Hansard — Monday, March 10, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Private Members' Statements		10321
	Reforming student aid
	R. Fleming
	H. Bloy
	Trade winds
	J. Yap
	L. Krog
	Support to families
	N. Simons
	R. Cantelon
	Hunting
	D. MacKay
	N. Macdonald

Motions on Notice		10329
	Commercialization of child care (Motion 36)
	C. Trevena
	V. Roddick
	S. Simpson
	L. Mayencourt
	D. Routley
	R. Cantelon
	L. Krog
	H. Bloy
	K. Conroy

R. Fleming: It's my pleasure this morning to speak about something that I'm fully aware nearly every politician and policy-maker has paid homage to in past times, and that is the subject of advanced education. For seven minutes, if you'll permit me, Mr. Speaker, I will join that bandwagon and join the good company that has spoken to the advantages — economic, social and otherwise — of a strong advanced education sector in our province.

Hopefully, I will be able to add a couple of points to the current context of the debate, which will help move us past the fine rhetoric that even members of the government side have shown a capability of making, to move us in the direction of taking some concrete steps and some action that would benefit students in B.C. — students and their families and our economy.

In this changing world, human capital long ago replaced physical capital as our most important asset. In today's situation, if B.C. were a country, we would have a very significant trade deficit. Forestry is in trouble, and with it the export lag has grown substantially. The economic horizon that will make this province successful embraces a strategy to grow our capacity, our complexity and our competencies in the new knowledge-based economy.

Higher education, simply put, has never been more essential to ensuring a prosperous future for our province and for our country. To have a diversified, dynamic and vibrant economy that is focused on competing in the global marketplace, it is imperative that B.C. join other jurisdictions that are investing substantially more than we are in advanced education.

The economic payback for jurisdictions that do invest more is well documented. The rise of Ireland as Europe's Celtic Tiger is perhaps one of the better-known examples, and that economy's huge growth was credited to a strategy that dramatically increased the ratio of citizens with bachelor's and graduate degrees.

Enhancing our investment in advanced education in B.C. would certainly require us to improve support for university-based research and development, where the bulk of R-and-D activity occurs in Canada. University R and D in Canada is directly linked to new patents, technology transfer and a steady path to economic diversification from spinoff companies that have literally created tens of thousands of jobs in brand-new industries like high-tech and biotech sectors in the last couple of decades. Those are high-paying jobs directly coming from university-based R-and-D activity, which repays the treasury from substantial income and business taxes.

But the target of new investment is not just universities and researchers themselves. To attract more young people and lifelong learners to pursue higher education, B.C. actually needs to make it more attractive to pursue or upgrade a person's skills and their knowledge base. While education is by far the best investment a person can make for themselves, in themselves, there are financial barriers that discourage many, many people from doing so.

These incentives that we need are required to tackle the dramatic rise of student debt in B.C. According to the Millennium Scholarship Foundation, student debt upon graduation in our province is the second highest in Canada after the Atlantic region. It now averages over $27,000 for a student completing a four-year program, having climbed by over $10,000 since this government came to power and almost immediately doubled tuition fees, eliminated student grant programs and made education less affordable for lower- and middle-income families.

After failing to substantially increase the budgets of our 26 public post-secondary institutions last year, B.C. again failed in this budget to add desperately needed funding. In fact, Budget 2008 will see a 3 percent reduction in per-student funding at a time of rising costs and negotiated obligations at these institutions. Most of B.C.'s colleges, university colleges and universities are currently in a deficit position, and their boards of governors are looking at real and serious program cuts to manage.

Worse still, this year's budget failed to provide any new positive and desperately needed changes to the way student financial assistance is provided in B.C. Our system of student loans is dramatically in need of improvement. Interest rates are high at 8½ to 11¼ percent — among the highest in Canada and the highest in the 22-member OECD countries of the industrial world.

We have a choice. We could follow the U.S. Congress to the south of us, which cut student loan interest rates just last year to 3.37 percent. We could follow Nova Scotia, which now lends to students at rates much closer to what government borrows at. We could restore grant programs which were eliminated by this government, the upfront grant program that we had and that is still $40 million less than in 2003 when those major cuts were introduced. That would help real students lower their debts. That would help attract new students to the sector to study.

Debts are difficult to manage for students, and they come at a time when most Canadians' savings are at a record low and housing costs and household debt have never been higher for middle-class families. Tuition fees are high in B.C. They're 15 percent higher on average at B.C. universities than they are for other Canadians, and that contributes to rising debt levels in this province. Our province's social well-being, its skills and knowledge-

based economy are strengthened by giving students and their families a fair deal to afford advanced education.

The best way to improve access…. I note that this was called for by Mr. Plant in his Campus 2020 report, where he said that government should set the goal to ensure that by 2020 the participation rates of the lowest-income quartile are equal to the highest and that aboriginal students are participating at rates that non-aboriginal students are. The best way to improve access is to improve student financial assistance.

Here are five things I want to share this morning, which the official opposition had hoped the government would borrow for its 2008 budget, to help us get back on track here. First, we need to reduce student debt by restoring needs-based study grants for undergraduate students, which were eliminated by this government. Those grants must be restored.

A needs-based grant program should be awarded upfront each and every year for programs up to four years in length. We know that non-repayable student grants are a cost-effective way to reduce student debt and encourage people to go to school.

R. Fleming: …and I will tackle the third, fourth and fifth points in my rebuttal.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the member for Victoria-Hillside for his comments.

I'm fortunate to have the fine university of Simon Fraser University — the best university in all of British Columbia — in the riding of Burquitlam.

I talk to many students at Simon Fraser. I'm up there on a regular basis. I'll tell you the difference from when we were elected in 2001, when students couldn't get into university, when I had parents calling me and saying that their children could not get into university….

The requirements were 85 or 90 percent to get into general arts. That's because they had frozen tuition. There was no money in the university education. The last government hadn't put a penny into education. Everything was frozen. They didn't have the professors, and they didn't have the spaces for students to go to school.

We changed that. We opened up the student fees so that we were in the middle of the pack in university. We got more money into universities. We put more money into the universities as a government. We announced 25,000 new spaces in universities. We didn't just announce the spaces and say: "We're going to put in 25,000 more students." We actually built the buildings to put the students in and house them.

We made a promise as a government that any student that achieved 75 percent had the opportunity to go to a university and college, and we're living up to that. We're actually doing what we said we were doing. We are working for the students of British Columbia. We're working for all students. Under the great leadership of our Minister of Advanced Education, we're making steps, and positive steps, every day.

This member mentions Ireland. Well, I had the opportunity to visit Ireland about five years ago, and they talk about reduced or zero tuition fees and frozen tuition fees. The registration fee five years ago to get into a school in Ireland was $2,400. They were complaining. They didn't have the teachers. The system in Ireland was being sucked dry.

Ireland has reduced taxes because they have a thriving economy, and people are out working in Ireland. It was kind of the poor cousin in the European Union. They were getting all kinds of money and creating high-tech jobs, and people were going to work, just like in British Columbia. Can you imagine that? People are going to work every day here in British Columbia.

In the 1990s under this member's…. I think he was a research person. There was some debate over the quality of his research in the payment of a bill or something, but he did research for them. They had to pay them, but there's no research.

People are going to work in British Columbia in the 2000s and beyond, because we've created jobs. We're out there working with students, working to advance technical training and schooling. They have an opportunity, and some are choosing to go to work right now. They may go back to work at another time. But you know, when they talk about Ireland…. It's not an example. We are leading in Canada.

You talk about graduate studies. In 2007 and 2008 and for the next three years we are targeting funding to allow universities to increase the number of spaces for graduate students by 625 a year. We are putting money and funding into graduate students. Funding will allow universities to increase the number of grad FTEs by 2,500. The funding from government is $20,000 per full-time student, or $12.5 million a year.

I find it hard to understand when he says that we're not putting any money into it. The facts are the facts. This government is putting money into advanced education. We are leading in Canada. We want people to come here all the time.

Since 2001 this government has spent $1.46 billion for advanced education, post-secondary goals in this province. In 2007 the government invested $435 million in student financial aid, including $77 million in the reduction of student financial need.

I just have to repeat this, because I'm not sure if they really grasp these numbers about what our government has done. In 2007 the government invested $435 million in student financial aid, including $77 million in loan reduction for students in financial need.

Half of B.C. students graduate without debt, and 95 percent of those who borrow money make their payments on time. The government provides debt management advice to students who need help. B.C. already has an ombudsperson to mediate disputes.

R. Fleming: I thank the member for Burquitlam for his comments. I think he should check his own research,

though, of the institution he said he was so proud to represent in his constituency, and that is Simon Fraser. Yes, the government said a lot of things about what its goals for post-secondary education were.

