2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2001

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 9

[ Page 17471 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

The Speaker: Are there any introductions by members? The hon. Minister

of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

The Speaker: Excuse me. My apologies.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Been there and done that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to the House the president of the United Native

Nations, Scott Clark. Welcome him and also Bill Lightbone, who's a former

vice-president of the UNN. Please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is a first for me, which seems a bit unusual,

seeing as I've been here for nine and a half years. But it is perhaps the

proudest moment to introduce my son, Jack Scott, who is here with us today for

the very first time.

I'd also like to introduce family of my staff who are here for the very first

time as well: Jean Alexander, who is from Terrace, and her daughter Becky Hynes,

who lives here in Victoria. Please make them welcome.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure to introduce Ron Docherty, who has been a

very active person in community issues around the city of Richmond and a past

chair of the chamber of commerce. He's either in the gallery, if they were able

to find a seat for him, or at least in the precincts. Would you all please

welcome Ron to this House.

Hon. G. Bowbrick: Joining us on the floor of the House today is a

former member of this House, a former Attorney General, Alex Macdonald. I note

that Alex taught a course at SFU, and I think four members of this House were

taught by him: the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, the member for

Chilliwack, the Minister of Social Development and Economic Security, and

myself. The only remaining question is: with which two did he go wrong? I hope

that the House will join me in making him welcome.

[1410]

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce, from Keremeos, Doug MacLeod

and his family. Could the House please make them welcome.

D. Miller: In between yelling at the opposition, occasionally my

spouse and I have been playing grandparents this week. Fortunately, help has

arrived. I would like to introduce my spouse, Gayle Ballard, our daughter Donna

Rensvold, our two charming grandchildren Kyle Rensvold and Lauren Rensvold, and

a close friend of my daughter, Anna-Maria Fleck, formerly of Prince Rupert but

now of Comox. Mr. Speaker, the kids have occasionally tuned in to the House, and

they've expressed some curiosity about why we argue too much. And I'm sure the

opposition would be pleased to know that I said it's their fault.

J. Wilson: Today I have three people in the galleries that I'd like to

introduce. Spring break is here, and my family has come down to share this time

with me: my wife Laura, my daughter Emily and my son, Aubrey. Please make them

welcome.

H. Lali: I have two guests that I'd like to introduce. One of them I

actually had a chance to meet for the first time in 1989. Back then I was the

constituency president for the Yale-Lillooet NDP, and I believe he was

vice-president of the Social Credit Yale-Lillooet constituency association at

the time. Over those numbers of years, obviously, I went off to become MLA, and

my guest went on to become the mayor of Lytton. And during that time we also

became good friends. So I'd like to introduce the mayor of Lytton, Mr. Chris

O'Connor, and his daughter, Sarah, who are sitting right there up in the stands.

Would the House please make my guests welcome.

G. Hogg: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today a

representative of the Canadian Bar Association, Heather Holmes, along with her

partner Bill, daughter Miranda and son Edward. I'd ask the House to please make

them welcome.

Also joining us in the gallery today is Martin Commons, who is a lawyer

visiting from the United Kingdom. Martin is here to see how politics work in

this part of the Commonwealth. I hope that we can show him well. Please make him

welcome.

Hon. E. Gillespie: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today

four women who have made pay equity their lifelong struggle: Angie Schira from

the B.C. Federation of Labour, Bernice Kirk, Colleen Jordan and Kristina

Vandervoort. Would the House please welcome all four women.

G. Abbott: I have two friends and constituents here today from Salmon

Arm: Frank Bartunek and Brenda Bartunek. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to welcome my cousin Sharon to the

House today. She's a new resident of Victoria, and she has brought along her

husband Steve and her sons Eamon and Conor. Would the House please welcome

Sharon and her family.

C. Hansen: A friend and constituent is in the gallery, Mr. David

Jacobs. I hope the House will make him welcome.

J. Sawicki: I have constituents of mine in the gallery. They are June

and Ken Williams and Ben Swanky. They are the parents and grandfather of Ben

Williams, who has been an activist in the student movement for many years and is

currently the ministerial assistant to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I

just want to add that this is the third generation of activism in that family,

because Mr. Ben Swanky was very instrumental as a founder of COPE and the

Burnaby Citizens Association. I understand that at 87, he's heading off to

Quebec City next month to protest the free trade area of the Americas. They are

accompanied by Marjorie Kingsbury, a constituent of yours, hon. Speaker. I would

ask the House to make them all welcome.

[1415]

D. Jarvis: I have a niece here. Sarah Johnstone has come to Victoria

today to study the rise and fall of governments in this Legislature, and so I

wish you would all give her a warm welcome.

[ Page 17472 ]

Oral Questions

NURSING SHORTAGE

G. Campbell: At the end of 1998 the NDP promised to hire 1,000 new

nurses over two years. Today we have new information from the Registered Nurses

Association of B.C. that shows that instead of hiring 1,000 new nurses since

1998, the net increase in new nurses is simply 31 positions. Can the Minister of

Health confirm that this is just another one of those NDP announcements that

this government never had any intention of keeping?

Hon. C. Evans: I believe that the net increase in the number of nurses

in the amount of time the hon. member mentions is 347. I believe, also, that the

hon. member is correct, if his main point is that there remains a nursing

shortage in British Columbia. Everybody over there, everybody on both sides,

will know that about $19 million in creative grants -- for preceptorship, for

mentoring, for time off for education -- has gone to every health region in the

province to create a more attractive working environment in order to make up

that shortage in these essential workers.

The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition with a

supplemental question.

G. Campbell: Just so the minister knows, if I had to choose between

his numbers and those of the Registered Nurses Association of B.C, I'd pick the

registered nurses every single time. Secondly, hon. Speaker, only the New

Democrats would think they'd done well when they got 30 percent of the way to

the target that they'd set for themselves two years ago.

The fact of the matter is that in the last few weeks alone we've had Royal

Columbian Hospital, Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital all

saying to patients: "Please do not come here to our emergency wards. We

can't provide the care that you need." We've had cancellation of surgeries.

We've had people turned away from those wards across the province. B.C.

hospitals are being forced to close beds and wards because of an NDP-created

nursing shortage in this province.

My question to the minister is: why should the people of B.C. believe

anything he says after ten years of cutting back over 3,000 acute care beds,

cutting back nurse training positions in this province? Why should the people of

British Columbia believe, after a decade of cutbacks, that this government has

finally seen the light?

Hon. C. Evans: The Leader of the Opposition knows that last year, in

an attempt to keep up with the need for more nurse training, we added 400 new

seats in British Columbia schools for nurse education. He also knows that this

year we added 400 more. He also knows that in order to create a working

environment that would attract the best in the world, we invested $3 million in

the Fraser region just in nursing grants, $700,000 in the Okanagan, $3 million

in the Kootenays, $1.5 million in the north, $3 million in the Cariboo, $5

million on Vancouver Island, $700,000 in the North Coast and $3 million in

Vancouver.

It is true that we need to solve nursing shortages, but what is not true is

the hon. member's assertion that this is a British Columbia problem. Pick up a

newspaper from anywhere in the world. The nursing shortage, like the doctor

shortage, is worldwide. We are attempting to be the destination of choice for

workers from around the world to come to British Columbia to assist us to solve

the problem.

[1420]

C. Hansen: I will remind the minister that it is the policies of his

government that have made the nursing crisis worse. In 1996 there were 703

British Columbia graduates in nursing programs. By 1999, three years later, that

number was down to 567 graduates from nursing schools in British Columbia.

A big part of this problem is that nurses are leaving nursing positions,

because they are only offered casual employment. One of the reasons for this is

that hospital administrators have been unable to make permanent positions of

those casual positions, because of the long-term uncertainty around their

budgets. In this fiscal year the hospitals in British Columbia did not know what

their budgets were going to be until six months into the fiscal year. So why is

it that after years of complaints, this government is not able to tell hospitals

what their budgets will be for the fiscal year that starts in nine days?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm attempting to respond to the structural nature of

the questions rather than the rhetorical, but it's getting more difficult. The

hon. member knows, because he came in here last fall and watched the budget go

up for health . . . . He watched the budget go up again for the

health action plan in December, and he knows that those are multi-year lifts to

the hospitals so that they can fund over more than one year.

But now we're coming to the real question, because this is going to go on and

on. Exactly how are you going to fund the system when you have tax cuts coming

out of the provincial budget, hon. member? The question isn't just: can we make

it better because, gosh, that's our job? The question is: how would you do it in

the politics of less?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I would ask all members to direct their

questions and answers through the Chair.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: I would just suggest to the Minister of Health that he walk

down the hall this afternoon, talk to his Premier and convince him to call an

election so that we can get on to solving some of these problems.

But rather than dealing with this problem, this government continues to use

and abuse nurses in British Columbia. Last year $76 million was spent on

overtime for nurses. Not only are these excessive amounts of overtime burning

out our nursing staff, but it is very hard on our health care budgets. Will the

Minister of Health admit that that $76 million would be far better spent hiring

more nurses to make sure that we can deliver adequate patient care in this

province?

