which drills 13,000 to 15,000 wells per year. It is a huge difference.

We have some huge opportunities in northeastern British Columbia. That brings to the province $2 billion in royalties and lease sales. Not only that, the industry invests $3.5 billion yearly. Every year the oil and gas industry invests $3.5 billion in northeastern British Columbia. Think about that. No other industry does that. There are huge opportunities, jobs like you wouldn't believe, and they are going wanting, as we speak, this last winter. Right now it is breakup, but last winter there were all kinds of jobs going wanting.

I want to encourage us to actually move forward to developing our offshore oil and gas. We already have tankers plying the coast on a daily basis — anywhere from 250,000 to 350,000 deadweight tonnes on a daily basis, every day. We consume it in our everyday life, and we need it in our everyday life. We ought to move forward with it in our everyday life so we can have the family-supporting jobs around this province that people can feel comfortable in and move forward in.

Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I thank you that I was able to speak in favour of this motion.

I move that it be resolved that "this House recognizes the tremendous potential of the oil and natural gas sector in British Columbia and supports exploring all opportunities to expand this sector."

Mr. Speaker: Division is called. Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, division on a private member's bill will be called one half-hour before adjournment this evening, at 8:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to standing orders, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 68 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

H. Bloy: "Be it resolved that this House recognizes that support for volunteers encourages both individual and collective responsibility in our society."

On behalf of my constituents of Burquitlam, it is a pleasure and honour to stand up here today and support volunteerism. Volunteering has been very important, and I have a personal love for my community and for the thousands of people that give back to where I live.

I personally have been involved on a board of directors for the Burnaby Optimist Club, involved in the Burquitlam Lions Club, involved in the Burnaby Mountain Mantas Summer Swim Club, president of the Burnaby Arts Council…. I could go on and on, but it was one of my positions on a parent advisory council where my children went to elementary school…. The NDP wanted to stop people like me from volunteering in my school. The NDP put unions' interests ahead of the interests of the children at the school. I found that terrible.

Speaking from experience, volunteers build stronger communities. We should support this initiative. We should remove any government roadblocks to prevent our good citizens from going out and helping others. We need to be conscious of organizations like the Burnaby volunteer organization that helps put people together with different groups. Once someone gets volunteer experience, it's suitable for that person to use it as a reference in applying for a job. But in volunteering the rewards are…. I've gotten way more out of volunteering in my life than I've ever given to volunteering. It has been a big part of me.

But there are people in this community that hide behind computer keyboards. I have two of them that write to me on a regular basis, who send these nasty letters and tell you everything you're doing wrong and tell you what the government's doing wrong — not just our government, but the federal government and all over the world. These people do nothing but hide and knock what you do. I have tried to encourage them to go out and volunteer for a service club like Rotary, Lions, Optimists — you know, become involved in a sports team or help with the Red Cross.

I want to tell you what an amazing weekend I just finished this past weekend. On Friday night I was at Lougheed town centre where Bonney Rempel supported and sponsored "Live and Let Live." She brought together three high schools in my area from Burnaby, Coquitlam and Port Moody. These students got together and volunteered their time to help save the lives of other children, other students in their grade 12 class.It was just an amazing experience — the contribution that the community made to this.

On Saturday morning I went to a Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation meeting, where they were encouraging people with diabetes to go out and talk about it and explain. Everybody there was a volunteer.

Later on Saturday afternoon I was at a kids' swap meet. Parents from this school have arranged this kids' swap meet for three years now. They're helping everybody in the community, and parents came from all over.

On Saturday night I was at a Special Olympics fundraiser in memory of Marge McNary and the work she had done for Special Olympics. Here was this fundraising event sponsored by the whole community. There were service clubs from across the spectrum there, supporting this community.

Then on Sunday afternoon I went to the Soroptimists tea, where they recognized and honoured six incredible women. It would take me hours to explain everything they've given back to the community.

What I want to say to these people that don't volunteer is that you do what you feel is right, but I will tell you: I am so proud and honoured to be able to work with people that give back to the community and give back to society every day and make this the greatest province and the greatest country in the world in which we live.

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