They said they wanted to move to the average level of tuition in Canada. Now we're 15 percent higher. They didn't say that we wanted to be the second highest amongst student debt levels in the country, but we've moved there from second lowest under this government's term.

They said they wanted the GPA to be reduced to a B at all institutions. Well, I'd ask that member to go up to Simon Fraser and ask them what a first year arts and science student is going to be required to have next year to attend that institution. I'll tell you, it has risen up to 85 percent. That, too, is another failing of the government.

He mentioned the 25,000-spaces initiative. I would direct that member to do some research of his own and read the Auditor General's report from last year, because it found that the government has failed to achieve its target. They are only 54 percent of where they should be under that initiative. By the way, the slogan has changed. It's not 25,000 seats by 2010. It's 25,000 by 2011, and nobody believes we're going to get there.

I was speaking to a number of points that I believe will enhance participation rates of students, lower their debt levels and make advanced education a fairer deal in B.C. I want to mention the graduate student program. The one that the government brought in was long awaited, but it is a very modest, timid three-year program. Very few scholarships will be awarded.

The point is that we will continue to be behind Alberta, Quebec and other provinces in the graduate student market to attract students. That needs to change. We should introduce a B.C. student graduates program immediately, a real one modelled on the Ontario program.

We need to tackle the B.C. Liberal legacy of doubling average student debts. The way we can do that is by cutting student loan interest rates in half. I mentioned the United States did this last year. Their rates are 3.37 percent. We have amongst the highest — 11¼ percent.

The point is that you can purchase a car for zero down in some cases, pay a zero percent interest rate for up to 48 or 60 months. That's a great investment for some people to make, but I would argue that advanced education is the best investment somebody can make in their lives, and they're paying 11¼ percent. It's too much. It's contributing to student debt, and it should be cut.

We should make student aid student friendly. Imagine that. What a radical idea. But I know members on both sides of the House will have case files in their office that show that navigating the student loan system in this province is a disaster. The service they get is a disaster.

This government outsourced that service to Resolve Corp. of Ontario. The service is horrible, and students describe it as a nightmare. They have no incentive to help students out of the problems they have. They have incentive to collect on them. That has to change.

I thank you for the time this morning to outline a few points that will make it better.

J. Yap: I rise today to speak on the fundamental importance of trade to British Columbia. Today our province is leading the way in economic development, and trade is a key part of B.C.'s economy. We are a trading province, whether it be interprovincial trade or foreign trade. Our province is a leader in trade and international partnerships. Not only have we taken the lead, but we have excelled.

Not to be content to sit back and wait for opportunities to come to us, I'm proud to say that B.C. has been actively seeking opportunities to expand our trading relationships across the board. We have sought out new partners in order to diversify our trading relationships while at the same time ensuring we maintain existing trading relationships.

By far, our biggest trading partner continues to be our closest neighbour, the United States. With 61 percent of B.C.'s commodity exports and 82 percent of Canadian goods shipped to the United States, the U.S. remains our number one trading partner. In addition, the U.S. is also Canada's and B.C.'s number one source of imports, with 55 percent originating south of the border.

We realize that these are uncertain times for our southern neighbours, with the slowing U.S. real estate market leading to reduced demand for our wood and wood products. It's crucial that we continue to expand our horizons and diversify in terms of trading opportunities.

As Canada's only Pacific province, B.C. has a strategic advantage for trade routes to the Asia-Pacific and to the United States. B.C. is truly the Pacific gateway for North America. The Port of Vancouver is a full two days closer to the major Asian shipping ports than the major U.S. Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles. Those major Asian ports are even closer to the Port of Prince Rupert, which government has ensured will become the major port of the future for our province.

From Prince Rupert, container ships can be unloaded and shipped by rail to destinations within both Canada and the United States, a more efficient and timely delivery. Since 2001 government has made significant capital investments in the Port of Prince Rupert, some $30 million in direct provincial contributions. With this, some $30 million in matching federal funds have been invested in the port facilities. These investments have attracted further capital from the private sector, which has led to the development of the Port of Prince Rupert.

More and more of our trading partners are taking advantage of this, and as a trade-dependent province, we need to continue to capitalize on this strategic advantage. The numbers show that we are making great progress. Our commodity exports — wood, wood-based products, ores, ash, pulp and minerals — are heading to the Asia-Pacific region in record numbers.

In 2006 Japan was ranked as the No. 2 destination for B.C. commodity exports. China and Hong Kong were ranked No. 3, and South Korea was No. 4. In addition, India, Asia's latest economic powerhouse, was the No. 10 destination for British Columbia commodities.

With the Asian markets growing at incredible rates, it's important to establish those relationships now and work to become a player in those emerging dominant markets. The estimated economic impact of trade with the Asia-Pacific countries for B.C. is a gain of $77 billion from 2005 to 2020. That's a number we cannot and will not ignore. As a percentage of our GDP, the value of exports to Asia is 5 percent and growing.

Government, through the Ministry of Economic Development, has worked to promote trading and investment relationships between B.C.-based businesses and businesses based in the Asia-Pacific markets to ensure that B.C. is a leader in trade development in the region. We have tripled our metallic mineral product trade with Japan since 2001.

Our high-technology trade with China and Hong Kong has risen by nearly 200 percent in the same period. Not only are we looking for new partners to trade with, but we are also capitalizing on value-added products, a different approach than relying exclusively on commodities.

Our health and educational industries are just two of many that we have seen as important exports from British Columbia. Taiwan and Hong Kong have both been identified as markets for our medical devices and support systems, both having the distinct advantage of providing a gateway to the booming Chinese market. E-learning and conventional education have found a market in China and South Korea, where B.C. companies have been successful in marketing B.C.-based curricula.

These are just some examples of the capabilities our province has to expand our economic opportunities in the area of trade. These opportunities have grown thanks to the policies of this government.

In 2005 government established British Columbia's Asia-Pacific Trade Council, an advisory group to help identify and leverage the opportunities that lie with our neighbours along the Pacific Rim. The council is made up of business, community and academic representatives, who are working hard to increase investment and trade.

One of the strategies identified is to place in-market representatives, or IMRs, in key markets within Asia to increase awareness of the investment and competitive advantages of our province. The IMRs are able to work with business and government in the country where they are placed, while encouraging and facilitating economic growth between the regions.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise this morning to respond to the member's statement on the issue of trade winds. I would have thought, however — given the excellent quality of the research department as demonstrated by the previous speaker on the government motion — that they might have wanted to pay some small credit this morning to former Premier Mike Harcourt, who was one of the great leaders in Canada in ensuring that we establish trade relations with China well before it was popular and when Canadian and British Columbia businesses, in particular, weren't exactly busting to get out of the traditional tie into the American marketplace.

Trade is unquestionably a significant part of our economy. Indeed, many would argue that one of our problems, as the statistics quoted by the member indicate, is that we are still trading far too much with America when we should in fact be diversifying.

The member takes great credit for his government's efforts, supposedly, to expand our trade with China, in particular, and the growing economies of Asia and South Asia. But the truth of the matter is that the numbers speak for themselves.

We are shipping more of our ore. We're shipping more of our metals. We're shipping more of our coal. We're shipping raw logs to the United States. We are shipping out our wealth in incredible amounts that we haven't done heretofore. We are selling our natural gas and oil. We are indeed stripping our natural resources in order to sustain an economy.

At the same time, when we should be using the benefits of those exports to stimulate real job growth here, we're simply not doing it. We are still relying heavily on raw resources, as the traditional criticism of Canada went — that we were hewers of wood and drawers of water. Nothing, it would appear, has changed that substantially, and that is going to continue to be a problem. It is precisely because of what the government says is the most important aspect of its throne speech this year, and that is climate change.

The fact is that we cannot sit here in British Columbia and talk about climate change being the most crucial issue facing the planet — and it's unquestionably the most crucial issue — and at the same time ship raw resources to China, to India, to the countries of Asia and South Asia where they produce cheap goods in often poor working conditions and at great environmental cost.

Then we buy them back, and we sit here and say that we're going to lead the way and be a leader in transforming climate change and how we treat our natural environment. It just doesn't really cut it.

The truth is that if we are going to trade, we're going to have to talk about trading sensibly. We're going to have to talk about not just selling raw resources to sustain an economy, hopefully — I'm sure the government wishes — through to May of 2009, when they will actually have to face the electorate.

The numbers aren't exactly heartening. If in fact — and it will happen inevitably — the global economy turns down, as it always does, we'll have sold off our significant resources. We will not have developed the kind of jobs we need at home, we will be no further ahead, and we'll all be standing around looking at each other wondering what we did.