Hon. C. Evans: It is true that in order to do this job, you have to

have periodic and ongoing discussions with the Premier. But we have our

discussions in places like Vancouver General Hospital and in hospitals all over

this province, talk-

[ Page 17473 ]

ing to the workers -- the front-line workers themselves. And the result of

those discussions is our budget: open for the world to see exactly where our

investment would go.

Answer me this: where is your answer to the problems? Where is your solution?

How much would you fund, or is $6 billion still enough according to the Liberal

Party?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will go through the Chair, please.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a further supplemental.

C. Hansen: When the minister and the Premier went around this province

to a few select hospitals in British Columbia in closed private meetings, the

Premier had to finally admit that after eight years of NDP government he didn't

realize the extent of the problem. Is the minister now prepared to recognize the

extent of the problem, call an election and get the heck out of this House so

that we can bring some competent government to health care in British Columbia?

[1425]

Hon. C. Evans: It really is a question of choice. The Premier and I

travelled, and we talked to the front-line providers. The Liberal Party, on the

other hand, had a tour by invitation only.

When we were finished, we walked into this room, in front of the television

and the press and the general public, and presented our health action plan for

everybody to see, and we voted on it so the world would see exactly . . . .

Where's your plan? You're begging for the people to have a choice. There's

nothing to choose from, hon. member. Ours is open to the world; yours is still

inside your head.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRAVEL

FOR HEALTH CARE

R. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the minister isn't careful, he's

going to have to go to that book that he had printed in the U.S. of A., the

health care guide, to look after his blowing his top.

We have statistics from the Alberta Ministry of Health that show the exchange

of patients between Alberta and British Columbia. In 1997 only one Albertan

received emergency care in British Columbia. By 2000 that number had increased

to an awesome five. But in 1997, 62 British Columbians received emergency care

in Alberta, and by 2000 over 300 British Columbians received care in Alberta.

My question to the minister is: after ten years of total mismanagement of

health care, will the Health minister tell us why we are sending so many

patients to Alberta for health care? And why should anyone believe this group

anyhow, after they've destroyed the health care we had when they came in?

Hon. C. Evans: The first part of the question referred to the

"B.C. HealthGuide." The hon. member incorrectly stated that it had

been printed in the United States. I would just like to assert that it was --

and I'm real proud of this -- the largest printing ever of the Queen's Printer

in British Columbia. And I think it's a great book.

The second half of the question referred to the relationship between B.C. and

Alberta and cross-visitation of patients between the two provinces. Far from

being embarrassed that the provinces work together, I'm increasingly proud. The

ministers of western Canada -- Saskatchewan and Manitoba -- came to British

Columbia. Alberta couldn't come at the time because they were calling a

provincial election. They came here precisely to study our nursing strategy and

the health action plan and to talk about the increasing sharing of resources --

not becoming more parochial and more limited to our provinces but to see what we

could share in common in order to make the system work better and bring down

costs.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North has a supplemental

question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order.

R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it's great that he printed it here, but

obviously he had it drafted and written -- after their visit to one hospital in

British Columbia -- south of the border.

And the statistics that I give get worse. Between 1997 and 2000, it cost the

province of Alberta . . . .

Interjections.

[1430]

R. Neufeld: Just listen up, folks. It cost the province of Alberta

only $39 million for Albertans who received medical care in British Columbia.

But in that same period, B.C. paid Alberta a staggering $133 million for British

Columbians treated in Alberta.

My question is: why are we sending so many patients to Alberta for health

care? For goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker -- to use a phrase of your own -- wouldn't

it be better to spend that $133 million in British Columbia looking after

British Columbia patients? And with these statistics, why should anyone believe

this group that they're really going to fix the problem that they created in the

first place?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: I want to go again to my main point. I think that in

order to make medicare work so that we remain the best country in the world,

rather than provinces competing with one another, we have to work together --

closer. Perhaps we should share our Pharmacare system. Perhaps we should have

wages in common.

Hon. Speaker, I'm not embarrassed. If I lived in Cranbrook, I would hate to

have a government that wanted to cut off the line. In fact, the closest large

town to Cranbrook happens to be in Alberta. Do you want a parochial government

that says to the patient in Cranbrook: "You can't go to Alberta"?

We're part of the Canadian system and damn proud of it.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

[ Page 17474 ]

Petitions

P. Priddy: I rise to present a petition from 212 people from the

Canadian Coalition for Parental Rights, concerned about the rights of parents

and access of third parties to children.

D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance. Would it be in order to

ask for an extension of question period? [Laughter.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. G. Robertson tabled the 1999-2000 annual report of the Ministry of

Energy and Mines.

Reports from Committees

Hon. G. Janssen: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I

have the honour to present the third and fourth reports of the Special Committee

of Selection for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament on the matter

of membership on select standing and special committees.

Hon. Speaker, I move the reports be taken as read and received.

The Speaker: The Opposition House Leader rises on a matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have not seen the lists. Unless this is

something that's happened previously, I am assuming these are new changes to the

committees. If they are, I'd like to know that. If they're not, if these are

merely old changes, then I'd like to know that as well. I'm not aware; I wasn't

advised previously. Perhaps the Government House Leader can explain.

Hon. G. Janssen: It's my understanding that these are reports from the

last . . . . These are old reports, not new. I haven't got them

anymore.

The Speaker: All right, so we'll conduct a vote on the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Janssen: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to

permit the moving of a motion to adopt the reports.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Janssen: I move the reports be adopted now.

Motion approved.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Janssen: I call continued second reading of Bill 2.

CHILD CARE BC ACT

(second reading continued)

K. Whittred: In the very brief time before the break for lunch, hon.

Speaker, I was just beginning my remarks about Bill 2, which is the child care

bill. And I was, I think, expressing my support of the value of early childhood

education. In my opinion, the train on early childhood education has left the

station. I don't think there's any thinking person that would deny that early

childhood education is in fact extremely valuable for all children. There is an

abundance of evidence and numerous studies, of course, that show that children

who have stimulating early childhood experiences tend to be more successful in

school, more successful in their jobs, and so on.

So there is no disagreement on that point. I have been very clear over the

last several months, in my remarks about child care, that this side of the House

very much supports not only the quality of child care but the idea that it must

be affordable and accessible to children. Where we may differ with the

government is in the model of delivery. There are in fact many models, and this

government has chosen to use one model. They have chosen to emulate the Quebec

model. And I might point out that the Quebec model is only used in that one

place in the world and nowhere else.

The government has touted this Quebec model to us as though it is absolutely

flawless, and this, of course, is not the case. There has been a great deal of

criticism about the Quebec program, some of it from the auditor general. And

according to the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy, the

Quebec system only assists 28 percent of Quebec families. That is hardly what I

would call universal -- 28 percent.

Further to that, the $5-a-day program in Quebec has resulted in a budgetary

shortfall, which has forced the government to siphon money from other programs

just to stay afloat. And that is something that certainly hurts all families.

One of the problems with a one-size-fits-all program is that if you don't fit

that size, then you get left out in the cold. And that is not something, I

think, that would be part of a well-thought-out and comprehensive program.

[1440]

A program like the Quebec model, on which this one is fashioned, puts all its

eggs in one basket. It says that if you don't fit in this basket, then you are

out of luck. And it has the ultimate effect of limiting choices for everybody.

It limits choices for government, it limits choices for parents, and it limits

choices for child care providers.

Let's look at those just for a moment, hon. Speaker, one by one. Let's take

probably the most important in the mix from the group, which is the parents. We

live in a province where we have many, many cultures. I know from my days as a

teacher that different cultures have very, very different ideas about child

rearing. None of those are bad; none of them are wrong. They are simply

different. So I ask the people of the province: how does a one-size-fits-all .

. . ? How does a program that is going to put every child into a similar

slot going to respond to that wide variety of mix?

Parents have different ideas about how they want their children cared for.

Some parents, for example, prefer that they have a nanny in-house. Other parents

don't like that option; they want to go to organized group care. Other parents

want some other kind of family resource. Some parents want grandparents or an

aunt or a family member. There are many, many different choices that families

make, and on this side of the House we feel that child care should respect all

of those choices.

From the viewpoint of child care providers, this program is extremely

limiting. It says to child care providers: "Unless

[ Page 17475 ]

you are willing to do exactly what we say, then you will not be part of the

program." Of course, for government itself, which has the responsibility of

delivering the service, governments are very limited. When all of your resources

are in one program, it's very difficult to take money out of that program. If

you have a year when budgets are down or supply is down, you simply don't have

any kind of flexibility.

I am concerned about another aspect of this program, and that is the creation

of yet another big bureaucracy: Child Care B.C. I wonder whether care for our

very youngest citizens, who require care that is designed to meet the unique

characteristics of their community, their culture and their family, is best

served by a centralized, remote bureaucrat in Victoria. I might add that one of

my greatest disappointments in the last few weeks is that as the opposition

critic in this area, the government has been extremely secretive about this

whole Child Care B.C. model.

I have received no information on it. The government is most unwilling to

share, and other than the fact that it is created, I really have very little

knowledge of it. That is just plain wrong. It indicates a government that is

perhaps more interested in pursuing the politics of this issue than really

getting down to providing good child care for the toddlers and babies of this

province.

