2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 28, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Private Members' Statements

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

Commercialization of child care (Motion 36)

C. Trevena

V. Roddick

S. Simpson

L. Mayencourt

D. Routley

R. Cantelon

L. Krog

H. Bloy

K. Conroy

[ Page 10321 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

REFORMING STUDENT AID

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.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

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.

[1005]

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-

[ Page 10322 ]

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.

[1010]

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.

Second, we should expand graduate student grant programs…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

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.

[1015]

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,

[ Page 10323 ]

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.

TRADE WINDS

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.

[1020]

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.

[ Page 10324 ]

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.

[1025]

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.

I will now take my seat and look forward to comments from the

members opposite.

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,

[ Page 10325 ]

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?

[1030]

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.

SUPPORT TO FAMILIES

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.

[1035]

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

[ Page 10326 ]

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.

[1040]

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

[ Page 10327 ]

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.

[1045]

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.

HUNTING

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.

[1050]

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.

[ Page 10328 ]

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.

[1055]

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

[ Page 10329 ]

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.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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.

[1100]

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.

[Be it resolved that this House opposes the commercialization of

child care in British Columbia.]

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.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

COMMERCIALIZATION OF CHILD CARE

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

[ Page 10330 ]

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.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

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.

[1105]

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.

[1110]

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

[ Page 10331 ]

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.

[1115]

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

[ Page 10332 ]

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.

[1120]

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.

[1125]

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

[ Page 10333 ]

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.

[1130]

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

[ Page 10334 ]

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."

[1135]

Interjections.

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

[ Page 10335 ]

top. Everyone understands that it's a wonderful society where services can be

delivered by private enterprise. Nothing wrong with that.

[1140]

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.

[1145]

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….

B. Lekstrom: You look too young to be a grandfather.

H. Bloy: Well, I thank the member for my youthful looks.

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

[ Page 10336 ]

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.

Interjections.

H. Bloy: I am very pleased to have the support of the

opposition.

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.

Interjections.

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.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

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.

[1150]

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.

Point of Order

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.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bloy: I'll withdraw my remarks, then.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Debate Continued

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

[ Page 10337 ]

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.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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.

[1155]

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.

That's what we need to have in B.C.

K. Conroy moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:59 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175