The fact is that this government continues to take credit for increased trade, which has everything to do with demand and consumption in other nations and has really little to do with our trade expertise or government expertise or government policy in encouraging that trade. It is the usual thing that governments do — take credit for natural events over which they have no control,

to which they have no input and, of course, for which they always wish to take great credit.

The government, on one hand, is telling us that we've got to protect the environment, and yet at the same time we're destroying agricultural land to create large ports. We're trying to fund a port down here, and the member tells this House that in fact we're trying to make Prince Rupert the major port.

I guess I have to ask: which is it? Are we going to continue to drive goods through suburban areas and agricultural land, or do you truly want to make Prince Rupert the national port?

The simple fact is that the government isn't really sure what it wants to do. The government is sitting back, much like the government of Alberta, enjoying prosperous times for which it takes great credit and for which it made little contribution, if any.

I think that in my constituency we'd be quite thrilled if the government would just step up to the plate on the issue of trade and say: "Stop raw log exports. We'd like to create some jobs at home." The folks at Harmac in my community would be delighted to see the government take that kind of step, if you want to talk about trade policy. That's the kind of trade policy that would get my constituents extremely excited. They'd be very happy to see that happen.

But the truth is that it's not happening. We're going to continue to sends things abroad, and we're not going to develop it at home.

J. Yap: I appreciate the comments from the member for Nanaimo. He made an interesting statement that we should engage in — I believe the exact quote was — "policies to stimulate real job growth." I'd just like to remind all members and the member for Nanaimo that we actually have stimulated real job growth during the past seven years.

The record speaks for itself — virtually full employment, a 4 percent unemployment rate and, as I've said in this House before, jobs looking for people as much as people looking for jobs. So we can be proud of our record as a government as we move forward.

Enough cannot be said in favour of supporting increased awareness of B.C.'s attributes to the Asian markets. The rapid growth of Asian economies has seen the accumulation of capital just waiting to be invested overseas.

I read with interest that the foreign reserves of China alone exceed a trillion dollars. We need to continue to promote B.C. as the best place for foreign investment. While B.C. has seen significant growth in Asia-Pacific-based investment and trade, we should expect to continue to attract even more of this.

Budget 2008 provides for $40 million in new funding over the next three years to further promote our Asia-Pacific strategy. This funding will support trade, cultural and goodwill missions, which are important to building relations between trading partners.

Budget 2008 also included government commitments to strengthen the international financial centre program, an important strategy to attract more major large financial institutions to come to invest in B.C., creating more jobs in B.C.

We are a trading province, and much of our trade flows between our provinces. The arrangement with Alberta — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement, TILMA — will help increase trade within the B.C.-Alberta zone, creating the second-largest economy in Canada outside Ontario.

The 2001 figures show that our provinces are already highly involved, with 41 percent of our interprovincial exports destined for Alberta. With full implementation in April 2009, this will add a further 5 percent to our real GDP and 78,000 more jobs.

The 2010 games, less than two years away, will not be just a sporting event but also a powerful showcase of what B.C. has to offer to the world. We'll also be doing this when B.C.-Canada house opens in Beijing in a couple of months. This project is another example of government's leadership in trade development.

With changing times, it's imperative for governments to seek out new strategies for investment, trade and economic gain while continuing to build on our traditional relationships.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to rise today and speak about supporting families. Support to families is a broad topic, one which has many facets to it.

Today, marking the first day of Social Work Week, some of my comments might specifically focus on the work that social workers do in this province in order to support those families and to ensure that they've got the strength to be the cornerstone of our communities.

When you look at the record of this government when it comes to supporting families, I would say it's spotty at best. I'm concerned, of course, as a former social worker, about those who are vulnerable — those families that need a little assistance and a little bit of support in order to maintain their strength and maintain their viability and to prevent family breakdown.

Sometimes our role is also to enhance the strengths of families and in how we can support families to be the places where their children will learn and thrive and become productive members of our society. You can talk about any ministry in this government and find examples of how families are actually left aside, left alone, left at the sidelines — everything from the lack of support to families affected by the policies in the forest industry to families left behind by unilateral decisions by Workers Compensation. I've seen many, many cases of families absolutely devastated by decisions made, with competing doctors arguing for the benefit of their particular position. Many examples exist in various ministries.

I'm concerned about those families that need our support and need the assistance of external agencies. Of course, the focus on enhancing the strengths of families should be our priority as members of the

Legislature — to provide the tools necessary for families to maintain their strengths.

The particular concern I have is in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. A huge part of their mandate is to ensure that families have the strength they need in order to prevent breakdown and to promote healthy rearing of children. Just recently the support to families has been put under the microscope due to reports that have been received by an external and independent representative regarding the lack of support to families with children with special needs.

Children with special needs are probably the most vulnerable in our province in terms of requiring government policies that promote their strengths and promote their ability to be integrated in the community, so that their families have equal ability to provide for their children. What we find is that there is a complete disconnect between government policy and the assistance that families need.

Recently we've seen the closure of homes where children go for short periods of time, partly to allow them an opportunity to socialize with peers but also to provide a break for their parents from the 24-hour care that some of them may require. Government's support to families is interpreted as cutting those respite programs and saying to each family, regardless of their circumstances: "You're on your own. Find your own way of getting that break you need to keep your family together. Find your own way. Find someone who is willing to accept $3 an hour to provide 24-hour care to your child with special needs."

Those needs are broad and varied — from autistic conditions, which affect a child's developmental level, to physical disabilities to a combination of a number of disabilities. To put on a parent the responsibility of not only hiring but maintaining a worker to work with their child is unfair in the extreme. The suggestion that closing respite homes for parents of children with disabilities is going to save taxpayer money is a hollow explanation, as it doesn't relate to the facts of the situation.

I was a social worker under the previous NDP government, and I was a social worker under the Liberal government. I can tell you that the tools available to social workers today are far less effective than those that were available in the past.

If you look at the statistics of children and families coming into contact with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, you see a trend — the same number as ever of families requesting support and a decrease in the number of families receiving support. So there's a contradiction between the needs of our province and the level of support we offer them.

I think that in any society that considers itself progressive and forward-thinking, we must take better care of those families that are on the sidelines, in the margins of our community. It's our responsibility to ensure that we provide the atmosphere and the circumstances so that children in those circumstances can lead healthy and productive lives. The current regime does not offer those same opportunities as had existed in the past.

I believe that if we look at the statistics, we can see that support to families has been reduced in almost every sector in this province. We have increased transit fares. Families that are on low incomes have not been given relief. Minimum wage still languishes behind other provinces. We have the highest rate of poverty in this province.

Anyone who would suggest that we've come any closer to reaching the goal of providing the best supports for children and families and for children with disabilities will see that the truth of the matter is that we have not approached meeting those needs. Serious work needs to be taken. Unfortunately, so much attention is being paid to senior bureaucratic reshuffling and reorganization when, in fact, social workers are crying out for the ability to provide supports to families.

Supporting families, of course, also requires that government policy has a role.

I'd like to rephrase that. I won't have a chance to because the red light has just stopped me. I look forward to my opportunity to respond.

R. Cantelon: I appreciate the comments from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. I acknowledge his comments with respect to honouring and recognizing the hard work that our front-line workers in the social work field do to help families in need. I support them and recognize that the member himself has had tremendous and extensive first-line experience in that regard.

But I don't stand here before you to act as an apologist for the Minister of Children and Family Development. I think questions to him are more appropriate in question period. I know that the member opposite, who is the critic in that area, will take ample opportunity to do that in the appropriate way.

I accept in good faith the spirit he's come forward with today in talking about a positive approach towards assisting families and supporting them. As he knows, and as the House may know, I chair a committee through which the child and youth representative reports. The member opposite is the Deputy Chair. I want to acknowledge in the House today that I believe we will have a positive working relationship to assist the representative to shine light on and to work with the ministry, to work forward to solving some of the concerns that the member opposite mentioned.

It's not, of course, that nothing is happening. I do acknowledge and appreciate the comments made by the member opposite that it can be a confusing situation, as acknowledged in the representative's report, to navigate through the various programs, because there are many of them.

I think it's a very, very positive step to see that Community Living B.C. has developed key contacts so that individuals will have a personal face to go to, to help them solicit the support and the help they need through quite a wide range of options and services. Facilitators in the Ministry of Children and Family Development also help assist people to obtain their needs.

It's not that the resources aren't available. Certainly, the budgets of both of these operations have increased

tremendously. In addition, the CLBC's children and youth with special needs funding for 2008 totals more than $61 million. We now have over 9,000 children and youth that have been identified for help, an increase from 700 since 2005 and 2006.