I wonder if the government has considered models other than this centralized

bureaucracy. In Quebec, for example, which is their model, they have in fact

turned over the before- and after-school care to the school districts. Now, I

don't know whether that's a good solution or not, but I wonder whether the

government considered that. I really do wonder why the government, for this

program . . . . It is the only program of services to children. If

we think of health and if we think of education, all of those services are done

at a regional level. But child care, which is the most precious service that

government provides, is to be centralized in a bureaucracy in Victoria. I am

concerned about that aspect of the program.

[1445]

I wonder what role the government considered for municipalities. One of the

groups that I do have the pleasure of speaking to fairly frequently is people on

the planning commissions of various municipalities. They seem to be very

knowledgable. They're knowledgable about their communities, and I am very

curious about what kind of consultation process has been put here. I am curious

about whether or not the government considered having part of that as part of

the administrative model. Mr. Speaker, there are just so many questions that are

unanswered about this program.

I am extremely concerned about the one-size-fits-all approach to this. The

government is telling parents of British Columbia that whether you live in Fort

Nelson, whether you live in Oliver, whether you live in Port Hardy, Kelowna,

East Vancouver or West Vancouver, the delivery of child services can be met in

the same way. This is a plan that fails to take into account geography, climate,

culture or socioeconomic status when planning for the care of our very youngest

babies and toddlers.

I had a call on an issue that I dealt with from a rural child care provider.

The licensing had been removed from this particular provider because the

driveway was muddy. Well, anyone who's ever been on a farm -- at least, the

farms that I grew up on -- knows that when it's raining, the driveways are

muddy. That is a very simple example of how this plan falls short of serving the

citizens of British Columbia.

I find it ironic that this government that talks so much about recognizing

cultural diversity and geographic diversity . . . . This is a

province that cries out for choices, particularly when we're dealing with very,

very small children. I have yet to get my head around how some of our small and

remote villages will be able to fit the mould defined by the continuing care

facility act. In my opinion, if the government had wanted to do anything to

actually help child care, they might have taken child care licensing out of that

act. However, I think this act is not about providing good child care; it is

about other things.

I am concerned that the government, in their zealousness to bring in a plan

that they think is going to give them some political leverage, have not asked

themselves about priorities. I would like to just throw out a few of the really,

really difficult choices that I think governments have to make.

For example, is it more important to provide universal child care, or is it

more important to focus our scant resources on that percentage of children who

need additional help so that they can enter school on an equal playing field? I

alluded earlier in my remarks to the study that was done on the North Shore.

This is a good one to refer to, because it showed that on the affluent North

Shore, 20 percent of the children in the study were not ready for school.

Mr. Speaker, these are ethical decisions. They are tough decisions, and these

are the kinds of tough decisions that government has to make. It's not about

whether you're in favour of child care or not; it's about where you start in the

syndrome to solve the problems that we have. We might ask: is it more important

to focus on universality, or might we be better off to try to focus and

eliminate fetal alcohol syndrome?

[1450]

I don't pretend to know all the answers to these questions, but I am

disappointed that the government has apparently not considered these questions

in any kind of thoughtful way. And they certainly have not considered them in

any kind of way that has involved itself in any dialogue I have been party to.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I am concerned that any thoughtful person living in

this province will be incredibly concerned about the timing of this

announcement, coming as it does at the end of ten years of government.

One cannot help but wonder why such an important subject that affects so

directly the lives of so many British Columbia families was ignored until just

before a mandatory election call. During those ten years this government has

more than doubled the provincial debt so that interest payments alone cost

British Columbians more than $2 billion per year. This same government spent $75

million on plans for a convention centre that was abandoned and, of course, the

infamous $460 million on fast ferries that are of no use to the people of

British Columbia.

I am concerned that barely six months of planning was put into this process.

The planning process was flawed because of its failure to adequately canvass a

broad

section of parents, child care providers and other stakeholders. Finally,

I am concerned that the long-term costs of this vary widely from $480 million

quoted today by the minister to more than $1 billion recently suggested by the

Premier. On a project of this magnitude, surely we have to have figures that are

a little bit more precise than that.

I am concerned about the ability of this government to manage and deliver on

major projects of the magnitude of the

[ Page 17476 ]

child care program. I cannot help but think of the abandoned convention

centre and the shrink-wrapped fast ferry. I am reminded that this government

created the Ministry for Children and Families, which, according to the child

advocate, continues to be underfunded and mismanaged. I have a picture in my

head of the Ministry for Children and Families. This ministry lurches from

crisis to crisis to crisis and has since its inception, to the disgrace of this

government and to the horror, I think, of anyone who has children in the

process.

In four years there have been six ministers responsible for child care, and

this is a government that tells us that they are so concerned about child care

and have tried to paint us as people who don't care about child care. And that

is irresponsible. This is the government that has created a ministry for

children that is dysfunctional. This is a government that has changed ministers

so often that you can't even count them, and this is a government where the

current Minister for Children and Families can't even sit in the House.

[1455]

I recall that in the first sitting of 1996, the government announced a number

of capital projects, many of them long term care facilities. But 29 days later

these same projects were frozen, and most of those projects have not been built

to this day. Do you know, in my community today -- in 2001 -- we have two fewer

long term care beds than we had when this government came to power? And this is

in a community with a large and growing percentage of senior citizens. Any

thoughtful, reasonable person might wonder if this is one of those things that

this government would not deliver on. Any thoughtful, reasonable person might

wonder if this bill is more about the pending election than anything else.

One of the issues around this, which has been of constant annoyance to me, is

that this government defined in the strategy document that this is a wedge

issue. The children of our province, our babies and our toddlers, are a wedge

issue. This government wants to take and drive a wedge between the people of

British Columbia, drive a wedge between families. That is reprehensible. That is

not what this is about.

At the beginning of my remarks today I spoke of my granddaughter and how my

colleague from Langley had a granddaughter the same age and the member for North

Coast had a granddaughter that same age. I did that to try to illustrate that

our toddlers and our babies are not partisan issues. This side of the House is

every bit as concerned, cares about child care and is as knowledgable about it

as that side of the House. To suggest that, because we would not deliver a

service in the same manner, is simply not to be believed.

This plan is so flawed that I have been unable to really believe the kinds of

calls that I have been getting. Generally, when there's an issue you tend to get

calls from one side of the issue or another, but on this one I'm getting calls

from everybody. I am getting calls from the licensed care facilities; I'm

getting calls from home-based facilities. I'm getting calls from parents who

have their children in licensed facilities and parents who have them in others.

Many licensed child care providers have told us that the government's plan

will leave them chronically underfunded. In fact, I'm sure the government knows

this. In order to provide the service, many care providers have to charge

additional fees. Some have had to limit service; some have had to lay off staff.

Others have said that if they don't wish to join the plan, they fear being left

out in the cold. The small day care centres, the majority that operate out of

private homes and make up a large proportion of spaces, feel like they are out

in an area where they really don't quite know what's going on.

So where do we go from here? One of the things I have been saying that I

believe illustrates our commitment to child care is that it is a matter of

public record where this opposition stands. The member for Richmond East, the

member for Langley, myself, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, as well

as others in this House, have all spoken quite eloquently in support of

affordable and accessible child care programs. The Leader of the Opposition,

when he was mayor of Vancouver, undertook many actions on behalf of children. He

established a children's task force; he hired Canada's first municipal

children's advocate and was responsible for setting operating grants for day

care centres.

[1500]

More recently the Leader of the Opposition offered to work with the

government on children's issues. He made that offer in 1997, in 1998 and again

in 1999. All of these overtures were ignored by the government. So once again, I

have to ask . . . . A reasonable thinking person would probably

conclude that this government is more interested in politics around this issue

than it really is in the program.

Hon. Speaker, on this side of the House, for the reasons I've given, we have

no confidence that this government can deliver or would deliver on this program.

For these reasons, I ask that a new government should allow an all-party

committee of the Legislature to talk to both parents and child care providers

and make recommendations for improvements. Too often the current government has

created programs that everyone agrees are needed. Nobody disagrees that child

care is desirable, that it needs to be accessible, that it needs to be

affordable, but we cannot do that without due diligence or sensible planning.

Every member of this Legislature cares about child care. The issue deserves our

full attention and careful consideration. Therefore every member should have the

opportunity to ask questions and get answers and to make suggestions to fix

problems before they occur. That way, British Columbians will get not only the

program they want but the results they want as well.

We on this side of the House want child care to be affordable, to be

efficiently managed and targeted to those who need it. We want a child care

program that's achievable and gives people who are most in need the choices they

require. Now, for the reasons I've given, the official opposition will be voting

in favour of this bill on second reading, and we will vote against

section 4,

which is the one that deals with the details of universality.

Hon. E. Gillespie: I'm very pleased to take my place to speak in

support of Child Care B.C. I'd like to start my comments with just a very brief

review of a decade of commitment by this government in British Columbia to

children and to child care. I'm referring to a report that was recently

published by my ministry, "A Decade of Accomplishments," because in

1991 child care was the responsibility of this ministry. It was a responsibility

of this ministry in recognition of the fact that today, even as we move down the

road towards women's equality, we recognize that women are, by and large, the

care providers for their children.

Over the last ten years access to quality, affordable, appropriate child care

has been a major factor in our planning

[ Page 17477 ]

for children in this province. I look back to our population of children aged

zero to 12 -- in 1992, a population of 606,000. Over the last nine or ten years

that population has grown by about 5 percent. In the same time our licensed

child care spaces have grown by 70 percent. But even more importantly, child

care spaces for children under age three have grown by 180 percent in this

province. The numbers of children receiving the child care subsidy have

increased by 129 percent.

Finally, our school-based programs for young parents . . . . And

I can speak personally about this with respect to the Teddies 'n' Toddlers

program at Vanier high school. These school-based programs, of which there were

only 15 in this province in 1992 -- programs which assist young parents, young

mothers and young fathers, to complete their high school education knowing that

their children are well cared for -- have grown by 220 percent. For ten years

this government has made a commitment to the children of this province, ensuring

that there is quality and affordable care in all regions of this province,

ensuring that parents have access to choices.

[1505]

This is where I would like to take a different route than the opposition

critic has taken. The opposition critic indicates that this child care

legislation, Child Care B.C., offers one model of child care and limits the

choice of parents. I would submit that Child Care B.C. actually expands the

choices for parents. Parents today face choices like: shall I go to work to try

to assist my family to live in a more comfortable life and put all of that money

into child care payments? Shall I look for some kind of arrangement, maybe an

arrangement that I can't count on every day, but maybe take a few chances here

and there? Maybe my children can come home after school and take care of

themselves for a while before I come home. Shall I take those chances, or shall

I put my children in a licensed, quality child care facility where I can be sure

that they're safe and well cared for?

What this Child Care B.C. program does is lay out the commitment over the

next four years. It lays out the continuing commitment of this government to

access to quality and affordable child care. We are talking about child care in

group facilities -- licensed group facilities. We are talking about child care

in family care settings. We are talking about for-profit settings and

not-for-profit settings. This is not about the government of British Columbia

becoming the providers of child care for all children of this province. This is

about a commitment to support parents, to support children and to support care

providers to make sure that choices are available for parents. Those choices

will be available in communities. Those choices will be designed by community

groups -- by for-profit, by not-for-profit groups existing in communities now.

The opposition critic also spoke of licensing and indicated that licensing

was in some way a set of rules that would require every child care centre to be

the same. Licensing is about accountability. Licensing is about the assurance of

quality. Every parent and every child ought to have the opportunity to be

assured of that quality and that accountability.

In the summer of 1999 this government distributed a discussion document on

child care. That discussion document raised some very interesting discussions in

our own community. Various leaders were brought together -- leaders in municipal

politics, leaders with the school board -- to have a discussion about child care

and how we can best care for our children in this community. Our discussions

were oriented around the discussion paper. We came up with some interesting

conclusions that I think would be very worthy of building on as we move through

the four-year commitment of the Child Care B.C. legislation. We talked about the

opportunity of public buildings providing space for child care -- perhaps city

hall, perhaps hospitals. Perhaps every employer of a certain size could be

encouraged to provide for child care facilities on their site.

It reminds me of a time in my work life some 20 years ago, when I worked for

the Addiction Research Foundation in Toronto. We had over 400 employees. We were

on the University of Toronto campus next to the Clarke Institute -- another 400

employees, many of whom had young children. And those parents of young children

were struggling constantly to find access to quality child care spaces, where

they could take their children, where they knew they would be well taken care

of, where perhaps they would have easy access to them at some times during the

day if that was necessary, particularly for infants.

[1510]

At that time the whole idea of child care within the workplace was perhaps

seen to be something new -- 20 years ago, hon. Speaker. But you know, over these

20 years women have been entering the workforce in even greater numbers. By the

year 2007, as we're looking at the projections in British Columbia and across

Canada, we expect that at least half, if not more, of the workforce will be

women. Many of these women are mothers. Every mother and every father wants to

be assured that their child is well taken care of. I would submit that every

grandmother and every grandfather wants to be assured that their grandchild has

access to high-quality, affordable and accessible child care. That's what this

legislation is about.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

We know that if child care is expensive and not available, there is a direct

impact on parents, particularly on women, who need reasonably priced, safe

places for children while they work. I'm excited because today, as we introduce

this legislation, we're taking another significant step toward economic equality

for women by providing safe, affordable and accessible child care.

Last year this ministry released a discussion paper, "Women's Economic

Security and Pay Equity." That discussion paper started a dialogue among

women in this province on a number of issues. One of those issues that was

brought up in every meeting was that of safe, affordable, accessible,

comprehensive child care. We spoke with women from Kamloops, Prince George,

Vancouver, Abbotsford, Victoria, Nanaimo, Terrace and Cranbrook. We spoke with

women from the rural aboriginal community, from the lesbian community, from the

urban aboriginal community. We spoke to women with disabilities and to women of

colour. Of course, what we heard from all of those women was the need for

comprehensive child care. I heard: "I need decent, affordable child care to

find a good job, maybe a better job, or to go to school, to get some

training."

As in this House, child care sparked the greatest discussion and, of course,

the greatest emotion. Caring for children and working a full-time job or a

part-time job is hard. It's hard because child care is eating up most of the

salary and largely determining the career decisions that women make. It's hard

because they have a choice of whether to take the training or

[ Page 17478 ]

the education to get the promotion to get the good, well-paying jobs or to

stay put and keep paying their current and expensive child care.

Why are women facing these choices? Because it would cost them too much in

additional child care expenses, or even worse, they can't find that child care,

which leaves them in the same difficult financial situation and continuing the

vicious cycle of working solely to pay their child care bill.

We have talked passionately and at length in this House about child poverty.

To our great shame, across Canada child poverty is not decreasing, despite

signing on to the United Nations convention. It is increasing across this

country. Children are not alone in poverty. Children live in families, where

they're cared for by mothers and fathers. They live in single-parent families

headed by fathers, families headed by mothers. The poorest of the poor children

in this province and in this country live in families headed by single-parent

women who need, deserve and require access to affordable, comprehensive and

high-quality child care.

[1515]

The women in our consultations, repeatedly and with great emotion, spoke of

delaying their entry into the workforce or taking part-time jobs over full-time

jobs. They spoke of interrupting their careers and turning down opportunities

for training and education just because they could not make a go of it

financially. Above all else, what was clear and true was that their children's

safety and welfare was number one. So if this is your number one priority,

things become pretty simple pretty fast: my child first; everything else comes

second.

But women shouldn't have to be faced with these kinds of dilemmas. Their

economic security should not have to be compromised because child care is

unavailable or expensive. Women need affordable, dependable child care; children

need affordable, dependable child care. How many times have we heard in this

House the great cry: "Children are our most important resource"? I

absolutely, fundamentally and wholeheartedly believe that, as I believe all

members of this House do.

If we really believe that, if we really take that seriously, we have to

invest in that resource, and we invest in that resource by ensuring that

children grow up in families that experience economic security. And they

experience economic security because their parents have decent jobs. They

experience economic security because they have access to good-quality,

affordable child care.

Women are entitled to work and not to worry about the safety and well-being

of their children. They're entitled not to have to sacrifice their careers or

their jobs because the cost of child care is just too expensive. They are

entitled to the choice. Finding affordable, quality child care makes a real

difference in a working mother's life. I would submit that knowing that there is

affordable, quality child care in one's community actually makes it possible to

choose to have a family.

This new legislation puts money back into the family purse, back into women's

wallets, and it addresses one of their biggest obstacles. This legislation gives

women and gives children choices, options -- not dilemmas. Women can now make

career choices toward achieving economic security for themselves and for their

families without that overarching worry about how much it's going to cost in

child care, because this legislation fixes that cost in licensed, quality,

community-based child care.

This legislation goes a long way in improving women's economic equality.

Women can get the training, get the education, get the better job, because they

can do it. They can do it financially. They can go to work; they can go to

school. They can not worry so much about their children. Of course we know that

mothers will never stop worrying, as I never stop thinking about my children

when I'm doing my work here. But they will be worrying about their children and

not about their child care bill.

My ministry, the Ministry of Women's Equality, has worked closely with the

Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. We've worked closely with

that ministry to ensure that women's issues were considered during the policy

development process of this act. And I look forward to continuing to work with

my colleague Minister Farnworth, the Minister of Social Development and Economic

Security, during the implementation stage.

Hon. Speaker, it would have been wonderful if you could have joined us

yesterday as we celebrated with women who have worked all their adult lives to

see comprehensive child care in their community, in their province and -- I

would hope, as has been promised year after year, decade after decade -- across

this country.

[1520]

This is another step in this government's plan to move forward together by

building a society that equally includes women -- a society that values women's

contributions, that values their efforts, that values their work -- and building

a society that finally recognizes that what benefits women and what benefits

children ultimately benefits all of British Columbia, building a stronger

community.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I also rise to support this bill. And I rise in

this House with a little bit of disappointment. I sat and listened to the

opposition critic's comments about the bill. And while it's very clear that the

opposition critic did not spend the time necessary to understand what was before

this House -- quite aside -- the fact of the matter is that she will be the only

speaker for the opposition. And she has now, as their official critic, left the

House rather than listen to the debate and perhaps learn something.