I think this isn't because there are 9,000 today and there were only 700 then. It's because the wait-lists have been reduced. The identification of people with special needs has been improved so that there are many, many more on the caseloads. This does create concerns and challenges for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, but I would certainly note that the funding for children and youth with special needs is now $155 million. It's a $10 million increase over last year and a huge leap from the $53 million in 2001 and 2002.

This, of course, presents management challenges, and this comes to an original point I made. In facing these management challenges, I look forward to working with the member opposite and with the Representative for Children and Youth in assisting the ministry to identify and help streamline and improve delivery services.

The resources are there. We need to continue to take critical looks at how we deliver them and work towards what we all, on both sides of this House, would agree is a common cause. We need to improve the services towards children with special needs but, in general, broadly speaking, to support families.

While this great increase in the economy has reduced the number of people on welfare rolls, it now enables us to focus more on helping those who are the core, who need core support. This government is prepared to do that, and this representative is looking forward to working with the member opposite in a positive context to assist the children's representative in her role.

N. Simons: Well, ever since the core review, services to families and children in this province have not recovered. As much as the member opposite speaks fondly of the increase in budgets, they have woefully come not even close to the level of funding necessary to simply address the wait-lists that exist.

While there is a lot of talk about supporting the families, the families that contact me and contact the minister and contact their MLAs are clearly stating quite unequivocally that the words being spoken by the government do not match the actions on the front line. Letters from families who are concerned about changes in policy in which they have no discussion, no communication….

It seems to me and to those families that the priority, the most important factor when determining what's needed for families, is: what is the cheapest way of providing those services? We've seen low-cost foster care and the impacts of that. We've seen a reduction in the ability to provide respite services for children who are vulnerable because of abuse or neglect and who are vulnerable because of their developmental disability. Neither of those provides an example of how the government is supporting families.

I'm concerned that with the throwing-around of facts and figures using different criteria, it leads some people to perhaps suggest that it seems that things are being done. But when you talk about measuring different things at different times, it's a statistical jousting match that's often characterized by trickery.

The truth remains that despite the government's wilful blindness, child poverty — the underlying core of many of the problems in this province — needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed comprehensively. It can't be denied or hidden. The facts around that mustn't be obfuscated with other irrelevant information that does nothing to describe the current situation facing families.

Unless we provide support to families through the strengthening of their circumstances and unless we make sure they have the tools they need to provide for their families, we're going to be suffering from the same problems years down the line. I think the investment needs to be put back in where it was removed so that families have those skills and those techniques to ensure that they remain viable and strong.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's response, and I thank you for this opportunity.

D. MacKay: This morning I thought I would spend a few minutes to talk about hunting. Hunting has different connotations for different people. For some people, hunting provides food for families. It provides an opportunity for people to go trophy-hunting in some cases.

The idea of hunting as being a sport is also considered by some people as one of the benefits that we have in this province. A lot of men and women in this province actually take holidays and go hunting for a holiday. That's what they do for their time.

Hunting can also be viewed as employment opportunities for many of us that live in the northern part of our province. A large number of people are actually employed as guide-outfitters and guides to look after non-resident people who come into our province looking for the right to hunt and fish.

The right to hunt and fish in our province is so enshrined in the people that live in this province, particularly in rural and northern B.C., that in 2003 the member for East Kootenay introduced a private member's bill, the right to hunt and fish. It's very rare that a private member's bill passes through this Legislature, but the member for East Kootenay, on that right-to-hunt-and-fish bill, actually saw that piece of legislation pass. It is now a law in British Columbia, giving us all the right — so we do have rights — to hunt and fish in this province.

Of course the right to hunt and fish has some limitations on it. It's subject to the time of the year, the type of species that we want to go after — whether it be a goat, sheep, moose or caribou — and, most of all, sustainability, the availability of that species to reproduce itself to allow all of us to hunt and fish. On sustainability, when those numbers start to drop, we have a problem.

The numbers, of course, can drop for a number of reasons. We could have had an extremely cold winter or deep snow that would see the reduction in the number of animals that survived the winter. We have predation, which can also reduce the numbers — predation from wolves or grizzly bears. I think it's well known that grizzly bears take a large number of moose calves every year. What it's doing is reducing the number of animals that are out there for us and that we can hunt for.

Of course, the Ministry of Environment always likes to keep a ratio of bulls to cows to make sure that the population continues to be there for us as we want to go hunting. But when the Ministry of Environment do their surveys, they identify a problem. The numbers are starting to drop, and it could be for any of the reasons I mentioned above. It could be the weather, predation or overhunting.

So when the Ministry of Environment do their surveys, if the sustainability of a particular species is in doubt, they can make recommendations for a couple of things. They can suggest that the hunt either be reduced or be eliminated altogether. Now, that sounds quite simple to most of us in this chamber — remember, we do all have rights in this province to hunt and fish — but it's not that simple anymore.

Our aboriginal people in our province are allowed to hunt in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Environment imposes a stop on hunting or a reduced number of animals, so it's only affecting the one segment of our population. The non-aboriginal portion of our society is having to pay the penalty because of the sustainability of a particular species. Now, as one person mentioned to me some time ago: "A reefer full of fish appears to be a little over the limit for sustenance or ceremonial purposes." I have to agree with that comment.

Section 35 of our constitution permits aboriginal people to hunt and fish any time of the year, without a license, for sustenance, social or ceremonial purposes. Now, the royal proclamation that was signed off 250 years ago seems to be at the crux of this, where 250 years ago — not through a piece of legislation that was passed in a legislature — an individual decided that all the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains belonged to the Indians to hunt and fish in. That seems to have captured British Columbia long before British Columbia was actually a province or even before Canada was a country as we know it today.

You have to ask yourself if in fact this country has changed over the last 250 years. Well, I would suggest that it has changed dramatically. We've seen a huge increase in our population. Taxes. We all pay taxes now, with the exception of some people. So we've had to make some adjustments to keep pace.

Now, when you stop to think about the Nisga'a, the Tsawwassen and the Maa-nulth treaties, we're enshrining in law the right for aboriginal people, providing that there's not a conservation issue, to take a certain number of animals and a percentage of the fish, to the detriment of other people who also want to hunt and fish in this province. Remember, we all have rights in this province to hunt and fish, as well as the aboriginal community. I'm not begrudging the fact that the aboriginal community can hunt and fish any time of the year, but we also have rights. The non-aboriginal community has rights.

So what happens when the Ministry of Environment says that we're going to have to eliminate the hunt completely because the numbers are dropping too dramatically or the cow-bull ratio is out of proportion to where it should be? The non-aboriginal community is the only segment of our society that has to pay so that we can continue to make sure that that population is there down the road for our children.

That gets to be a bit of a problem. The aboriginal community does not stop hunting because the cow-bull ratio is out of proportion or because we're going to eliminate hunting all together. The only one reason that we can do that is through conservation issues. If there's a conservation issue….

I would argue that anytime we have a reduction or elimination of the hunt for a particular species, for the non-aboriginal community, it's there for one reason — the conservation. The long-term viability of that particular species has got to be a conservation issue.

I would suggest that the Ministry of the Environment, when they do these surveys and come up with these recommendations…. If they're going to close the hunt, it should be for all of us.

I will yield the floor at this time for the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

N. Macdonald: I want to focus most of what I have to say on the issue of hunting and the importance it has to rural communities, not only culturally but also as a food supply.

Before I start, I just want to touch very quickly on the question of the aboriginal hunt. I think that whenever we talk about this we need to put it in the context where it properly belongs. The proclamation act that the member cites is part of a legal framework that was imposed upon first nations. I think there's no question that this is a framework they did not choose. It was imposed. It is British and Canadian lawmakers and courts that have created the situation we have today.

I think that any reasonable person would find it difficult to argue that the non-aboriginal population has got the short end of the stick on any part of this, and I think that that's where I'd like to leave that.

I do want to say that first nations in my area…. That's where I'm best able to judge — the Ktunaxa. Their conservation efforts have been consistent and really exemplary and set a fine standard for the rest of us in the area.

I just want to talk about hunting, though, and the importance of hunters for preserving what is one of British Columbia's most precious assets, which is the land base and the publicly held lands. They do amazing work with habitat retention. They do amazing work to make sure that wildlife will be there for future generations.

In my area we have the rod and gun clubs up and down the valley and into Revelstoke. To the south we have the Resident Hunters Association. We have a

number of groups that work very, very hard to make sure that there is physical work done on the land base.

There is also the political work. You have organizations that are politically very involved, to make sure that wildlife issues are properly looked after. I'll give you a couple of examples. The east side of Columbia Lake is a spectacular area that needs to be preserved. The work of the Columbia Valley rod and gun club — in fact, hunting and fishing groups from throughout the East Kootenay — in preserving that area has been truly spectacular, with partners that include, by the way, the Ktunaxa, who have been very, very active in that area.