I want to address some of the comments that the critic made during her

presentation. She said that she questioned the timing. The development of the

legislation is simply an affirmation of a program that has taken a full year of

development with caregivers, with parents and with day care advocates. And when

we hear the opposition slamming the advice we got from the women and the experts

in the field, I have to say on their behalf that it is disappointing in the

extreme. It is condescending and insulting to all of those women who have worked

so hard and led the fight for this incredible program.

It has been a long time coming. While the Liberals in this House are from

moment to moment either friends of their brothers and sisters in Ottawa or at

times working aggressively to separate themselves, the fact is that the Liberals

in Ottawa promised, time after time after time, a comprehensive day care program

for Canada, and each and every time, they failed to deliver and broke that

promise. I believe that this critic, when she first said, criticizing the plan

that women, caregivers and experts developed in this province . . . .

When she first criticized it, saying that it was

[ Page 17479 ]

simply cheap day care for tennis players, that was at the core of what the

Liberals represent. When you hear this critic speak . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I hear a fair amount of heckling coming from the

other side. I'd invite the member to stand up, to get on the speakers' list, and

let's hear what they really stand for. I intend to use my time with pride. I am

prepared to stand up and be counted. I think it's very clear that that's what

the electorate want. They want to know what they stand for; they want to know

what they're offering British Columbia, not just a bunch of trickery and lies

and a one-point platform.

[1525]

This particular initiative that supports families, that supports women and

provides for security for children -- high-quality care -- is on the cutting

edge. The critics themselves acknowledge that there is only one other

jurisdiction in Canada that has provided such a creative and supportive program

for the people they represent. I believe that we're in good company.

When we hear from the critic all of the language around toddlers and babies .

. . . This program is before- and after-school day care. Most of the

speech, besides all of the political posturing, was not even speaking to the

substance of the initiative. We heard an awful lot about choice, about the need

for people to take advantage of nannies and private care. Well, I represent

Surrey-Whalley, and I've got to tell you that there are not too many children

being cared for by nannies in Surrey-Whalley. You might find a number of people

that are actually working as domestic care workers in Whalley, and they would be

offended by the representatives from such a privileged and exclusive background

that did not understand the realities that women and children face in British

Columbia.

This is a program that supports options. It was designed by the experts; it

was designed by people that actually provide for the care of our children in

this province. And that speaks to another aspect: the total disrespect and

disregard for the women that do the work, that care for our children. If they

think they know better, if their advice is from private care and nannies, then I

despair. I worry about our children, and I worry about the needs of working men

and women in this province.

Let me finally talk about the other aspect of the criticism. Now, this

criticism is described as targeting, rather than universal care. Rather than a

universal, comprehensive, high-quality day care in this province, what this

member is advocating is a continuation of supporting those most in need. I'm not

sure what this member would describe as those most in need, given the fact that

her background is based on an experience of the ability to bring a private

caregiver into her home. But when we, with this bill, make the point that

high-quality day care should be a right to all parents and all children, it is

not only a principle that I am happy to support but a principle that is

important for the future of our province.

This opposition, this one-point campaigning opposition, sees its only offer

to the people of British Columbia's quality of life as a radical, dramatic and,

I would say, irresponsible tax cut.

What we have done in this budget, and I am very proud of it, is provide

support to ensure balance, to ensure that every family and every child has the

same opportunity -- not simply for those that can afford private nannies, but

through initiatives like this one in particular -- to put $1,100 per child in

the pockets of women and families throughout this province. A full 33,000 spaces

-- 33,000 children -- will save $1,100 each and every year.

You see, hon. Speaker, when this opposition offers that radical,

irresponsible tax cut, what they're not telling you is that they are privatizing

the costs of programs that should be universal -- privatizing the costs of

education, of health care and of social programs like this one. When they attack

universality, beware. They're not only simply attacking the universality of day

care programs; they are attacking the universality of all of the programs that

allow us as a society to stand as equals.

[1530]

This opposition says that we are being divisive by offering this program, a

program that they criticize for its universality. I ask you, hon. Speaker: who

is being divisive when they are denying children and parents the right to a

high-quality program here in British Columbia?

Not only this program and the money that it will put in the pockets of

parents but other programs that are highlighted in our budget -- a full $1,600,

if we're to compare ourselves with Advanced Education . . . . That's

$1,600 in the pockets of parents and students. If we, heaven forbid, were ever

to find ourselves in a situation where we had health care that was not properly

funded here in British Columbia, there would be an additional cost.

When we look at California, we see the costs that parents bear for health

care and health care insurance -- $700 a month for private health care. It's

just another privatization of the costs that are borne by us collectively and

that ensure that we have the best health care system, the best education system

and now the best day care system supporting the aspirations and hopes of

children here in this province.

I am so proud of this initiative and every other initiative that has been

brought forward by the budget that was tabled in this House at the beginning of

this week. Shame on the opposition! Shame on the critic for being so

ill-informed! Shame on her for not being here to listen to the debate in the

House!

Deputy Speaker: Order, minister. Minister, the members' rules will not

permit the reference to the absence of members in the House. The minister will

remember that during her deliberations.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me just simply sum up my comments about this

initiative and invite the members that feel so strongly that they need to

comment . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me encourage the member to find his feet, and

perhaps he can tell us how much nonsense this program is as well. He spoke so

eloquently in public with respect to pay equity and the rights of women. He

might want to enter into this debate and enlighten the women of this province as

to how he views our hopes and aspirations for equality.

This program will go a long way in providing quality day care. It will

provide security, and it will provide a sense of

[ Page 17480 ]

optimism and hope for the future for many of our young people. I am proud to

be a part of this initiative and the initiatives that are laid out in our

budget.

Hon. G. Robertson: I rise to speak to Bill 2. It's a fine, outstanding

bill and one that we can all be very proud of. Today our government has taken

what I believe to be a very important step forward in support of children in

this province and also a step forward to support working families. The purpose

of this bill is to create and complete a comprehensive and publicly funded

quality child care system that will meet the needs of today's working families.

I listened with respect to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale as she

spoke to this bill and listened to her concerns in respect to particular aspects

of this bill. I'm not going to comment on that, because I think her comments

have been quite clear and covered off in the House this afternoon with the

debate. But every child in British Columbia deserves the best start in their

life irrespective of where they come from, whether they come from North

Vancouver or North Island or up the coast or in a little community somewhere

else in our province.

[1535]

This bill is all about toddlers, it's all about infants, and it's all about

our youth. It's also about their parents -- their moms and dads. It's about

opportunities for all British Columbians. As we move ahead, 70 percent of all

the jobs that are going to be made available in our province and indeed in our

country over the course of the next ten years are going to require

post-secondary education. Economies are constantly changing, whether it's in the

mining sector, the forestry sector, the fishing sector, the technology sector.

Irrespective of where you're at or what you're doing, you can be assured that

you're going to be called on to go back to do post-secondary education and

upgrade your skills with respect to technology and other areas.

It's also about access to jobs for parents. I know that on the North Island a

lot of our moms and dads are having a difficult time with jobs. We have a forest

industry that can't sell its product globally. We have a forest industry that

has huge undercuts and underharvest levels because markets are changing, access

to markets are changing, and again, technologies are changing. These parents

want to go back and upgrade their education, and they're doing that. But if

they've got children, they need first-rate child care, and Bill 2 does exactly

that.

I listened to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale talk about debt and the

debt of this province. Yes, we have got some debt. But that debt is building

this province. It's building new schools; it's building new hospitals. And that

debt is the second-lowest debt-to-GDP in this country. Hon. Speaker, we're

building this province.

I talked a little bit about education and access. This is about children and

their parents. It's also about, in my particular part of the country, parents

going back and getting an education and upgrading their skills.

In the last seven years our government has built about $85 million worth of

schools on the North Island. They've built a beautiful new college there, North

Island College, and Timberline. Just about every community has new schools: Gold

River and Sayward and Port Hardy. We've just completed an expansion in Port

McNeill with the new drama arts centre and woodworking centre. Those are

investments in the future of our communities and the future of our children.

We've frozen tuition fees for six years, and this year we introduced a bill

to reduce tuition fees by 5 percent. That means that our children, our youth and

our adults can go back and afford to get an education and upgrade their skills.

We've done $150 million for PLNet, bringing the latest in information

technology to places like Kyuquot and Alert Bay so that they're on the same

playing field and the same standard as children and young people and adults down

on the lower mainland. And that means a lot with respect to access to education.

Our K-to-3 class sizes are some of the lowest in the country and, again, give

youth a hand up in their early years.

We've just done $23 million for new equipment and for new libraries for

colleges and universities in this province.

And adult basic education. We're the only province in this country that has

free adult basic education, allowing people to go and upgrade their secondary

education and to graduate with a grade 12 or a Dogwood diploma, and that's good

news. It's good news, and this bill certainly helps with that.

The Child Care BC Act fulfill our promise to thousands of working families

across this province who have told us that they urgently need quality,

affordable child care that they can depend on. We know that affordable child

care means greater economic security for families around this province, and it

means that parents can further their education and find jobs, keep jobs, go out,

put some food on the table and some clothes, and some shoes on their kids' feet.

[1540]

That's something that a lot of people forget. We look in the cities here, and

yes, there are some people that are hard done by or are having some difficult

times. But child poverty . . . . Some of the communities I go into,

I don't feel good when I leave. I mean, these kids need help, and their parents

need help. And bills and legislation like this certainly do just that. It's a

hand up, which is what British Columbians really need.

For children it will mean a safe, caring place where they can learn and grow

socially, where they can play and, again, where they have some security. We all

know that an investment in children pays off dividends. It pays off dividends

when they have secure and safe child care facilities where they can socialize

and play in their early years. When they go on to education, the statistics have

shown that they're more productive, they're better able to learn, and they

progress very, very well.

In January British Columbia took the first step towards a publicly funded

child care system for British Columbia with the launch of the first phase of the

Child Care B.C. funding assistance program. Under this phase we are providing

public funding to before- and after-school care for children in up to 21,000

licensed group care spaces around this province. Parents of kindergarten

children in those spaces are now paying a maximum of $14 per day for

out-of-school care. Parents of children from grades 1 to 12 are paying a maximum

of $7 a school day. All those parents are now saving up to $1,100 per child per

year.

We also unveiled our four-year plan to expand the Child Care B.C. funding

assistance program so that it is available to

[ Page 17481 ]

all licensed child care providers in both group and family settings. When

this plan is fully in place in 2004, every working parent of a child aged 12 and

under will have the opportunity to have their child in publicly funded,

licensed, quality child care of their choice for a maximum fee of $14 a day. The

Child Care B.C. funding assistance program will put money back in the pockets of

working parents from one end of the province to the other. For parents of

infants and toddlers in particular it will mean a saving of up to $6,000 per

child per year. It is, I think, a really exciting and innovative program that

will put British Columbia in the forefront of publicly funded child care in this

country.

The Child Care BC Act that was introduced by the minister in the House

yesterday is, I believe, a really important step for this province and for

children. It provides parents with the certainty they are looking for that the

Child Care B.C. funding assistance program will unfold as planned. The Child

Care BC Act sets out the details of this funding program, including the

implementation timetable, the budget and the maximum fee that a participating

child care provider may require a parent to pay.

But the act is designed to do more as well. The Child Care BC Act brings all

B.C.'s grant programs for licensed child care providers together under one

statute. As such, it will be an umbrella for providing excellence in child care

in this province and one that we can all be proud of. Child Care B.C. has been

developed with the help of parents, child care providers, educators, business,

labour and other interested British Columbians from all through the province.

This government has made a firm commitment to help working families try and

make ends meet and ensure that B.C. children get the best possible start in

life. With this act we are obviously showing that we are prepared to back up our

commitments to families and the children in this province with the most decisive

action a government can take. This act gives high-quality, affordable child care

to all British Columbians.

[1545]

The future of our province is without a doubt our children. Every child

deserves to have the best possible start in life. Parents who have to work to

feed their children will have an opportunity to ensure their children are well

looked after. They also have an opportunity to help put their children through

secondary school with jobs. I believe that this legislation is about the future

of British Columbia: our children and our working parents. It's an investment

that elevates all of us by making sure young people are prepared for the future.

Over the course of the last few weeks we've unveiled a number of plans for

child care in the North Island constituency. On February 9 of this year I

announced a $10,000 grant to buy equipment and make renovations at the We Wai

Kai Nursery day care facility on Cape Mudge.

I talked earlier about the investment in schools in the North Island that our

government has made. On March 12 I announced $1 million in funding for a new

child care centre at Campbell River's Timberline campus. This was absolutely a

great announcement and one that we were all very proud of. It's a

444-square-metre facility, and it will accommodate 40 kids: 16 spaces for

infants -- they're segregated; they've got their own infant

section -- and 24

three-to-five-year-olds. This is going to allow single moms and dads an

opportunity to upgrade their education.

That's just what this bill does; that's just what our government does in

respect to our commitment to post-secondary education and day care spaces. So

with that, hon. Speaker, I believe this bill is absolutely outstanding.

J. Pullinger: As one who had the privilege of handling this file as a

cabinet minister through its developmental stage, I am very, very proud to stand

here and speak in favour of this legislation.

Dave Barrett, a New Democrat, started to bring in child care in 1972, and the

free enterprise government cut it and dismantled it. I would offer that child

care -- comprehensive, quality, community-based, licensed child care -- is one

of the most important things that we can do not only for our children, and

especially for our children, but for women and for families and for all of us in

this society.

It is a benefit primarily to the kids that get that good care, but it's also

a benefit to every single citizen. For every $1 invested in good-quality child

care by the government, there's a $2 return to the public. For every $1 invested

in all of those kids who would otherwise be extremely vulnerable, there's a $7

return to the public. And if you don't care about those numbers and the obvious

economies and economic benefits, surely you should care about the research that

says that every single child, no matter what their background, no matter what

their socioeconomic status is, benefits for all of their life from quality child

care and early childhood education that comes within licensed quality child

care.

Before I move on, I will defer to my colleague from North Island, who wishes,

I understand, to make an introduction.

[1550]

Hon. G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Robertson: I'm really pleased that we have two North Island

constituents in the gallery this afternoon. Mr. Dave Green, a member of CUPE 723

and a school board worker, and his son Jordan are both here. I would ask the

House to please make them welcome.

J. Pullinger: So for all of the reasons I have outlined, I think this

bill -- and this program -- is one that every member of the House should

support. Let me give just another facet or face to this, if you like, as well.

This is about child care -- quality, licensed, publicly funded, comprehensive

child care for our kids. But you know, it's also about women's equality. It's

also about child poverty.

We all know that if you do an across-the-board tax break, even the massive

ones proposed by the members of the other side, most of which goes to the top,

the biggest businesses and highest income earners . . . . If you do

that kind of across-the-board tax cut, the people on the lower end of the scale

might get $100, maybe even $200 a year benefit from that. But if that same

family has a couple of little kids, they will, when this is fully implemented,

get up to $6,000 per year benefit from this Child Care for an infant and for the

older children up to about $1,100 a year benefit, which is far more than any

kind of tax break that the opposition proposes will deliver to those families

who need it the most.

[ Page 17482 ]

Hon. Speaker, one of the things I'm most proud of that we've accomplished in

the last ten years is the fact that B.C. has become the place where the lowest

number of children are living in poverty. We have dropped something like

one-third of kids who were previously living in poverty. The number of kids who

are living in poverty has been reduced by about one-third. That's about the B.C.

family bonus, that's about the Healthy Kids, that's about continuing to build

social housing when every other province does not, and that's about programs

such as child care. I'm very proud of that. And if we're talking about

vulnerable kids, if we're talking about protecting our children, surely reducing

poverty and child care should be at the top of the list, and I'm sad to say that

none of those programs have been at the top of the list for the opposition.

I want to deal with some of the comments made by the opposition critic. I

have to confess that I wasn't on the speakers list, but I came into this House

and asked my colleagues if I could speak because I couldn't believe my ears. Let

me deal with some of the comments that she has made, and I would offer that this

is absolutely typical of the way the Liberal opposition has operated in this

House for years.

The first allegation I want to deal with is that government has been

extremely secretive, that we won't share information, that we're unwilling to

tell them what's going on. Let me tell you how this program evolved, starting

with my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, who got the process rolling. There

was a discussion document that went out all across British Columbia. It went to

the opposition, and they had full opportunity to respond. And do you know what?

There were 10,000 responses generated by that discussion document. That's one of

the biggest responses to any discussion document I've ever seen and, I know,

many have ever seen -- 10,000 responses.

And the issue was debated in this House, certainly during the estimates last

year, where that same member stood up and asked questions about a number of the

allegations that she's made. She got all of the answers. Not only that, but we

offered the opposition a full briefing with senior staff in the ministry, with

all of the information they wanted, and I believe they took advantage of that

opportunity as well.

This has been an open process. It's been going on for almost two years -- a

year and a half at least. The opposition has had an opportunity to participate

in every single phase of the consultation and development, and they have chosen

not to. I would offer that that's because they fundamentally disagree with

publicly funded child care.

So the allegations and comments from the members opposite that this has been

a secretive process and that we're unwilling to share information is -- and I

will say it this way, because it's unparliamentary to say it any other way --

absolutely bogus. It is simply a bogus comment. There's no truth in it

whatsoever.

[1555]

Let me move on to the next comment that I heard. The next comment was this

great comparison to the Quebec model, the only other jurisdiction in Canada --

in fact, in North America, I believe -- to introduce this kind of child care

that's comprehensive in its scope. That member asked me a whole bunch of

questions about that in the estimates, and I told her that while we looked at

the Quebec model, this is not the Quebec model. In Quebec they rushed into it

faster than we did. In Quebec they cut a whole bunch of other programs for

children, which we're not. In Quebec they've had a whole bunch of problems.

Now, I don't fault them for that, because they had the courage to take the

step that we are now taking, and they had the courage to be the first in North

America to do so. But this is not the Quebec model. Yet that member continues to

deliberately spread misinformation, wrong information, to suggest that this is

the Quebec model and tries to transfer all the problems they've had to here. And

that is simply not true.

Similarly, I've heard the allegation that this limits choices for parents,

that this is something like one size fits all, that every program must fit into

a similar slot, that it is extremely limiting, "that the child care

providers must do exactly what we say" -- and I'm quoting when I say that

-- and that the government delivers the service.