When you look at Jumbo and you look at the rod and gun clubs that have been active in making sure that area is not compromised — again, working with, amongst others, the Ktunaxa…. It's truly to be complimented. You have the Flathead. You have the issue of conservation officers, which were cut altogether from Golden.

You had the rod and gun club in Golden leading the efforts to get the conservation officers back. You have, in Cranbrook, the Resident Hunters talking about the need for more environmental staff so that we have people on the ground that are telling us accurately what is happening with our wildlife. You have the B.C. Wildlife Federation starting to look now at private power development and making sure that we consider the public lands as those projects are put into place.

Hunters play an important role, as I said, culturally in rural areas. They play an important role in the practical work that needs to be done to maintain the public lands.

I know that that's something that rural MLAs all share. We understand the value of hunting and these organizations, and we work with them and with other groups to make sure that our public lands are looked after for the benefit of not only all people but also for the wildlife that we say is so important to British Columbia.

With that, I'd like to turn this back over to the member from Bulkley Valley and thank him for introducing this topic in the House.

D. MacKay: I'd like to thank the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke for his comments on hunting and the importance of hunting to rural residents as well as many people who live in our large populations. A good number of them do travel north for hunting.

The reason I brought this statement up today was just to bring to light the issue that's taking place in Atlin at the present time. The Ministry of Environment has suggested that the number of sheep in that particular area have dwindled to the point where we're going to have to close the season to them completely. The number of caribou have dropped dramatically as well, so we're looking at reducing the number of caribou that we'll be permitted to take. The moose population appears to be fairly constant, so there will be no changes to the regulations there.

To close the sheep hunt for the residents who live in the Atlin area, and for other people who travel to Atlin to hunt sheep, is understandable. The numbers have dropped. But we have to stop the aboriginal hunt as well. We cannot allow the aboriginal hunt to continue, because the sustenance or the long-term viability of…. That particular herd up there are going to disappear if we allow the aboriginal community to continue to hunt.

If we're going to close it, close it for everybody. You can no longer ignore the rights that we have as British Columbians to hunt while allowing the aboriginal community to hunt because of something that was enshrined in a proclamation 250 years ago. We've got to put a stop to that.

There are a number of great examples that I've found. Although these are fisheries issues, they also have some relevance to the hunting issues. In Regina v. Sparrow, which is a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 1990, it says: "Allocation of priorities after valid conservation measures have been implemented must give top priority to Indian food fishing." I don't have a problem with that. I understand it. But if it's a conservation issue that has to stop one particular group of people from hunting, we all have to stop hunting or fishing.

Regina v. Nikal is another Supreme Court of Canada decision that came out, in 1996. One of the things that was highlighted in here says: "Absolute freedom in the exercise of even a Charter or constitutionally guaranteed aboriginal right has never been accepted, nor was it intended…. Absolute freedom without any restriction necessarily infers a freedom to live without any laws. Such a concept is not acceptable in our society."

To me, the issue of closing a hunt is understandable. I understand why we close the hunt, but we have to stop closing it for one group of people and allowing another group of people to hunt. I have rights to hunt and fish in this province, and so does the aboriginal community. But when it comes down to a conservation issue, we all have to stop.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call Motion 36 on the order paper in the hands of the member for North Island.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 36 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

C. Trevena: I move the motion: "Be it resolved that this House opposes the commercialization of child care in British Columbia."

Christian Life child care in Campbell River is quite an amazing operation. It runs an array of child care

programs, it provides after-school care, it has an energetic and committed staff, and it is the child care of choice for many families in the city. Like child care centres across the province, it has long waiting lists for all of its activities.

Last year the administrator, Monica Brown, received a letter which surprised her. It was asking if there was any interest in selling the child care centre. Monica wasn't alone in receiving this letter. Exactly the same offer, made by the same group, was being sent to dozens of child care operators around the province.

Another recipient of the letter took the next step, out of interest, and contacted the person who sent the letter. She was told if she wished to sell her business, it could be expedited in a matter of weeks.

The offers were coming from a chain of child care providers who wanted to move into Canada. Ontario, Alberta and B.C. are the prizes they have their eyes on. All at the moment have a mix between non-profit and small family-run centres. The chain started in Australia, and its founder is now a multi-millionaire. He's made his millions by running child care.

The problem — and why I ask the House to support this motion — is that large-scale commercialization of child care is not quality child care, nor is it accessible child care.

We have several problems facing child care here in B.C. Firstly, we have parents dealing with very long wait-lists. Secondly, we have the issue of very high fees. Thirdly, we have the problem of trained early childhood educators fleeing the field because they cannot afford to work in it. Some might argue that providing more child care, providing lots more spaces — and who cares about whether the owner is a multi-millionaire or not? — would solve some of the problems.

Luckily, we are in a position to see how these so-called big-box child care providers have worked elsewhere. While they may create some new spaces, they're also moving into an area where another provider is or has been providing care. They do not move into some areas where there is the greatest need. The large-scale commercial operations simply don't move into rural areas or into areas where there is a preponderance of low-income families.

Nor has there been any indication that large-scale operations reduce fees for parents. In fact, in Australia, which as I say is one of the clearest examples of where these providers are working, the commercialization of child care has taken firm root and fees rose 65 percent in four years. In 2006 the cost of child care rose faster than any other monitored good or service except vegetables or gas.

The only way that costs are going to go down for parents is by a commitment by the government to provide sufficient operating funds to a provider. With cuts in funding this last year in B.C., providers were squeezed. They could not put those cuts on their wage bills as staff were already on a very low income. That meant they had to raise fees for parents. While some parents are able to get a subsidy for their fees, many others are paying whatever it costs because they desperately need child care.

The commercial operators do not raise the wage rate. If anything, examples from overseas have shown the suppression of wages.

I think members must agree with me. It's quite incredible that the people we entrust with the care and early development of our babies and young children during their most formative years — those early childhood educators — are lucky to earn above the minimum wage.

It's not uncommon for someone with 20 years' experience to be getting $14 an hour, usually too little to pay for child care of their own. It's not that they're being exploited by the provider, but again, there are simply insufficient operating funds provided by the government to ensure the workers receive a wage which reflects the importance of their work in our society.

If the commercial operators aren't providing care in areas it is most needed, aren't providing it at affordable cost to parents and aren't paying their staff above-average wages, why support them? Perhaps someone will say it's for the quality of child care. Again, being able to see how these operators work elsewhere does give us the ability to judge whether they are providing high-quality care. Again, they failed.

In fact, in Australia there have been reports of breaches of hygiene standards, lack of supervision and failure to maintain attendance records. One in five child care workers at corporate child care centres said they would not send their own children there because of the poor standards. Again, a failure for the corporate model.

But that doesn't mean no to private child care. We have throughout B.C. hundred upon hundred of small private child care facilities. Often a mom who wants to stay at home with her children will start a child care centre in her own home. For many families looking for child care who do not want their youngster in a big group, this is a perfect solution.

These are at the other end of the spectrum from the commercial model. These are, perhaps, the ultimate small business — a mom running a business from her home, using the skills that she has learned with her own children. These are not corporate conglomerates. In other countries where there has been a growth of corporate child care, many of these small-scale family operators have been forced out of business.

The issue of scale is very important. Commercial child care providers are ultimately responsible to their shareholders. This means that they always have to be making a profit, not just making a living. We're talking about a fundamental core for our society, the early development for our children. I know it sounds hackneyed, but this is our future.

I quote Ontario child care academic Martha Friendly from a recent article in the Toronto Star. She says: "Are preschoolers primarily consumers to be wooed for their profitability, or are they worthy of the same kind of

interest and support we devote to their older siblings in the public education and university systems?"

The underlying need for child care for the families of B.C. is that it is the highest quality possible, is accessible, is affordable, is universal and has sufficient public funds to allow the staff to get decent salaries and for the parents not to have to make up the shortfall.

The role of licensing is paramount — with strict, clear guidelines on the number of staff who should be in place relative to the number and age of the children. These child care principles can be achieved through the group child care centres in towns and cities, through larger centres attached to workplaces and through the small family-run centres in almost every community in B.C.

With that, I would ask that the House realize that commercialization of child care is not the answer to the child care problem in B.C. and that it support this motion — that the House opposes the commercialization of child care in B.C.

V. Roddick: Life has changed dramatically over the last three generations — never faster than from my children to their children, my grandchildren. Families, whether they be single or partnerships, are faced with incredible demands, for the simple reason that they are in the eye of the technological revolution.

Without a doubt, provision of quality child care is of the utmost necessity — child care that provides parents with a range of options and choices to meet the diverse workplace of today and, most importantly, the diverse needs of working families. As a result, we are making child care affordable for those who need it most: low- and moderate-income earners.

The member opposite talks about commercialization. Commerce, trade, is the backbone of our economy. A strong economy ensures jobs, jobs and more jobs. B.C. has the lowest unemployment rate ever. This is what families need. They need the confidence that they can provide. Child care is part of the foundation of that confidence.

No one does business the way we used to do it 15, ten, even five years ago. Every jurisdiction has had to change and adapt big-time to cope with this exploding age of technology. It's really a case of sink or swim, and this government swims. Despite serious challenges, such as the loss and redirection of $455 million in federal funding, we have not only continued to support significant enhancement for programs for our most vulnerable children and families but have also implemented a number of new initiatives to improve service for children and families across the province.

B.C. spends nearly $290 million a year on child care — creating new licensed spaces; operating funding to make sure these spaces keep open; child care subsidies for low- and moderate-income parents; added support for families of children with special needs; assistance and incentives for early childhood educators; and innovative partnerships to provide parents with better options and choices.

B.C. will create 2,000 new licensed child care spaces by 2010 through a new $12.5 million capital funding commitment. To that end, a partnership with B.C. Housing is creating more than 200 child care spaces in existing or planned social housing developments. This will eliminate some of the barriers to child care, employment and schooling for vulnerable families.

Today B.C. has more than 86,000 licensed child care spaces that receive ongoing government funding as well as more than 25,000 low- and moderate-income families who access financial assistance. In order to make child care spaces more convenient and affordable for families, the province is providing incentives for child care providers to maximize the use of neighbourhood hubs and underutilized public spaces such as schools. Meanwhile, the province's supported child development program enables more than 5,800 children with special needs, more than ever before, to participate in child care settings.

Qualified child care is essential for the system to work. The province is doing its part to address child care staffing issues through new licensing regulations, new one-year early childhood educator certificates, student bursaries and two new pilot programs: the early childhood education loan assistance program and the early childhood educator incentive grant program.

Virtually every single person involved in child care — whether it be a neighbour babysitting; in-home day care; in–high school day care, like we have in Ladner; a non-profit society; or local Boys and Girls Clubs, just to name a few examples…. These people are being paid accordingly. This is part of the commercial chain. This is what makes the world go round.

It is also important to note that more than half of the child care operations funded through the B.C. government are privately delivered, and most of these are family child care providers. Is the member opposite suggesting that these people cannot make a profit?

For the information of the member opposite, any sale of a private child care facility is a private transaction and must comply with and meet all licensing requirements. The majority of group child care spaces across the province are provided by non-profit group operators, and they are prohibited from being converted to a corporation under section 74 of the provincial Society Act.

This government is committed to continuing to build a child care system that provides options and choices for families, quality care for children and support for B.C.'s child care providers. Therefore, I cannot support this motion.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. I want to thank my colleague, the member for North Island, for raising this question about the commercialization of child care and for raising the flags that we in this House need to consider in order to ensure that we don't commercialize this essential aspect of education.

We all know that child care is critical. We all know that it's fundamentally part of the continuum of our education system. Increasingly, it's being recognized

by people, not just around the province but globally, that child care plays a fundamental role and that education doesn't start at kindergarten but earlier than that. We need to look at child care as part of that education continuum, as much a part of the education system as K-to-12 is.

The research that we see tells us time and again that it is in those formative years of our children that they begin to develop the foundations and the fundamentals that will allow them to go on, be successful in school and proceed to become successful adults who are contributing to making our society a better place.

To commercialize this system, in the way that we have seen starting to percolate in this province, with organizations like ABC Developmental Learning Centres…. For me, to allow a multinational like ABC to come in and begin to look at taking on child care in this province is pretty much the same as saying that we're prepared to sell K-to-12 to Wal-Mart. We shouldn't be doing that, and I think that most people in this chamber would agree.

Corporate child care has led to many, many challenges. Examples of that clearly are, in many jurisdictions, increased fees — fees increasing at a level that increases the unaffordability of child care for many people in those jurisdictions. We have seen increased levels of understaffing, where in order to meet the profit motive, in order to meet the bottom line, staffing is chipped away at. We've seen examples where these large corporations and the people who are working for them — corporations like ABC — in fact are lobbying hard to reduce improvements in the system like dealing with things like staff-to-child ratios.

We need to recognize child care as an integral part of our education system. We need to make those commitments that that's the direction we're going in this chamber and that's what we want to accomplish. If we were serious about that…. We're serious about that on this side. If the government was serious about that, they would take up the call of the opposition to put in place a universal public child care system in British Columbia — a system that brought government and the non-profit sector together in a way that developed a system that was accessible and available to everybody, that delivered the kind of quality we should all be striving for and that said to people: "We recognize the role child care plays in our society. We're going to advance it and make it stronger, and it's not going to be about the bottom line."

Child care shouldn't be viewed as a profit-making enterprise. It shouldn't be focused on its profit margins and its bottom line. It should be focused on children. It should be seen as a service and an integral part of the services we provide, in the same way we look at K-to-12 in this province. It should be inherently the same perspective. It's not the case today.

The previous speaker from the government side talked about how things have changed over the years, and they have changed. It's time for another change. It's time for this government to realize that the commercialization of British Columbia, whether it be parks or child care systems or any of the vast array of other things this government's prepared to sell in a minute, doesn't make good sense for British Columbians. It's not in the public interest. It's time for us to bring child care in and make it part of our education system.

L. Mayencourt: I'm proud to be able to come and speak to this motion that has been brought forward by the member opposite.

I think that child care is very, very important in British Columbia as well. I think all members of this Legislature rightly acknowledge that the investment in child care and early childhood development is well spent. I've heard it often said by childhood educators that for every dollar we put into child care, we get $7 in benefits out. The reason that's so important is because government does have to find ways in order to stretch the limited dollars that we have to provide child care around this province.

Today in British Columbia we're spending almost $300 million annually to ensure that children around this province have access to child care. There are some communities that have less than others. I, for example, in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, have been truly blessed with a large number of early childhood centres, of schools that have engaged families in family centres and those sorts of things.

It's really been a pleasure to be able to work with people like the Vancouver society of child care providers, the YMCA, the YWCA and a number of people that are out there — Little Rae child care centre, the one at Mole Hill and so on.

A lot of those services are delivered by individuals that are private citizens. We do have in our neighbourhoods around British Columbia people that do child care in their home with limited numbers of kids, with all of the care, and who meet the licensing requirements to ensure that quality child care is delivered.

I also have a lot of time on the road in this province. I know that when I go to Fort St. John or Prince George or Prince Rupert, there is a strong difference in the level or the number of options that are available for parents in British Columbia. The reality of it is that we live in a province with four million people. They are spread across this province, and the vast majority of them reside in the lower mainland. That's where a lot of the money goes when it comes to early childhood development and so on.

What do we do with the rest of the province? It's very important that people in Port Alice have child care available to them. Sometimes those people have to come forward. They'll form a non-profit agency, and they will deliver that child care in that community. The reality of it is that government cannot do all of the things that need to be done to ensure that we have a fair and equitable child care program across this province.

When you look at what British Columbia is doing, we're creating new spaces in B.C. We are providing operating funding for those that are opening. We've

done some innovative things, including a program with B.C. Housing recently. We're going into housing projects that may be anywhere in this province. We're saying to them…. Oftentimes we'll have families with low, low incomes in those areas. So how can we work as a team to make sure that we're not only providing affordable housing but providing those moms and dads with options that ensure their kids have an opportunity to succeed in B.C.'s thriving economy, in British Columbia's goal to become the best-educated society in North America?

It's wonderful that this member has brought this forward. There's no argument on either side of this House as to whether or not there are benefits for child care. There are very definitely good, great benefits throughout all communities, but we cannot do everything exactly the way the member expects we should.

One of the things that's very important that came forward in our throne speech is the option of taking some of those schools that we do not have in use right now. We've talked — the opposition has raised questions, and members on this side have raised questions — about school closures. What about the resources that we have in those communities? Sometimes you do have to downsize or close a school simply because there are not enough kids there. But that is a wonderful opportunity for us to move forward on a new agenda.

I was very pleased in our throne speech where the government stated quite clearly that we're going to start offering full-day kindergarten. We're going to start working with families and people across this province so that every kid that's four years old gets into kindergarten, and then we're going to go even further. We're going to go down to another age group, three-year-olds and so on.

When I look at how we deliver child care, I know that we're doing a great job. I know there are thousands of people working in that industry. But I also know that the North American way is not the only way. I've been to Europe to see child care systems in place there, where all-day kindergarten has resulted in kids that are three years old getting quality education, learning how to hold a pencil and learning how to read — all of those wonderful things.

As we move forward, I know that we're going to maintain our commitment to early childhood education, but we're also going to blaze a new trail to ensure that every child in British Columbia has access to all of the resources that will make sure that they succeed in our society.

D. Routley: I would remind the previous speaker of Motion 70 on the order paper, which called for this government to do an inventory of closed public buildings for consideration for public use. This government defeated that motion. It wouldn't bring that motion to a vote. The only member who spoke against it was a government member.

I represent a riding with a school district which is considering the closure of a school that has 66 full-time child care spaces, because of the policies of the Education Minister of the B.C. Liberal government, the government that this member represents. And here he says that we should consider schools. The government doesn't know what its left hand is doing from its right hand. It's very sad, because these are all tools that could build a better B.C., but this government has a pattern of turning those tools against the people.

They cobble together modern gold rushes. First it was the liquor stores. Take a look at the people on the boards of those companies now, how connected they are to this government and that history. Then compare that to the child care privatization in Australia and how so many insiders from their government ended up on the boards of those companies.

Take a look at Bill 29 and what it did to the HEU workers' jobs — another gold rush built on the public purse. This grab at public funding is no different from the independent power projects and the privatization of our rivers — another gold rush built on the public purse, another gold rush offered to corporatists, not to community-driven bodies like non-profit organizations that offer child care now.

Child care. I think every British Columbian thinks that child care should always be offered and supported and built in a way that supports the interests of the little children, not the big corporations. This privatization agenda of milking our public purse has seen child care costs double the rate of household income costs in Australia, and yet this is the model that this government will beckon into our province, saying that it's good for commerce.

The commodification of every part of our lives is not good for commerce. The commodification of education is not good for commerce. In the long term what's good for commerce is a greater and greater commitment to non-profit child care and to public services in general. That's what's best for commerce. That's what has given Canada and B.C. the competitive advantage that we've enjoyed — not this big-box approach that exacts huge profits from the services we offer to each other.

Take a look at the reward that the corporation heads of those privatized child care companies in Australia are given. ABC Learning: the CEO, $500,000; CEO education, $500,000; Martin Kemp, CEO New Zealand–Australia, $500,000. On we go. Chief financial officer, $740,000. This is exacted out of services to young children.

Look to Quebec — the highest participation of women in the skilled trades. Why? Because they have a universal, publicly provided child care system that is built on non-profit models. That is the difference.

What's good for business is an increasingly competitive labour force. What's not good for commerce is to have big-box child care come in here with its heavy-duty lobby and take it to a government like that, which will continually reduce standards and will reach a point where we have a lobby that will not allow us to increase the standards, will not allow us to do things

like lower the child-care-provider-to-child ratio. All of those things will be out of our control.

Let's keep it local. Just like small business is shrinking in the face of this corporatist government…. Let's keep child care local. Let's keep it non-profit. I support the motion.

Thanks to the member for North Island for bringing it forward, and thanks on behalf of all the child care providers and all the children who will benefit if we go down this path and avoid the privatization agenda.

R. Cantelon: I appreciate the comments from the members opposite, because today we're truly discussing an issue, the underlying principles which define the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. The issue that they propose for us is that commercialization is a very bad thing, that private operators will ruin health care.

It's not so much private operators, because the member opposite just spoke and regarded that the commercialization on a small scale by small, independent business types of people is a good thing. However, that is commercialization. By any other name, that is it. That is a good thing.

The member for North Island's proposition is that large scale, so-called big box — although they'll always be limited in size because of the nature of the business — is an aberration to be avoided at all cost. In opposition to that, another member spoke of a government child care system. Translation: "We know how to better run the system than private operators. Private operators aren't good; big government is good. Big government is better able to make the choices in delivery systems, standards and everything else than is an independent, private enterprise–oriented system."

R. Cantelon: I do hear the calls on the other side, so I know we have touched the nerve here on the philosophical statement. That somehow a group of shareholders motivated by greed and profit — horrible words, anathema to the people on the opposite side — will destroy the child care system.

Well, I think their fears are greatly unfounded. I think you would find that shareholders would look not at profit but at: how do we achieve that profit? The way you achieve profit, of course, is by delivering good service, service that people need.

At a lower scale, this has certainly been good and profitable, but a broader perspective could bring some new ideas, some new techniques, some new approaches to child care delivery that are not available to the smaller independent operator. This is not to say, however, that smaller independent operators can't be very, very successful.

We continue to encourage them and to foster their development. One such one is in school district 68 in the constituency of the member opposite, in Nanaimo. It's a great facility, run by the Little Ferns society. I think we will continue, as we have done in the past…. There's certainly no movement or policy that has been commented on that would take away our initiatives here. Here we supplied capital to the Little Ferns — in the amount, by the way, of a considerable capital amount of $485,000.

There has been no suggestion that we would begin to fund large commercial operations to that extent. This would, again, be funding that — I know both sides of the House would agree — would be targeted to operations like Little Ferns.

The unique thing about this is that it's driven by the members of that society, by the private board of that society, and it's a great idea. Their energy and enthusiasm is something this government wanted to match and has matched. It enables young people — young women who are in school and who have children — to carry on in school, because it provides day care right in a secondary school. I think this is a very good initiative and a very well-received initiative to help these young mothers complete their education and look for employment as they move out.

But I'll come back to the main tenet, which is that somehow commercialization is bad. I think shareholders looking at a broad range of, perhaps, even international delivery models would enable them to bring new ideas and new approaches to this market. I would submit to you that that is not a bad thing in itself — as opposed to: let's have government control everything; let's have government pick the winners and losers; let's be in charge. They would hold: "We know what is best for you; you certainly don't." That, I would say, is something we, philosophically, totally reject.

Now, it doesn't mean that we're going to turn it over, as has been suggested by the members opposite, and have only large companies control child care. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will continue to foster and encourage small private commercializations, small private businesses, to provide day care. We will encourage and continue to support, as indicated by this funding for Little Ferns, initiatives by local people who can pick what is best for their community and who can best pick what works in their community, as Little Ferns did. That's the kind of government we are, and that's the kind of philosophy we will present.

It was alluded to by one of the members that, well, this means they'll have this humongoid lobby. I would say: are the members opposite immune to lobbies? Do they know about unions? Are they vulnerable to that? Well, I can say that that is not the case.

I support this. I think a broader look, a more circumspect look, at the services that can be delivered would be a good thing. So I would like to say that I oppose commercialization and the suggestions that we would lower standards. We will never lower standards. We will always maintain the highest standards for child care.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to follow the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, my colleague, in this particular debate. Frankly, I think the member has gone rather over the

top. Everyone understands that it's a wonderful society where services can be delivered by private enterprise. Nothing wrong with that.

But governments have always understood that there has to be regulation, that there has to be oversight and that the public interest must be protected. Indeed, we recognize, in commonly held values across this country, that there are some services we expect to be delivered, if you will, by the state collectively — whether it's the provision of defence, highways, transportation systems or even the one that surely we can all agree on, public education.

Those are common values. Those are the values that unite us in society. Those are systems that we've brought into place — public education, public health care, public roads — because everyone understood the logic and the common sense of it. Everyone understood it, except perhaps for some knuckle-dragging dinosaurs who still exist in the odd corner of the province.

What we are talking about is another commonly held value, and that is that the most important asset — to use the commercialized term of the government — in our society is our youth, our children. They are our future. How we treat them is absolutely fundamental to the success of our society and to the future happiness of generations that follow us.

What the member for North Island has quite rightly said is that this isn't something to be left to the marketplace. This isn't the delivery of food into my community. This isn't the provision of where I buy gasoline for my car. This isn't some kind of commodity. This is about the caring and provision of decent care for our children.

Now, I would have thought the members opposite would have stood up and said: "You know what? The concept of these big-box child care centres" — and they are; no other term for it — "is probably not that healthy."

Why the opposition supports quality, affordable, accessible child care in this province is precisely because we do value our children, and we want to ensure that the kind of care they receive in child care centres is consistent.

The reason you don't see the same person flipping your burger week in, week out at McDonald's or Wendy's or wherever is because the wages aren't great. They move on to something else. When you put your children in child care — and I can say this as a parent of two young adults now — what you looked for and hoped for was consistency of care. What you wanted to know was that the same person or people who were providing care when your children were six months old were the same people at five, six or seven years. That was crucial.

I was lucky. In my profession I didn't have to worry about the cost that much. My wife and I…. It wasn't the overriding concern for us, but there are tens of thousands of British Columbians who would like to be able to afford the consistency we could afford. We were very lucky — extremely lucky. But there are tens of thousands of British Columbian parents who day in, day out face the reality that they can't afford consistent child care. It's not provided through an appropriately regulated system where workers are happy to stay in that facility because they're getting decent wages and decent working conditions.

Surely we shouldn't be relying on the charity of workers in giving up decent wages to ensure that our children get decent child care. If we value our children, then we should ensure that there are good wages and there is consistent delivery of child care — just as, in public health care, we acknowledge that the best facilities providing care for seniors in our province are run by non-profits. Surely the same logic should apply to the other end of the generation, which is our very children, who are the most important asset we've got. Surely it's appropriate to ensure that not-for-profit child care should be the hallmark of this civilized country.

The members opposite say: "Look to Europe." I agree. Let's look to Europe and see how they deliver decent child care. Let's see why they live in societies where there isn't a great gap between the rich and the poor. Let's understand why their societies are societies to be admired. Let's look at societies where women fill roles in government to a far greater extent than is true in this country.

One of the things I guarantee you'll find is consistent is that they have good quality child care systems where women aren't expected to stay at home and look after children, where societies are advanced, where children are provided for properly.

It's time to support what the opposition has called for this morning. The government should sit up and take notice and support the motion. It's a good motion, and they're unwise not to support it.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to stand up here today. Child care is very important. As a matter of fact, I'm going to become a grandfather for the first time this April, so I know that shortly….

What bothers me about this presentation…. I'm opposed to it. When the member for Nanaimo and, earlier this morning, the member for Victoria-Hillside stand up and talk about this House…. "Everywhere else in the world is better and greater than British Columbia." I disagree with them. I believe British Columbia is the best place on earth to live, and I believe that we have great day care now. I'm tired of hearing from them on what's going around the world.

"Be it resolved that this House opposes the commercialization of child care in British Columbia." That's the member for North Island's motion. I believe the motion actually…. The intent of the motion is to only support union child care in British Columbia, to only support child care paid for by the government. I oppose that.

In my riding I have some great child care facilities, union and non-union, and they work together and do a

great job. But we have to allow it. We have licence-not-required day care, which is a small business for a lot of people. A lot of people, in fact, have child care degrees or certificates, but they're doing it out of their home. The opposition wants to close them down. I believe that's wrong. I believe some of our best child care facilities are licence-not-required.

We had a throne speech a few weeks ago, and we talked about providing early childhood education for age four and then moving to age three. I believe that we should do that, and we're going to use space in the schools. Because of our declining population growth, we can use some of the spaces in the schools.

It's going to go out for a review. I would love to be able to sit on the committee that's going to go out and review it, because what I support is that non-profits should be running the early childhood education. There should be day care centres in the schools. That's what I support.

What I support is allowing them to do it. We don't have to wait till 2010 to start. We could even start earlier. But we're going to go through the process, because we believe in process, and we believe in acting upon it.

We had the Conversation on Health. We went out and talked all around the province.

H. Bloy: The members opposite are laughing at the Conversation on Health. They didn't like it.

We had some of the best input into our throne speech from the Conversation on Health. But what happened? The Leader of the Opposition just had a lightning bolt strike her. She's going to have a conversation on day care. Wow. Now it's okay. It's good for day care, but it's not good for health. We had some of the most advanced suggestions coming from people to make our health care the best in British Columbia.

H. Bloy: This is the issue for the opposition, the NDP. For the first time $12.5 million in major capital funding was made available to all child care providers, including private and family child care operators. Child care advocates have claimed that a large multinational child care provider, 123 Global, is looking to buy out child care operators in B.C. and other provinces.

I don't see that. I haven't seen that as an issue anywhere. As a matter of fact, I believe that the riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant…. One of the day cares in that riding wanted funding and got $200,000 or $250,000, the maximum, to increase child care spaces in the riding. They're all over the province.

I have a place — non-profit and non-union, the Vancouver Japanese Language School — that's in the process of applying for money and that provides great child care spaces. We have child care in my riding of Burquitlam that's provided by many people — licence-not-required, private, non-profit, and non-profit and not-union.

I'm proud of what we do here in British Columbia. I'm proud of British Columbia. The lifestyles that these members talk about around the world…. Maybe they want to go back to some of the countries they came from if that lifestyle was so good. Why are they here? We're here. I'm proud to say: "I'm a British Columbian." I'm proud of what we do in British Columbia by this government.

D. Chudnovsky: I rise on a point of order. I think that the suggestion made by the previous speaker was unparliamentary, and I'd ask that you direct him to withdraw those comments.

K. Conroy: I'm very pleased to rise and speak to this motion. Let's be perfectly clear here. We are talking about quality services to young children, as opposed to profit.

Is profit a dirty word? Of course not. There are numerous small, well-run owner-operated centres in this province. They speak with pride about their programs. Are we talking about these programs? Of course not. To even suggest it would suggest that the members opposite are obviously not listening.

I was born and raised in Canada, but my parents are from Denmark, so let's talk about European systems. In Europe they have well-funded, quality child care programs for all children who require it. Those children go, and they have quality child care — not educational programs, not kindergarten.

Children learn by playing. They don't learn when they're three years old by sitting at a desk. I don't know anybody who would put their three-year-old in a kindergarten setting. They put their children in a quality, licensed child care setting, a setting that takes care of the children, with people who are qualified and who have early childhood training — training for the best programs that those children need.

One thing that the member from Burnaby referred to was quality, licensed family child care programs that are privately owner-operated. Yes, they are. They're small businesses. What he failed to recognize is that the majority of people who operate family licensed child care programs are licensed and qualified. I don't know

too many people who run licensed family day cares that aren't qualified, that haven't taken some type of education or training and are always furthering their education to make sure they provide the best care possible to the children that are under their care.

We are talking here about big-box corporations. We're talking about corporations that are eyeing B.C. with very, very hungry eyes.

Now, let's talk about 15 years ago in Australia when the child care system in Australia looked very much like what we have in Canada today. It was consisting mostly of community-based programs, but the changes in government funding fuelled corporate takeovers. Child care corporations reaping whopping, just whopping, shareholder profits courtesy of public dollars became the courtesy of the Australian stock exchange. By 2005 there was such fierce competition, mergers and buyouts that the ABC Learning Centres was the only one left standing, running all of the corporation-run child care programs in Australia.

This year ABC's worth was reported at almost $4 billion with centres across Australia and the United States. Now they're eyeing Canada. So $4 billion — think of what could happen if $4 billion of profit went into a child care program in this country.

Why is all of this so important? Well, in child care, quality is the key. Compelling evidence shows that all children thrive in high-quality early childhood programs but that poor quality can have serious negative effects on our children when they're at their most vulnerable age.

We all know the studies. We all know they've been done over and over again. Children learn the most from the ages of birth to five. Whether you like it or not, those are the facts. That's reality. They need the best education from zero to five.

I'm going to quote an economist. I know the members opposite like to hear from economists. This is a study that was done by the University of Toronto, Gordon Cleveland. He describes Canadian research results. "Under the right conditions non-profit status appears to contribute strongly to the quality of services…partly this greater production of quality occurs because non-profits make different decisions about inputs and appear to have higher quality objectives than for-profits."

It's very simple. A corporation needs to put beans in its jeans. It needs to give corporate profits to its shareholders. A non-profit organization, a small-run business, puts the money back into the system. They put the money back into the child care. They put the money back into the services that the children desperately need.

Accountability for public dollars is also another issue. Significant public funding is necessary to ensure that programs are both high quality and accessible to parents. We have to ensure that the public dollars aren't going into a shareholder's pocket again. They're actually going back into the services to ensure that we have good quality for those children.

But at ABC Learning Centres, the stocks have paid significant, generous dividends over the years. It would seem that their shareholders, who are living down in Australia, have scored much better than children or families. Now that very same corporation is eyeing B.C. to come here and say, "We, too, want to get a share of the pie there in B.C. We want to put more money into our corporation and shareholders' pockets" — not into the care of children in B.C.

It begs a question. Are preschoolers in this province primarily consumers to be wooed for their profitability, or are they worthy of some kind of interest and support — the same kind that we devote to our older children and siblings that are in the public education and university systems? Public funding for public education and public funding for universities, so why not public funding for early childhood education, when those children are at their most vulnerable?

I think what this motion does is ensure against the next incursion of corporate child care. We need to stop this expansion, this type of corporate child care here in B.C., for the benefit of all children — for the benefit of our grandchildren, our grandchildren-to-be and our children, who are raising our grandchildren. We need to ensure that they have the opportunity to access good quality child care, where the main focus is not profit. It's not dollars in a corporate shareholder's pocket, but it's actually dollars going back into a quality child care system.

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