Well, you know what? All of those questions were canvassed in estimates as

well. In fact, this program was developed, first of all, by 10,000 people who

responded to the questionnaire my colleague sent out and who said that this is

the way it should work, and we embraced all those principles. And then it was

looked at by a cross-section of child care providers and parents and people from

school boards, people from labour -- even the Vancouver Board of Trade.

I set up a committee of a broad

section of child care providers and others

who would be directly affected by this first phase that's in implementation

right now. I said to them: "Look, here's the money I have, here are the

rules of the Legislature that provide for accountability, and here are the broad

restrictions that cabinet has put on how it should be." It has to be

inclusive. All of the communities, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, multicultural

communities -- it has to respond to those. And there has to be some regional

diversity to it in this first phase to make sure that there's some fairness.

Beyond those broad parameters, I said to the group: "You're at the

table; you figure out how it should happen." And they worked hard -- child

care providers, people from school boards . I believe there

was a teacher at the table, and labour. A broad

section of people with a

background in this issue sat down, they worked together, and they developed the

program. And they will run the program. The program is simply providing core

funding to child care that is developed by communities, in communities, for

communities. So all of those top-down allegations and no-consultation

allegations are simply untrue, and that member knows it. We've been through this

debate before.

I'm very proud of the fact that this is a wonderful way for government and

communities to work together, where we've said: "Here's the money; here are

the parameters." And the communities essentially have the obligation and

the right to come up with how that looks in each and every community. I expect

that it will continue to be different according to those needs of the community.

This is not about big bureaucracy. This is actually about a tiny bureaucracy,

just a handful of people within government who will simply administer the funds

to those who choose to participate in the program. To date there's 90 percent

participation, I understand.

The member also raised concerns about rural areas. She brought up, quite

frankly, a red herring, an issue -- and I'm sure a legitimate issue that

somebody has. But it's a red herring, and it's not part of this debate. It's

interesting that she

[ Page 17483 ]

says she can't get her head around how small villages will fit in. Maybe she

should have listened in estimates when I explained what we're doing. As well as

core-funding existing privately created child care, whether they're non-profit

or for profit, that wish to participate, we're providing some funding so that

child care spaces could be expanded.

[1600]

One of the priorities is those areas where there are new child care

facilities right now, so that's how they participate. I told that member some

time ago that there would be an opportunity for communities to develop new child

care spaces throughout. That's exactly how it will work and is working.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Finally, I want to simply say that the member spoke about our zealousness to

bring in this plan. Certainly there is a very high level of support and

enthusiasm on this side, unlike the Liberal opposition. But the member opposite,

again, is misleading, because she knows full well that this has been at least a

year and a half in the works, that there's been enormous consultation, that

there's been public input from a whole range of places just about unparalleled

and that this process is simply coming to its conclusion. It's implemented in

phase one, and this legislation simply enshrines in law how we will do it. It

brings all of the much-expanded child care programs that have happened since

1991 under one umbrella for the efficiencies and economies that result from

that.

Hon. Speaker, we are very proud of this legislation on this side of the

House. It's good for our kids; it's good for our economy. It closes the poverty

gap which their policies have widened. Actually, in the 1980s the gap between

the haves and the have-nots widened faster than in any decade in our history.

They want to return to that. We're going in the other direction, and this plays

a significant role in that. Above all, it will level the playing field and will

allow all kids to have equal opportunities when they go to school.

One of the things I heard was that the Liberal member opposite made the

standard dodge, quite frankly, so that they could pretend that they're maybe

going to look at this. We know they're not. They've said it's not a priority.

They've said that they think child care is expensive babysitting when you want

to go play tennis. That's a paraphrase, but it's very close to what the

opposition critic said. They've said that they don't support this, and now

they've got this little dodge where they're trying to pretend it's all full of

flaws. Quite frankly, they're not being very straightforward, because they know

that all of the allegations that the member has made are just simply not true.

But what they're proposing to do is send out an all-party committee to gather

public input on this. Well, good Lord. We've had a year and a half, we've had

10,000 responses, and we've had all of the child care organizations and many

others directly involved in this process. What in the world can ever been gained

-- other than cheap politics so you don't have to take a position -- from that

kind of position? I suggest that the Liberals were much more honest when it

first came out, when they just said: "We don't support it. It's not a

priority, and we think this is a cheap babysitting game while you want to go and

play tennis."

I believe the child care community has watched this charade from the

opposition for a long time. They know precisely what's going on. They've been

involved; they know it's been a long process. They know it's been an open one,

and they know that they have made large numbers of decisions in the development

of this. They are happy with it. Some of them are even saying that they can

deliver the services for less than the agreed-upon negotiated amount between

government and child care providers. The overwhelming majority are very happy

with this. I know that it will be an enormous benefit to parents who have not

been able to find quality child care or have not been able to afford quality

child care for their children.

I want to say again that the opposition's comments are simply misleading to

the public. This has been a good process with an outstanding outcome, and I

think this is one of our best legacies to the children and to the people of

British Columbia. I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I have to say that for me it's certainly a

privilege to be involved in this dialogue on this very significant piece of

legislation that is before this House. I have to tell you that I'm immensely

proud to be standing up in this chamber and talking about the introduction of

this bill that's now placed before this House, which I'm sure will pass with

support from all my colleagues in a quick fashion.

[1605]

The reasons why I wanted to speak on this are several. First of all, it's an

issue that I feel very, very strongly about. It's a policy initiative that I

think is long overdue, and it's something that I've worked hard to realize. In

many ways, I think it's a bit of a signature piece for me personally, given all

the background work that was involved to get it here. I really want to commend

the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and the current Minister of Social Development

and Economic Security for working hard with other members of our caucus to make

this very great day a reality.

I believe deeply that this province's children deserve an adequate,

affordable, universal, accessible day care system and that no child should be

denied the opportunity to have an affordable day care system available to them.

The support that the child care system offers is not only essential for the

development and nourishment of a child but also certainly assists families that

are going from paycheque to paycheque to meet all of the other stresses they

have, particularly in this day and age of double-income families dealing with

all the stresses they have to deal with as individual families.

I think the system that we currently have in place is flawed. It's

inadequate; it's improperly regulated. It doesn't provide for any uniformity in

terms of the quality of service, and there are deficiencies and gaps in the

system. I think that moving to the kind of model we're proposing here remedies

those deficiencies and gaps within the existing system.

I also want to take this time to thank, because in a previous incarnation I

was involved with many of them, many of the advocates that were here yesterday.

I did not welcome them here, because that was the purview of the Minister of

Social Development. However, I have to say that I've enjoyed the opportunity to

work with them to make this day a reality. I want to acknowledge and pay tribute

to their tireless work as they lobbied our government to try to make this

happen.

They ought to be commended for their dedication and commitment to child care,

and I think they have much to

[ Page 17484 ]

celebrate about. They must be commended for their tireless efforts in this

regard. I know I've met with them on several occasions. I also know that I've

attended many forums, particularly in the lower mainland, with the advocates for

this cause and was touched by the passion they demonstrated and the commitment

they have to achieving the kind of day care program that's proposed under this

legislation.

Having said all that, I also have to say that I am markedly disappointed as

to the silence and, to the degree that they've commented, the comments that have

flowed from the members opposite. I think that it is absolutely terrible, if not

inexcusable, for an opposition not to be involved in this historic debate. This

is the most significant public policy initiative that has come before this House

during the course of this term of government.

Yet the members opposite or their one spokesperson -- because they're now

playing this little game of having one spokesperson -- has put up all these

little excuses as to why it is that the opposition is opposed to it. Well, they

think that there's a big bureaucracy. They think that it will not work

adequately in rural areas. You know, they think we're sort of bringing this

forward with a high degree and an unnecessary degree of zealousness and that

there hasn't been adequate consultation -- overlooking the fact, of course, that

we put out a paper a year and a half ago that had 10,000 responses from British

Columbians.

Really, why don't they just simply tell the truth? I have no problem with an

opposition just simply telling the truth. You know, it's a priority for us; it's

not a priority for them. They think that there's just too much money attached to

this initiative. So why don't they just simply say: "It's too expensive,

and we don't buy into it"? At least that way, they're being a little bit

more forthcoming.

[1610]

I guess politics -- and I've been around this business for about the last 17

years, with 15 years in this chamber -- is all about making tough, bold

decisions. It's all about having a vision about the kind of thing that you

believe in and then driving hard to achieve that vision. It's all about the

kinds of values that attract us to public office and then trying to find ways in

which we can implement those values and make the dreams of people who put their

hope in you when they put that X beside your name . . . . It's all

about making their dreams a reality.

A lot of people in this province of ours have dreamt this dream, and we're

fulfilling it here today with enormous pride by bringing forward this

legislation. The members opposite want to frustrate that dream. They want to

deny that dream. They want to send those people who have been advocating for

this cause back to the sidelines, back to the back of the bus, and say:

"Well, come back at us again, because we just think it's too expensive. We

don't support it."

What kind of vision is that? What kind of value system does that represent?

Do they, opposite, not have a vision that says there ought to be an adequate

child care system in this province? Do they think that the current system, with

all of its flaws and deficiencies, is adequate? Are they just prepared to accept

the status quo? Are they so wedded to that right-wing sort of Fraser Institute

agenda that they don't think this kind of initiative is something that should be

brought forward by government? Have they not even listened to their normal

friends at the Vancouver Board of Trade, who have come out publicly and said

that this kind of initiative is exactly what government should be doing to

improve the economic and social fabric of this province?

D. Lovick: Dissension in the ranks.

M. Sihota: My colleague from Nanaimo says there's dissension in the

ranks. I don't think it's dissension in the ranks. I think that in this case,

the Vancouver Board of Trade and the New Democratic Party have it right, and

those cowardly Liberals on the other side of the House, who won't even

participate in this debate, have it all wrong. They should be ashamed of their

position. They have flipped and flopped so many times on so many issues that I'd

actually welcome them, the flops that they are, to come over on this side of the

House and endorse the kind of position that we've brought, to admit just for

once, just to have it within themselves to admit for once, that they are wrong

with regard to the position that they take.

As I said, do they not have a vision? What kind of values do they bring to

public office? Is the only thing that motivates them sort of corporate interest

and corporate greed and corporate philosophy? Or is it just that they believe

that if we on this side of the House think something is a good thing, they by

reflex must consider it to be automatically bad?

Why don't they have the courage to stand up and say: "It's high time

that this province provided a universal day care system for children"? Why

don't they just stand up and say: "Yes, Quebec got it right when they did

what they did, and it's a shame that no other province has come forward"?

Why don't they join us in going after the federal government and reminding

the federal government in Ottawa that they made a commitment, in the election

campaign previous to the last, to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000? You

know, hon. Speaker, they never achieved it. Just think about that: the federal

government standing up, Mr. Chr�tien making that kind of commitment, raising

the hopes of working people, the kind of people I represent here in this

chamber, poor people, raising their hope and then not delivering. Why don't they

join with us in putting pressure on the federal government to eradicate child

poverty in this country? Why would they not join us on that cause?

They're so concerned about their sort of narrow-minded, greed-driven ideology

built around a singular public policy initiative of dramatic tax cuts, with the

hope that that's some kind of nirvana, that they just can't see the forest for

the trees. You know, year in and year out over the last four years, members of

the opposition have stood up here and criticized our government for the handling

of the matters that fall within the portfolio of the Ministry for Children and

Families. And you know, as I think about their opposition to this child care

program, it occurs to me that that was just all fake stuff. They are absolutely

heartless. They are just simply full of rhetoric and incapable of having a human

touch, of understanding the human need to look after the needs of children.

[1615]

I'm not saying that all of the initiatives we've brought forward dealing with

children in this province have been sufficient or that all of our answers have

been perfect in any sense of the word. But I know this: the depth of passion,

the degree of commitment, the desire on our part to look after children is

enormous.

[ Page 17485 ]

Take a look at what we've done. We've reduced class size in

kindergarten-to-grade-3 because we believe, as a society, that we should make an

investment in young people in the formative years of their lives. We brought

forward a school meal program for young people in British Columbia, because we

believe that no child should come to school and have to participate in a day of

school without adequate nourishment. I won't go through the full list. Now with

this initiative, we have brought forward a universal child care program so that

every child, rich or poor, in this province gets adequate care when they need

it, before and after school. Tell me: what can possibly be wrong with that kind

of vision? What is flawed in terms of the values that underlie this kind of

remarkable social policy initiative?

You know, I've been a member of this House for -- what? -- 15 years. And as

someone heckled from my own side a few minutes ago, I very seldom give a speech

in this chamber where I don't get heckled. I am stunned by the silence on that

side -- absolutely stunned by it. Not only that, I am overtaken by the sheer

arrogance of the members opposite who believe that this game they want to play

here in this House is such that it allows them to avoid their responsibilities

to young people.

Shame on all the members opposite! They are so obsessed with their desire to

find themselves on this side of the House, so fixated on their desire to secure

power in British Columbia that they will remain quiet. They will not stand up

and explain why they're opposed to this kind of legislation. All they want is

power. If that means trampling over the interests of children, they'll do it. Is

there not one person opposite who has the courage of their conviction to stand

up and explain their position, to explain why it is that they don't believe that

this initiative, which is the most progressive social policy initiative brought

forward in this province over the last five years, is the right thing to do?

They won't debate it, cowards that they are.

Having said that, I have to say . . . .

P. Calendino: Challenge them.

M. Sihota: Oh, of course. One of my colleagues says: "Challenge

them." You know, I think I've done that; I've challenged them. But they

won't rise to the challenge, hon. Speaker.

They just want to get out of here. They've abandoned their responsibility in

terms of their obligations as an opposition. So I'd rather just describe their

behaviour as cowardly and leave it at that -- comment on the depth of their

arrogance, comment on their lack of vision, comment on the degree of heartless

attitude they've demonstrated in the past about children and how heartless they

are today in opposing this bill.

Having said that, let me also say in conclusion that this is great. This is a

remarkable public policy. And everyone of us on this side of the House is

enormously proud of what we're accomplishing here today. Notwithstanding the

behaviour of the members opposite, all of us are ready to walk out of this

chamber when the election is called, very proud of what we've been able to

accomplish, the gift that we've been able to give to children both today and

tomorrow in British Columbia -- and quite willing, capable and wanting to

campaign on the campaign trail around this issue, where I'm sure the members

opposite will not be able to remain silent.

[1620]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to close debate on Bill 2 and to

acknowledge, I think, what has been a very thoughtful and remarkable debate in

this House, particularly by members on this side of the House, who have

explained in detail the importance of this piece of legislation to British

Columbians, to the lives of children today and tomorrow and for the future of

this province. It has also been remarkable because we have heard the silence of

the lambs opposite -- not even bleating. I guess, hon. Speaker, we literally do

have the first confirmed case of hoof-and-mouth disease, and it's all on that

side of the House.

An Hon. Member: "B.C. HealthGuide," page 123.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The hon. member, my colleague, says: "Page 123

of the 'B.C. HealthGuide.' "

Well, we've listened to the opposition critic -- the only one who rose to

make comment on this bill and to talk about an issue of such importance to

families right across this province. And she said that it was done, and her

phone has been ringing, because of people who feel that somehow it impacts on

them.

Do you know what? This bill was the result of over 10,000 responses to a

discussion paper. It was the result of over 18 months of work by a committee

composed of child advocates, women, labour organizations, business groups,

community groups, academic individuals, people with a host of experience in

childhood development, child care, child advocacy -- 18 months' worth of

consultation, hon. Speaker, building on the experience of another province in

this country, in the case of Quebec, which was the first province to move

towards universal day care, universal child care. Building on a breadth of

information and research that recognizes that every dollar spent in childhood

development -- whether it's child care, whether it's children's health issues --

pays dividends down the road in terms of better health outcomes, dividends in

terms of better educational outcomes, less contact with the judicial system,

fewer problems in school, better social relationships for children.

All of this is by early investments and intervention and, most importantly,

services for children. And child care is at the top of that list. So when the

critic says that somehow this is not the way to go, she is ignoring the wealth

of experience, the wealth of research, the depth of knowledge and over 10,000

submissions from people right across the spectrum on the importance of this

issue.

What we have today is a clear example of the choices that British Columbians

face -- the choices of a government that is ready and willing to put its

convictions in legislation to meet the needs of today's families in terms of

child care. It's a program that is being brought in in a responsible fashion --

phased in, as we can afford it, to a timetable, so that parents across this

province can know when it will take place, how it will take place and how much

it will cost them. At the same time, it preserves the choices that parents want.

It recognizes the importance of choices for parents. It recognizes that choice

is a primary concern of parents.

Hon. Speaker, this is groundbreaking legislation, and it's one that all of us

on this side of the House are proud of. It is a shame that such an important

piece of legislation has drawn such a pathetic -- pathetic -- response from the

opposition. If that is the depth of their commitment to families in British

Columbia, if that is the depth of their commitment, then --

[ Page 17486 ]

should they ever be on this side of the House -- families who require day

care, children who require day care, really have something to be concerned

about.

It is my pleasure to stand today and make closing remarks about Bill 2,

because this is an issue of great importance to British Columbia families, of

tremendous importance to today's families. It's an issue that I know each of us

in this House, on this side of the House, will be proud to stand and vote in

favour of.

And with that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 2.

[1625]

Second reading approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and

Proceedings .]

Hon. G. Janssen: I move the House do now adjourn.

Some Hon. Members: No, no.

The Speaker: The motion is for committee.

[1630]

Bill 2, Child Care BC Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Janssen: Now we're all confused. I move the House do now

adjourn.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37

Zirnhelt

Doyle

Gillespie

Kwan

Waddell

Hammell

McGregor

Giesbrecht

Farnworth

Lovick

Petter

Mann Brewin

Pullinger

Randall

Sawicki

Priddy

Cashore

Orcherton

Stevenson

Robertson

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Bowbrick

Janssen

Evans

Ramsey

Smallwood

G. Wilson

Streifel

Miller

Sihota

Calendino

Walsh

Boone

G. Clark

Lali

Goodacre

NAYS -- 34

Whittred

Hansen

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Abbott

L. Reid

Neufeld

Coell

Chong

Sanders

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Kasper

Masi

Roddick

J. Wilson

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Krueger

J. Reid

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

The House adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright �

2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada