British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, May 6, 2008

H0506pm-06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Volume 32, Number 6 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR His Honour the Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC FOURTH SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ........................................................................................................ Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ................................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon.

Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon.

Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations............... Hon. John van Dongen Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts ......................................................................................................................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of State for ActNow B.C. ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Deputy Speaker ...........................................................................................................................................................................

Katherine Whittred Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole................................................................................................................................................. Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D. Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon.

Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................ East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, David (NDP) ......................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................ Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon.

Gordon (L).....................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Hon. Kevin (L) .....................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L)........................................................................ Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas............................................................................... John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay................................................................................

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ............................................Hon. Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................Hon.

Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 12029 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 12029 Penticton community fundraisers Hon. R.

Thorpe Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 12029 Statements (Standing Order 25 B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 12029 Doug Adair R. Hawes Agriculture on Vancouver Island D. Routley Langley Lawn Bowling Club M. Polak Cystic fibrosis S. Simpson Volunteers at Surrey community associations D. Hayer View Royal reading centre M.

Karagianis Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 12031 Child protection services N. Simons Hon. T. Christensen M. Karagianis S. Fraser Child poverty in B.C. J. Brar Hon. C. Richmond A. Dix Government action on forest industry C. Puchmayr Hon. R. Coleman L.

Krog Standing Order 81.1............................................................................................................ ................................................... 12036 Adoption of government business

schedule Hon. M. de Jong Motions without Notice ......................................................................................................... ............................................... 12037 Legislative sitting hours Hon. M. de Jong Standing Order 35.............................................................................................................. .................................................... 12037 J. Kwan Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12038 Public Health Act (Bill 23) (continued) C. Wyse M. Sather N. Simons R. Fleming S. Simpson B. Ralston G. Gentner J. Kwan J. Horgan Hon. G. Abbott Health Professions (Regulatory Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25) Hon. G. Abbott A.

Dix Standing Order 35 (Speaker's Ruling)........................................................................................... ...................................... 12067 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12067 Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued) B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman S. Fraser Estimates: Other appropriations

12029 TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 The House met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members N. Macdonald: I'd like to introduce Joe Matthews. Joe is from Golden. He's here with the steelworkers. Joe and I were neighbours on Alexander Drive for an aw- fully long time, and I'd like the House to join me in making him feel welcome. I'd like to make a second introduction. Kindy Gosal is also from Golden. He is here with the Columbia Basin Trust, and I'd like the House to also join me in making him feel welcome. Tributes PENTICTON COMMUNITY FUNDRAISERS Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr.

Speaker, as you're aware, last Saturday you and I had the opportunity to attend a very interesting event in Penticton. It focused around two great charities. One was the We Care program of Safeway employees, and the other was Agur Lake Camp Society, which is focused on helping children and families living with physical and development disabilities. [1335] I would just ask all members of this House to recog- nize these two great organizations, the employees at Safeway and the Agur Lake volunteers, who have raised over $30,000 for this very worthwhile community activity. Introductions by Members L.

Krog: I had the pleasure today of hosting a luncheon for three constituents of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Some might say the lucky lady who was in charge of that delegation was lucky because she won lunch with me. Others on the opposite side would disagree. However, I would ask the House to make welcome Irene Leslie Blake and Tony and Louise Yaremchuk, who are up in the gallery today. D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade 5 students visiting fr om Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Surrey, British Columbia, from the riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them are two teachers, Mr. Rick Bath and Miss Nancy Ba kken, as well as 30 parent volunteers who are taking ti me away from their busy schedules to help these stud ents out. Would the House please make them very welcome. H. Bains: Visiting us in this House today are many of my good friends from the steelworkers, where I spent many of my years before I came to this House: Kim Pollock, Kapel Koshio, Ed Pica and Alf Wilkins. They are here to promote th e issues that are important to the working people in the forest industry and all the other issues to the steelworkers.

Please join me and extend them warm welcome. C. Trevena: I noticed also with the Steelworkers is Leslie McNabb, who as well as being a steelworker is the president of the Campbell River, Courtenay and District Labour Council. I hope the House will make her very welcome. Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of welcoming to this gallery Mr. David Hughes. He has served this province well on a variety of different boards, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome. D.

Routley: I would like the House to help me wel- come four steelworkers, Rita La Jeunesse, Joe Matthews, Dave Stole and my friend Chris Sinkan from Local 180. Local 180's president, as many will know, is Bill Routley — no relation. But when people ask me, I usually ask them how they feel about him before I answer the question. We're related through misadventure only. I would like the House to help me make these steelworkers and representative workers welcome. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is my good friend the mayor of Mission, James Atebe.

He's here with Rick Bomhof, who is the engineer for the district of Mission. They're here to talk to the Minister of Transportation on some transportation issues . Could the House please make them welcome. C. Puchmayr: I also have a couple of guests in the House today, and they're steelworkers as well. I hear they are down here meeting with the government today. Please make welcome Jeff Bromley and Alf Wilkins. Statements (Standing Order 25B) DOUG ADAIR R. Hawes: Volunteers are the backbone of many smaller communities.

They selflessly give of their time to make life better for everyone, and my community of Mission is one of those blessed with a very large con- tingent of generous volunteers. As so often happens among volunteers, a few are standouts. They're the ones seen over and over at all varieties of causes and community undertakings. They never seek recognition, never complain, and are always willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work just to get the job done. Doug Adair of Mission is one such volunteer. For over 50 years Doug has served the families of Mission in whatever way help was needed.

He served as the chair of the school board, on the Mission Memorial Hospital board, on the Community Services Society board and in the Mission Historical Society. Doug recently worked on the documentation of Mission

12030 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 veterans lost in conflict and personally gave 3,000 hours to make this project a success. His dedication and enthusiasm are obvious and infectious. [1340] For me, nothing surpasses Doug's service as a council- lor on Mission city council. When I was newly elected as a mayor, I can't stress enough how much I valued his steadying influence and incredible work ethic. I'm forever grateful for his support and wise counsel. I'm thrilled that Doug Adair has been recognized with the British Columbia Community Achievement Award.

He exemplifies the reason for acknowledging special vol- unteers through these awards. As a longtime Rotarian, Doug Adair is a living example of service before self. For Doug, congratulations. I can't think of anyone more deserving of this award, and I'm proud to see you finally recognized for a half-century of service. Thank you, Doug. AGRICULTURE ON VANCOUVER ISLAND D. Routley: I rise today to speak about agriculture on Vancouver Island. On Va ncouver Island our history and our current state of innovation have given us a variety of production that's basically unmatched throughout our country.

We have so many vegetable producers — organic, hothouse. We have cranberry farms. We have the second- largest holly farm in the Cowichan Valley that has been there for almost a hundred years. We have wine producers and grape growers; many berry farms that have been there for many, many generations; shellfish farms; meat pro- ducers — beef, pork, lamb — and lamb producers that have also been there for many generations; many estab- lished dairy farms from our noted Dutch heritage.

These farmers are entrepreneurs — multilevel mar- keters who add value to the land through their bed- and-breakfasts, their farm-gate sales, local markets, local retail, local restaurants. They have the support of the community. Unfortunately, B.C. ranks seventh out of ten provinces in support for agriculture, and there are great agricultural exclus ions that threaten the sus- tainability of agriculture on Vancouver Island. We need promotional assistance.

The reality is that there is only three days' supply in the event of an emergency — an alarming figure when we're told to prepare for five if there's a major earth- quake. We produced 80 percent of our produce only 20 years ago, and now we produce only 3 percent. The bright side is that 6 percent would be 100 per- cent more; 20 percent would be 700 percent more. We can do even better than that. All we need is support. We have community support, local business support, farmers' support. We need the support of farm-friendly public policy. LANGLEY LAWN BOWLING CLUB M.

Polak: Well, the Canucks missed the playoffs once again, the baseball season is just getting started, and football training camp is still some weeks away. Ho-hum, one might say, not much going on. But there is an answer to the lament of the sport enthusiast who is experiencing symptoms of withdrawal. The 2008 lawn bowling season has begun. On April 20, I joined the Minister of Forests and Range, along with other local officials, fo r the ceremonial first bowl at the Langley Lawn Bowling Club.

For nearly three decades, men and women of all ages have enjoyed the physical activity, friendly competition and social inter- action that lawn bowling provides. The Langley Lawn Bowling Club has become a well-regarded volunteer organization in Langley. They have built successful relationships with all levels of government and with Kwantlen University College — soon to be University — the students of which partici- pate annually in planting trees and shrubs donated by the city.

The club's troupe of volunteers provide excellent meals, exciting special events and free coaching for those needing supervision, training or advice to improve their game. For me, the opportunity to try a new sport was exciting, but the opportunity to be humiliated publicly was daunting. Nevertheless, I took my place on the green, took the ball gingerly in my right hand and rolled it toward the small white jack in the centre of the green.

As I opened my eyes and looked toward the place where the shot from th e Minister of Forests and Range had landed — quite a distance from the jack, I might add — my shot was nowher e to be seen. In a shocking case of beginner ' s l u c k a n d m u c h t o m y surprise, I had shot the best bowl of the day, landing a scant two feet from the jack. As the cheering died down, I realized why, year in and year out, the Langley Lawn Bowling Club and clubs around the province draw a committed group of bowlers and continue to see their sport grow through school and community outreach programs.

Club mem- b e r M a r v y n S h o r e p u t s i t b e s t w h e n h e w r i t e s : " Y o u can have a great time bowling by just being out there with friends, having a ball." [1345] CYSTIC FIBROSIS S. Simpson: May is Cystic Fibrosis Month in Canada. CF is the most common and fatal genetic disease facing young people in our country. It causes a mucous buildup by damaging the lining of the lungs and blocking enzymes from reaching the intestines to digest food. It affects about one in 3,600 chil dren in British Columbia, including my seven-year-old nephew Liam.

Liam is a happy-go-lucky child who is full of life and energy. However, if this was 1960, he would likely n o t b e a l i v e . I n t h o s e d a y s C F k i d s s e l d o m c e l e b r a t e d their fifth birthday. Today most live into their late 30s, and in 2006 for the first time, more than 50 percent of people with CF were over 18. We are making progress, but we still have a long way to go. I know how Liam's diagnosis radically changed my sister and her partner's life focus and everyday routines; how it added significant cost, even

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12031 with government support; how every time Liam is hospitalized to deal with mucous buildup, it results in further damage to his lungs; how it has affected Liam's older brother Kyle, a wonderful young man who un- derstands why he is often the second consideration in the family because of his younger brother's needs. The day is coming soon when Liam will begin to understand the consequences of CF in terms of limits on his own life, and I know how my sister struggles with that inevitable conversation with her son.

These types of pressures have too often led to family break- ups, as parents find it increasingly difficult to deal with the realities of CF and the fallout on other aspects of their relationships. This is what makes Cystic Fibrosis Month so impor- tant. I am hopeful Liam will live to collect his old age pension, but it will require more support from govern- ments and individuals, incl uding funding for medical research and increased support for CF families. What can be more important than giving young people who are having their lives stolen from them by cystic fibrosis a better chance?

What can be more impor- tant than saying to Liam and the other young people just like him that together we will beat this disease? VOLUNTEERS AT SURREY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS D. Hayer: Last week was National Volunteer Week, and nowhere in the province are there more active vol- unteers than in the city of Surrey and my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. In the past weeks I have saluted such groups at Tynehead, Guildford and Port Kells Community Association.

Today I want to talk about Fleetwood Commu- nity Association and their very hard-working board of directors, who include president Rick Hart, vice- president Jane-Anne Anderson, secretary Joy Hart, treasurer Johanne Poirier and directors Deb Hughes, Bob Beacom, Carol Adams, Mark Lenglet and Roy Yorke. Fleetwood Community Association has served the community for over 85 years. The association is cele- brating this milestone with the tenth annual Fleetwood Festival on September 6. As a part of the celebration it has commissioned the life-size sculpture of Lance Cpl.

Arthur Thomas Fleetwood, to whom the Fleetwood Community Association owes its name. Another very important group of volunteers in my community is the Fleetwood planning committee, which is led by chairperson Heather Renko, vice-chair Mildred Davies, secretary Gay Calestagne and treasurer Bonnie Wright, along with activities directors Julie Smith, Barb Fletcher, Pat Madden, Lil Elliot, Mary Frolick, Edith Bamford and Jim Rowland. Another important group in Surrey-Tynehead is Fraser Heights Community Association, which embod- ies a sense of community in the northern part of my riding.

Fraser Heights has almost 20,000 people living within it, a population greate r than many cities in our province. I would ask the House to join me in saluting its members and directors, including Rob Langford, president; Ian MacPherson, past president; Frank Russell, vice-president; Heather Nelson, treasurer; Liane McMahon, secretary; and directors Kash Kang and Joanna Whittingstall, along with all the other volunteers in British Columbia who make our province a great province and great community to live in. VIEW ROYAL READING CENTRE M.

Karagianis: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o s t a n d i n t h e House today and share with members the story of the little library that could. Next week the View Royal read- ing centre will open at its new home in the Admirals Walk Shopping Centre. The reading centre is sponsored by the View Royal Community Association and is the new incarnation of the former volunteer-run View Royal Public Library. The library was started in 1971 and has operated from the lower level of the town hall since 1997.

Now the new location will continue a long record of providing much-needed library services to View Royal and to the residents of the first nation lands in my constituency. [1350] Getting the new location and the new lease on life was no easy task. Three years ago I was approached by Jim Powell of the library board to assist with their urgent request for funding from the province. The dollars eventually came — much thanks — and the doors were kept open. But the town of View Royal needed the space, so two years ago a search began for a new home for the library.

The opening of the new location is a triumph for View Royal. It is a triumph for the enormously dedicated volun- teers led by Jim Powell. It is a triumph for the exceptional leadership of Mayor Graham Hill and the View Royal council, and it's a tribute to the generosity and foresight of the View Royal Community Association. I look forward to attending the opening ceremony later this month, and I hope members will join me in recognizing the dedication and achievement of those who have made it possible. This month View Royal turns a new page. Oral Questions CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES N.

Simons: Today the Auditor General released a scathing report on the Ministry of Children and Families and its handling of child protection services for abo- riginal children in this province. It identified significant flaws and underfunding and identified no sense of where services or funding ar e needed the most. It also went on to say that standards can't be met within the existing allocation of resources and, further, that there's a disconnect between management and the overworked social workers. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. How can he protect these

12032 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 vulnerable children, and how can he ensure that their lives will be improved, when his ministry doesn't know how well his services are being delivered? Hon. T. Christensen: We certainly appreciate the work that's been done by the Auditor General's office.

His report does acknowledge the complexity of better serving aboriginal children and families across the province, given the need to provide culturally appro- priate services and the reality that effective services do require significant collaborati on between first nations, aboriginal organizations, MCFD and INAC. That is the work that we are committed to doing. It's the work we are doing, and I'm confident that we are seeing improvement in services to aboriginal children and families across our province. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. N.

Simons: In 2001, 42 percent of the children in care were aboriginal children. In 2008, 52 percent are aboriginal children. The mini ster refers to doing what they're doing well. I fail to see any evidence that this ministry is addressing the issues at hand. This report simply confirms that. It says that the ministry does not report on how well aboriginal children or child protection services are being delivered. What is this minister going to do to convince this House and the people of British Columbia that his ministry is taking this issue seriously and that careful monitoring needs to be in place? Hon. T.

Christensen: We recognize, as a govern- ment, that there are gaps in services between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. This year this government was the first and so far only provincial government in the country to commit to Jordan's prin- ciple, to ensure that aboriginal children have access to equitable services. We have recognized that those gaps exist. We want to ensure that culturally appropriate services are available to aboriginal children and families. The ministry's operational plan includes ac tions to better identify and address those gaps.

I am expecting significant progress in the coming months on that front. Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supple- mental. N. Simons: Jordan's principle is simply a principle if there are no resources in place to ensure that it can be applied. The Auditor General identified serious flaws. What is striking is that this ministry is deciding only now to consult with first nations and the federal government on this issue. They've been telling the ministry for many, many months — if not years — what the solutions are, and it's only now that he's starting to hear it.

It's probably because of successive reports that seem to indicate t o e v e r y o n e i n t h i s p r o v i n c e t h a t t h i s m i n i s t e r i s n o t handling his file. Again to the minister: how is he going to convince people in this province that enough attention is being paid to this issue so that tragedies that we've seen time and time again aren't repeated? [1355] Hon. T. Christensen: The member obviously hasn't been paying attention to the last number of years.

This is the government that was instrumental in the Kelowna accord, through the first ministers meeting, to ensure that we established a positive path forward in health outcomes, education outcomes and other social outcomes to close the gaps between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians. This is a government th at has undertaken unprece- dented consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations across our province to try and find better paths forward to serve aboriginal children and families. We admit that there is still significant work to do, but let's look at some of the progress.

Since 2001 the number of aboriginal children served by a delegated agency has increased by 300 pe rcent. In the last year the delegated agency that se rves the Cowichan Tribes became only the second aboriginal agency in Canada to take on adoption services — the second in Canada. M. Karagianis: Well, I'll tell you who's not paying attention in this Legislature. It is the Minister of Children and Families. The minister cannot claim progress here. The Auditor General's report is scathing. The Auditor General's report says that this minister is not even measuring good outcomes for children.

The report found that nearly 21 percent of families involved in the ministry saw a recurrence of abuse or neglect — 21 percent, one in five. That is nowhere near the goal that the minister had set, and that's up from the year before. That's exactly what happened to the little girl in Prince George who was beaten and neglected by her grandmother. This report shows that the minister is failing these children and their families. When is the minister going to put real resources into the system so that front-line workers can actually check on children and their outcomes? Hon. T.

Christensen: The budget for child and fam- ily services today is 30 percent higher than it was when we became government. We've added resources, but we know that resources alone aren't the solution here. We need to be working closel y with first nations, with aboriginal service provid ers and with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to ensure that we're working in collaboration to better serve aboriginal children and families. We've made progress.

For the first time ever, we know that in the last year we have convinced INAC to start to fund out-of-care options so that there is an option for delegated agencies beyond taking a child into care in order for them to get the funding to care for that child. At the beginning of April the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society became fully dele- gated. They are now the largest urban aboriginal

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12033 agency in the country to be serving aboriginal children and families. That's the type of progress we want to see. We're seeing it. We going to continue to work on those initia- tives, and we're going to see additional progress. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. M. Karagianis: I think the minister better reread the Auditor General's report — again and again and again. In this report what comes forward is lack of resources, lack of funding and lack of planning.

One in five fami- lies involved with the ministry experiences recurrences of abuse and neglect. Despite years of the inte rnal transformation that this government undertook and millions of dollars, the Auditor General's recommendations talk about the basics: consultation on needs, better measurement for outcomes, better resources, effective funding, an effective change management strategy. Those should have been the very first steps taken many years ago, not five years down the road as we see today.

Will the minister admit his failure and admit that his government has wasted six years and that aborigi- nal children have paid the price for that? Hon. T. Christensen: I would respectfully suggest to the member that she read the report once. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. T. Christensen: The Auditor General has made a number of observations, which we appreciate. He also observes in the report where the ministry's opera- tional plan is starting to address those concerns. So we are certainly on the right track. [1400] We appreciate the recommendations that have been made.

We will continue to look at how we can be working in collaboration with first nations, with abo- riginal organizations, with the First Nations Leadership Council and with INAC to ensure that collectively we can see the types of improvements we all want to see in terms of aboriginal children and families' lives. S. Fraser: Twenty-one percent — that's how often abuse and neglect recur. This is not a good-news story to the minister.

The report also found that the ministry has failed to develop culturally appropriate services — something else the minister referred to, but not in the sense that the Auditor General did. Considering the lack of supports from this government, the Auditor General questioned the viability of transferring these services. That's tragic — these reminders of abject failure of this minister only one week after the minister was humiliated in trying to bring forward legislation on aboriginal children without even consulting with first nations. It shows he hasn't done his work.

He hasn't put the resources in place, and his plan will not meet the needs of aboriginal children. When is the minister goin g to put children first and put the resources in place to protect children in care in this province? Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, significant resources have been added to child and family services across the province. But it's important to note that the incidence of recidivism, a recurrence of abuse or neglect, actually dropped last year to 721 incidents from 962 the previous year. That's a 25 percent reduction.

We also found that the number of children found to be in need of protection last year dropped significantly from the previous year. That is an indication of pro- gress in terms of how children and families are doing across this province. It's pa rt of the work that we're committed to continuing to do to ensure that we do see better outcomes for aboriginal children and families right across British Columbia. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. S. Fraser: T h e m i n i s t e r i s p r e t t y g o o d a t t h r o w i n g statistics out. It's a bit of a shell game.

We saw that in- crease in the budget of 30 percent. That was a lateral move from child care. That did nothing to help aboriginal children in care, and the minister should be ashamed of himself. The minister tried to move ahead with legislation before communities were re ady, before his own minis- try was ready. He doesn't even know how much it will cost to ensure that the agen cies can meet the needs of the children needing protection. Now, the Auditor General is clear. There's a quote here.

The report showed that the minister has no sense of "the real cost of having staff and delegated aboriginal authorities deliver effective, culturally ap- propriate aboriginal child protection services." That's pretty unequivocal. Will the minister admit that after six years and mil- lions of dollars, he and his ministry have not even done the basic work to ensure that aboriginal children are actually getting the services they need and they deserve? Hon. T.

Christensen: Since 2001 a 300 percent in- crease in the number of aboriginal children being served by delegated agencies , six additional aboriginal delegated agencies, only the second agency in Canada to take on adoption services, the largest urban aborigi- nal delegated agency in Canada. Since 2004 more than 1,500 aboriginal children in care of MCFD have been reconnected to their culture and community through the Roots Are Forever program. So we are making pro- gress on a number of fronts.

Today we have 41 aboriginal early childhood devel- opment programs working in concert with aboriginal communities on the prevention end, the front end, of an appropriate child welfar e program. So progress is being made. [1405]

12034 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 It's interesting. What is the NDP's view of success in serving aboriginal children and families? Is it appre- hending more children, as happened in the 1990s when we had the highest numbers ever? CHILD POVERTY IN B.C. J. Brar: Seven years — no improvements. Clearly, aboriginal children are not a priority for this govern- ment. Last week a new Statistics Canada report revealed that even though people in British Columbia are work- ing hard, they're earning less.

Now we learn that for the fifth year in a row, B.C. has the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada. This government should be ashamed of that. So my question is to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Why does a rich province once again have the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada? Hon. C. Richmond: We are always concerned when we see a report such as this from Stats Canada, and we… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. C. Richmond: …examined the report very c a r e f u l l y t o m a k e s u r e t h a t w e k n o w e x a c t l y w h a t i t contains.

One of the things that jumped right out at us is that Stats Canada themselves say that their statistic for 2005, on which the report is based, should be used with caution. Their own statistic, as they say, should be used with caution because the numbers from 2003 to 2006 show a definite downward trend in the low- income situation — a drop from 159,000 in 2003 to 133,000, a drop of more than 15 percent. The trend in the past four years is fewer children living in low- income situations. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. J. Brar: It's very clear that this minister is completely out of touch with reality.

This is the fifth wake-up call for this minister, and this minister still needs to review the report. Every year this minister stands up and de- fends against the reports provided by professionals. The fact is that 181,000 children in B.C. are living in poverty. It's tragic. It's a crisis. It's clear that the priorities of this government are all wrong. The government is giving $220 million in tax breaks to big banks only this year and $327 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies. It's time. This min- ister needs to get up and start working for the voiceless and the most vulnerable kids of this province.

So my question, again, to the Minister of Employ- ment and Income Assistance is this. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. J. Brar: When will the minister stop denying the crisis of child poverty and start developing a com- prehensive strategy to address child poverty in the province of British Columbia, starting with a raise to the minimum wage? Hon. C. Richmond: When we examine the report from Stats Canada, we find they do not take into account the many programs we have in place for those below the low-income cut-off line. For example…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. C.

Richmond: This is right from the…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat. Members. Continue, Minister. [1410] Hon. C. Richmond: We find the statistic that British Columbia is leading the country in the reduction of poverty. These are not…. Interjections. Hon. C. Richmond: These are from Stats Canada. These are the statistics that you're quoting. British Columbia is moving people out of low-income situations almost three times faster than the national aver- age, from 2002 to 2006 declining by 3 percent and account- ing for over 50 percent of the national reduction. A.

Dix: One thing we can say about these two ministers is that they may be humiliated, but they're not easily humiliated. Last Wednesday…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Member, just take your seat. Members, listen to the question, and listen to the answer. Continue, Member. A. Dix: So let's…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Start again, Member. A. Dix: So let's review. Last Wednesday the Minis- ter of Children and Families, after six years and $39 million, has to withdraw at the last second a bill he presented before the Legislature. Then the Auditor General condemns the performance of the government.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12035 Yesterday in this House we learned of the case of a child who went from the responsibility of that minister to the responsibility of that minister and back to this minister. Now Statistics Canada says again No. 1 in child poverty — again. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance prefers to deny the facts than to take action. The Auditor General is wrong, Statistics Canada is wrong, and the child representative is wrong, accord- ing to the government. The only people who seem to be right are the public affairs bureau.

M y q u e s t i o n t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f E m p l o y m e n t a n d Income Assistance is…. Surely as minister, when he sees that we're No. 1 in Canada in child poverty, his answer shouldn't be to deny the facts. What action is he going to take? What concrete action is he going to take today to deal with the growing tragedy of income inequality in Canada? Hon. C. Richmond: As of February 2008 there were approximately 51,000 fewer children living in families on income assistance compared to June…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Minister, just take your seat. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, we're not con- tinuing. Continue, Minister. Hon. C. Richmond: Let me repeat that, unless they didn't quite get it — 51,000 fewer children in families on income assistance compared to June 2001, a 60 percent reduction. These people have some 400,000 new jobs to go to in British Columbia. We know that when these people leave income assistance and start their employment, they don't start at the top end of the income scale. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Hon. C. Richmond: That's why we have programs in place for them. [1415] Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. A.

Dix: Well, I say to the minister that I think it's a particularly… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. A. Dix: …shameful performance by the govern- ment today. Report after report…. You know, they can take shots. They can do whatever they want. The Auditor General has condem ned them. Statistics Canada has condemned them. The child representative has condemned them. Real children are sufferi ng. To the minister: these people are our friends, our neighbours, people in our community. They're not "these people." They're us.

W i l l t h i s M i n i s t e r o f E m p l o y m e n t a n d I n c o m e Assistance stand up in this House and announce a plan to do something about the fact that we're No. 1 — the worst record of child poverty in the country — or will he step aside and let someone else who will take action take over? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. C. Richmond: Here's another sentence right out of the report from Stats Canada. Statistics Canada emphasizes that these low-income rates should not be construed as poverty rates. Interjections. Hon. C. Richmond: It's not my quote. It's right out of the report… Mr.

Speaker: Minister. Interjections. Hon. C. Richmond: …from Statistics Canada. It's the report. Mr. Speaker, just as an example that the report does not take into consideration…. We know that in British Columbia, for example, rent is expensive here. We know that. That is why we have the rental supplement program, where those earning less than $35,000 a year are eligible for assis- tance of up to $500 per month. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST INDUSTRY C. Puchmayr: Well, another day and another mill closure in British Columbia.

Today 251 people in Mackenzie in northern British Columbia will be losing their jobs because their mill is going to close. This has nothing to do with the Amer ican economy or with the Canadian dollar. This is a pulp mill. It's a booming pulp market with record-high pulp prices. The mill is closing because it doesn't have a guaranteed fibre sup- ply. They can't sell the mill because they can't get fibre supply to the potential buyer. I'd like to read to the minister a quote from one of the people losing their jobs.

He states: "That leaves me with 28 years' seniority, no job, no price for which I can sell my house and scared. We were the richest community in the province a decade ago" — that would be in the '90s — "and now we are nothing. We are a ghost town." Interjections.

12036 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 Mr. Speaker: Members. C. Puchmayr: To the Minister of Forests: the minis- ter is failing. Will the minister ensure that there is fibre supply to Mackenzie so that this profitable mill can remain open? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think we were all disappointed to hear that the deal to buy the Mackenzie pulp mill went sideways last week. We had hoped that over the weekend there would be an opportunity for that deal to come back together.

We've been in conversation this morning with the lawyers involved from our side as well as with people from the courts and stuff. We understand that they're still in discussion to try and see if that deal can be salvaged. In addition to that, we understand there may be another party interested in the pulp mill. To the mem- ber opposite: we are going to do everything to make sure that the fibre supply is there for this mill, should we find an appropriate buyer.

We hope that for the sake of the workers and th e community of Mackenzie, that can be accomplished. [1420] I spoke to the mayor of Mackenzie prior to question p e r i o d , a n d I t o l d h e r t h a t w e w o u l d b e m a k i n g a n y commitment we possibly can to make any deal that could come forward work if the opportunity presented itself. L. Krog: You know, if talk were action, the problem would have been solved about seven years ago. We've had seven years of talk from this government and no action on forestry whatsoever. Last week this minister stood by while 800 forestry jobs disappeared.

Tomorrow in my community — peo- ple I know, my neighbours, my friends — 530 jobs gone with the shutting of Harmac. Good, family- supporting jobs. The reason is because Pope and Talbot has been trying to sell this mill, but nobody wants to buy it because there's no guaranteed fibre supply. That's the responsibility of the Minister of Forests, the last time I checked. Within a few miles of that mill there's wood rotting on the forest floor instead of feeding fibre to that mill and keeping these jobs going.

I want this minister to- day in this House to stand up and say what he is going to do to get fibre to Harmac before it's gone forever. Hon. R. Coleman: The member might want to start by speedy passage of the piece of legislation before this House that allows us to create a tenure to go get the waste off the floor of the forest. I also don't want the member…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R.

Coleman: I don't think the member should be disingenuous on this and say that it's all about fibre supply, because we have worked with this mill in the past to find its fibre successfully and will continue to do so in the future. There are a number of reasons with regards to the Harmac issue. You do know it's a bankruptcy. You do know that there was a suitor there with regards to that. There are still some discussions going on with regards to Harmac. Frankly, I know some people that work there too, hon. Member. I'm not happy about it, and quite frankly, I feel for them.

We're going to try to find a solution to see if we can make this thing work. [End of question period.] Standing Order 81.1 ADOPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to rise and advise the House that the government and opposition have come to a partial agreement pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(1) with respect to the completion of all the esti- mates and some of the bills. Those bills are as follows: Bills 14, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39 and 41; and for debate of those bills through all stages to conclude by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2008, if not earlier.

That agreement, I can advise members, also in- volves the deferment of the following bills for debate at a subsequent time following this sitting — that is, Bills 28, 30, 35 and 40. I'll speak in a moment to a third component of this, which relates to scheduling of a week of additional debate time. I'll come to that in a moment. However, an agreement was not reached with re- spect to several pieces of legislation in accord with 81.1, and those bills include the following: Bills 20, 21, 24, 29, 32, 37, 42 and 43.

I do wish to advise members that the government seeks debate and passage of those bills this session. [1425] Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), I move the following: [Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), on or before 6:00 on Thursday, May 29, 2008 all remaining stages on Bills: Bill 20 Oil and Gas Activities Act Bill 21 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 Bill 24 E-Health (Personal Health Information Access & Protection of Privacy) Act Bill 29 Environmental (Species & Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 Bill 32 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act Bill 37 Carbon Tax Act Bill 42 Election Amendment Act, 2008 Bill 43 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008 shall be completed and disposed of.

At 5:00 p.m. on the date mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12037 Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all neces- sary questions for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said Bills without amendment, apart from Gov- ernment amendments, or debate. Any divisions called on the second or third reading of said Bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16 and all other divisions will be covered by Practice Recom- mendation No. 1.

Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing Order 81 or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of sitting of the House.] Motion approved on the following division: YEAS — 40 Falcon Reid Coell Ilich Chong Christensen Les Richmond Bell Krueger van Dongen Roddick Hayer Lee Jarvis Nuraney Whittred Thorpe Hagen Oppal de Jong Taylor Bond Hansen Abbott Penner Coleman Hogg Sultan Bennett Lekstrom Mayencourt Polak Hawes Yap Bloy MacKay Black McIntyre Rustad NAYS — 30 Brar S. Simpson Fleming Farnworth Kwan Ralston B.

Simpson Hammell Coons Thorne Simons Puchmayr Gentner Routley Fraser Horgan Lali Dix Trevena Bains Robertson Karagianis Krog Austin Chudnovsky Chouhan Wyse Sather Macdonald Conroy [1430] Hon. M. de Jong: I wish to further…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. M. de Jong: I wish to further advise the House that as a result of conversations between the Opposition House Leader and myself, I believe I am in a position, with leave, to offer the following consensual motion. Leave granted. Motions without Notice LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS Hon.

M. de Jong: I do so move: [Be it resolved that unless otherwise ordered, for the Fourth Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, Standing Order 2 (2) (

b) be amended so that the House shall meet the week of Victoria Day as follows: Tuesday, May 20th Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 21st 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Thursday, May 22nd Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Friday, May 23rd Two distinct sittings: 10 a.m. to 12 noon 1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.] Motion approved. Standing Order 35 J.

Kwan: I rise under Standing Order 35 to seek leave to move a motion that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, for this House to call on the Harper government to abandon the provisions to Bill C-50, which makes sweeping changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act without consultation and study. Bill C-50 is now before the Select Standing Committee on Finance and could be moved to third reading at any time.

If Bill C-50 passes as currently drafted, it will give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration arbitrary powers to move people up or off waiting lists, limit im- migrants in the ability to re unite with overseas family members based on humanita rian and compassionate grounds, and let officials pr ioritize temporary foreign labour over family-class and economic-class immigrants. Immigration has played and continues to play a piv- otal role in building B.C. If these provisions of Bill C-50 are passed, they will have profound negative effects on British Columbia and its families. Mr.

Speaker, I present to you a written statement of the matter proposed. If you find that this statement is in order and of public urgent importance, I would then move at the appropriate time the following motion: "Be it resolved that this House unanimously urge the federal government to withdraw the provisions of Bill C-50 that amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to immediately allocate significant resources to make permanent immigration more accessible and efficient while ensuring family re-unification remains a priority in all immigration matters." Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

I'll take that under advisement.

12038 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, as you do, you may wish the benefit of my immediate reaction to the hon. member's submission. I haven't had the benefit of the statement, but I have heard her commentary today. I have no doubt that there is widespread concern — certainly on the part of the member and I think other members — about the issue generally. It is, of course, a matter that is being considered by the Parliament of Canada during the course of the debates that take place around the legislation that the member has cited in her submission.

I am also mindful, however, of the rules that govern this chamber. I want to say two things about that. We need to be alive to the fact that with respect to Standing Order 35, the tests that apply in determining whether or not it may be invoked to interrupt the normal business of the day are well developed. One of the tests that I know the hon. member is aware of, given her length of service here in this chamber, is not just the urgency of the matter.

In fact, specifically, it is the urgency of debate in this chamber that the Speaker must turn his mind to. [1435] Having said that, in the past what the Opposition House Leader and I have been able to do — the oppo- sition and the government — on matters such as this is perhaps have a discussion about an appropriate means or time when the matter can come to the floor of the House of the Legislature. This may be one of those times. I'm not sure. I'm hearing the member's com- ments and concerns for the first time now. But I'm certainly prepared to have that conversation with the Opposition House Leader.

I regret, however, and fear that the tests that have been established through the years in this chamber around Standing Order 35 are not satisfied in this par- ticular case. That doesn't mean we should resist having a discussion, but it does mean that the mechanism by which the hon. member seeks to initiate that discussion is, I fear, not applicable. J. Kwan: Just a quick response to simply say I would welcome discussion with the Government House Leader to see if we can find a way to expedite this opportunity to engage in the debate on the motion that I put forward.

I look forwar d to that discussion along with our Opposition House Leader. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members, and I will take it under advisement. C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Introductions by Members C. Trevena: I would like to introduce in the gallery today Carl Larsen, who has been sitting watching the debate and watching question period. He's here for the second time, I think, and the last time he was here, he said that it was a little dry. His granddaughter Kaylah is one of the pages in the House.

Carl is a resident on Quadra Island — a neighbour and I would like to say a friend — who also is one of the very hard-working crew members on our ferry, the Quadra–Campbell River ferry…. I've forgotten the name of our ferry. However, Carl, who works on the ferries, is a good friend and good neighbour. I hope the House will make him very welcome. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second reading debate of Bill 23 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Forests and Range. Second Reading of Bills PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (continued) C. Wyse: Before lunch, I had the privilege of having your attention in debating the merits of Bill 23, the Public Health Act. Given the break at lunchtime…. [S. Hammell in the chair.] Madam Speaker, I'm glad to see that you are here to hear my close on Bill 23. I believe that before lunch I had mentioned that there were three cautions I wished to bring to the atten- tion of the Speaker with regards to this particular bill.

It's on that I wish to wrap up and close. The first caution is that greater clarity may be needed with respect to publ ic consultation on public health plans developed by public bodies. The second caution is that the government is talking tough with respect to requiring communities to include mental health and addiction facilities and housing in their communities but does not back it up with adequate funding and resources to make it happen. The third point once more, in my judgment, comes to the point of a government that claims to be open, transparent and accountable.

My third caution is that once more, this bill is an en abling bill. What it does is grant the authority to cabinet in order to develop the regulations. That is the level of government that is least available for any type of tr ansparency and accountabil- ity. That simply is how our system operates. [1440] Before lunch I pointed out that this particular bill in actual fact removes the ability from an individual citizen to trigger investigations with health hazards.

When you compare that the regulations are going to be developed by cabinet in secrecy, I challenge that this particular legislation provides for openness, account- ability and transparency. With that, Madam Speaker, I wish to conclude my remarks. Thank you for providing me this opportunity

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12039 to give these cautions with regards to Bill 23, the Public Health Act. M. Sather: I take my place to join in the debate on Bill 23, the Public Health Act. As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues before me, there are things about this act that I find quite acceptable and want to support. For example, the legislation fulfils the government's throne speech commitment to ban the use of trans fats in the preparation of foods in schools, restaurants and food service establishments by 2010.

The legislation itself does not ban trans fats but enables the regulation of health impediments. Insofar as those are effective — and I'm hopeful that they will be — I certainly endorse that move by the government. I think it's been clearly understood — and there's all sorts of evidence and research to support the fact — that trans fats are not good for our health. I know my wife keeps close track of the trans fats that we might be eating in our home and actually has educated me a great deal on the dangers of trans fats.

We certainly want to ensure that children in schools are not exposed to this substance, which in all likelihood is dangerous to their health. I note that it says in the preparation of foods, so I'm assuming that would mean things like cooking oils that foods are prepared with. The whole issue of trans fats, however, is a bigger one. It certainly is a public health issue, and I think we need to ensure that we're ge tting trans fats out of our food products entirely. Anything the government can do to regulate and reduce the use of trans fats, particu- larly in our schools, I fully endorse.

That's a good thing, a good part of this bill. The general purpose of Bill 23 is to enable medical health officers and environmental health officers to investigate health hazard complaints. It supports preparations and responses for public health emergen- cies and ensures that govern ment and health officials have the authority they need to mobilize resources and take action to protect public health. It provides the minister with new powers with respect to requiring public bodies, including health authorities and local governments, to develop public health plans to address emerging health issues.

My colleague the member for Cariboo South, who was up before me, mentioned some of his concerns around local governments and this act. So I won't delve further into that issue, other than to note that it's been brought up by my colleague. The government says that the bill completes moderni- zation of the Drinking Water Protection Act and other acts. In a few minutes I will talk a little bit more about the Drinking Water Protection Act and modernization. Yes, I'm sure there are antiquated sections of these various acts and acts themselves — as we heard, some of them go back to 1893 — that need modernization.

I think what the public in British Columbia are par- ticularly looking for are tools to help them be assured that their public health is protected, and we're hopeful that these modernizations are going to do that. The minister may require that a public health plan be made to monitor factors, including public health, and the minister sets the terms of reference for the plan, includ- ing who must be consulted. [1445] I want to talk a bit about — in fact, probably most of what I have to say today — the protection of drinking water, which is a truly essential part of protecting public health.

We are fortunate in our part of the world to be blessed with good drinking water for the most part. Certainly, we know that's the case in Maple Ridge with regard to the water that comes out of our tap. In Pitt Meadows it comes from the Coquitlam watershed, which is secure and hasn't actually been affected by high-water events and runoff that in recent years has affected the Vancouver water supply, which comes from the Capilano reservoir. We have good drinking water in my constituency that comes out of the tap. We know that in other parts of British Columbia, residents are not so fortunate.

There are a large number of boil-water advisories throughout the province, which should be drawing our attention to the fact that this is a public health issue of considerable importance. It behooves us as government and governors on both sides of the House to pay great attention to this issue. Local citizens, I think, in all communities throughout the province were paying a great deal of attention to what happened on the Sunshine Coast in the last number of months with regard to Chapman Creek and concerns that this was a threat to the health of the residents of that area.

Local medical offi cials there concluded that the logging in Chapman Creek on the Sunshine Coast was a health hazard. They tr ied to invoke what they could to protect their community, which is laudable, which is understandable and which citizens are going to do. It's such an essential thing — drinking water — that citizens will rise up to try to protect that essential resource, and that's what happened there. Their regional district was unable to act because they cannot develop bylaws to regulate forestry opera- tions, and that was their concern.

Their concern was about the forestry operations along and in the environs of that creek. The public was able to trigger an investi- gation into health hazards, and under the new law, which is Bill 23, a medical health officer is required to report a health hazard to a designated person. Our critic the member for Vancouver-Kensington has brought up the question of what this means and how that will play out via regulation or otherwise — the reporting of a health hazard to a designated person.

I know that in my community, as well as on the Sunshine Coast and I expect in other areas, local resi- dents have some concern about what effect that will have on their ability to become engaged and to remain engaged in this very important public health issue. Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law said of Bill 23: "The Public Health Act shuts the public out at every turn." That's a very serious statement by a very…. I have met Mr. Gage. I consider him to be a very well-considered individual, not prone to

12040 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 hyperbole, and I think that says a lot about their con- cern about how they are going to be able to protect their health vis-à-vis drinking water. [1450] In my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, i n p a r t i c u l a r i n t h e c o m m u n i t y o f M a p l e R i d g e , w e have had concerns expressed not that much different than what was expressed on the Sunshine Coast.

There's a group in Maple Ridge called the Blue Mountain conservation grou p that has been struggling for years with regard to their safety and health around the watershed that is Blue Mountain, which lies above most of their homes. In fact, the genesis for that group was that in the subdivision that some of them lived in a number of years ago, their water was surface water coming off Blue Mountain. That water was determined at that time to be unfit for human consumption, and they were no longer allowed to use that water.

They are convinced that that determination had to do with the forestry operations and the public use operations on Blue Moun- tain, which led to the pollution of those surface waters. They've led a fight for a long time to try to ensure that their environment and thei r public health, through their drinking water, are going to be protected.

Of late both the residents of Blue Mountain and the residents of an area called Thornhill in Maple Ridge, which is nearby, have been expressing concerns about their groundwater and the quality of their groundwa- ter, because all of this area — almost all of it, at least — depends on wells. They depend on wells for their drink- ing water, and they are very concerned about their health vis-à-vis those wells and what is happening to their drinking water supply. They were able to get a spokesperson a few months ago from the Ministry of Environment to come out and speak to them about their concerns.

You know, one of the things that you have to determine with aquifers is what the source is of the aquifers. The one thing they learned from that spokesperson was that in all likeli- hood, without the scientific tests to prove it — which are fairly complicated, as I understand it — Blue Mountain is the source of their drinking water and their well water, which to a casual obse rver stands to reason. It's situated above most of them, and water runs downhill. The removal of forest cover is of great concern, as I said, to them. It can lead to increased infusion of aquifers with siltation.

They have been looking everywhere, from insurance, from government, from a variety of ministries — and I'll go through a bit of that in a min- ute — including the Ministry of Health, for how they can become assured that their drinking water is safe and that their public health is protected. Some of them, very much to their credit, have under- taken a monitoring program entirely at their own expense to test their well water, to be able to develop a baseline of data from which they can compare and will have objective data for any changes that might take place.

I attended a couple of meetings, at least, with government officials and with members of the Blue Mountain conservation group. If it wasn't such a serious issue, I would have to say that it was comical. But in fact it is a serious issue, so it wasn't. [1455] I could fully understand, particularly after the years and years that this group has been struggling to get some assurance from government and to get some action, that their environmen t, their health and their water are protected. It was a complete merry-go-round, and sadly, nobody was taking charge.

There were several ministries involved in these meet- ings. There were representatives from the Ministry of Forests. There were representatives from Agriculture and Lands, primarily from the integrated land management bureau. The question was: who' s protecting our water source? That was the question that the citizens of my community put forward over and over again. Who is protecting our water source ? Who is protecting our public health? They did not get any kind of answer, because it seemed that there really is no answer.

I asked the representative from the Ministry of For- ests: "Can you speak to the issue of the removal of forest cover and groundwater? What is the connection, or in fact, is there a connection?" There is some dispute. It's not well understood, from what I've gathered, what the connection is, so I asked him to explain that. He certainly knew what the meeting was all about, but he said that he had no knowledge and couldn't comment on that.

That was very disappointing to me, and I think it was very disappointing to my constitu- e n t s t o n o t b e a b l e t o b e i n f o r m e d b y g o v e r n m e n t o f what was going on. Although the government spokespersons that were there…. They conducted the meetings well. They were sympathetic. They were empathetic. What did come out of it was that the Ministry of Health is responsible. Some of them are my constituents; some of them are in Maple Ridge–Mission. They went to their public health officer and started asking questions.

"How can you pro- tect our drinking water supply, our public health?" They were told: "Well, in your case there's nothing we can do to protect your health unless people are getting sick, unless in fact the damage is already done." This is totally unacceptab le. That's too late. You cer- tainly need to act if people are getting sick, but surely in this day and age we must act before people get sick to ensure that their health is being protected. My concern is t h a t w e ' r e n o f u r t h e r a h e a d .

I n f a c t , w e m a y b e f u r t h er behind with regard to protecting drinking water and the obvious public health benefit involved. Sections 57 and 58 of the Health Act are deleted by Bill 23. Those sections allowed individual citizens to trigger an investigation into health hazards, such as happened on the Sunshine Coast at Chapman Creek. Again, it was sad to see residents having to get legal representation and all the co sts involved with that and those legal people having to search for something, any- thing, to protect public drinking water and finding it difficult to do so.

Consequently, their challenge was ultimately unsuccessful in the court. [1500]

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12041 I think that far from being indicative of a frivolous case, it speaks volumes about the lack of protection that we have in this province for public drinking water. That's a shame, and that's really not acceptable. It's not acceptable at all in the 21st century, and it makes me wonder whether the government is…. I mean, I find it hard to say that the government isn't aware of this is- sue, because I think they're aware of this issue, but I don't see that the government is wanting to deal with the issue.

Lest anybody think that th e residents of east Maple Ridge should just hang on until there's more develop- ment and we get city water…. I would suggest that is not a good solution. We in the Fraser Valley cannot depend forever on water from the Coquitlam watershed. Our population is growing significantly. We have two new bridges coming into Maple Ridge that are going to bring more people in, and we need people to be able to depend on the drinking water sources that they have in addition to water from the Coquitlam watershed. This is the era of climate change, as we know.

This is a time when we're seeing prolonged droughts in the summer. As it is, people in the area that I'm speaking of, the Whonnock area of Maple Ridge, frequently have to bring in drinking water by truck during the summer. Government should be taking every opportunity to protect their drinking water because we can only ex- pect that in all likelihood, there are going to be more challenges vis-à-vis the warming climate and drinking water.

In fact, I predict that this will be one of the major issues, if not the major issue, in this century not only in British Columbia but throughout the world — the availability of safe drinking water. Although the government has a climate change agenda and has brought in a lo t of bills, there's nothing to do that I see that is going to address the issue of pro- tecting drinking water. That's too bad, because I think this was an opportunity through Bill 23, the Public Health Act, to do that.

An essential part of doing that, however, is to en- sure that the public is fully engaged in the process, because right now, once again, they're feeling shut out by this government. They're feeling the heavy hand of government saying: "Well, you pesky citizens that dared to rise up and challenge our authority over your drinking water…. We're certainly going to fix that." That's too bad, again, beca use punishing the citizens should not be the goal of legislation. Although Bill 23 has some good stuff in it, I fear that is partly what it is intended to do.

Last year I brought in a private member's bill, the Drinking Water Protec tion Amendment Act, 2007, because I wanted to do what I could. Even though I'm on the opposition side, I wanted to do what I could to address this problem. One of the parts of that bill was that subsection 32(4)(

a) of the Drinking Water Protec- tion Act is amended by 32(4)(

a) saying: "…whether changes are required in land and water use within the watershed, including tree harv esting, agricultural uses, industrial, commercial or residential development or other uses." These are the kinds of issues that are affecting drinking water. There are other issues as well, like drought, but we need to take the whole picture when looking at the safety of drinking water. I understand that it's a challenge for any government to do that. How do you manage to carry out resource extraction — to wit, logging — and still protect your drinking water?

I fully admit that's no small challenge, but I think we have no other choice than to deal with that head-on. [1505] I know that the people of Maple Ridge and the Blue Mountain Conservation Grou p are totally frustrated that the government is in no way taking on that chal- lenge and has really dropped the ball in that regard.

Moving on to another part of this bill, which is an a r e a o f c o n c e r n t o m e t o o , t h e g o v e r n m e n t i s t a l k i n g tough with respect to requiring communities to include mental health and addiction facilities in their commu- nities — in other words, talking about addictions and mental health services. I fully support that. I was a mental health therapist before I became an MLA. I've also worked in addiction services, so I fully understand how important it is that we improve those services — that government improve those services. So I'm glad to see that the government intends to do that.

However, I have to say that there's one thing since I've been elected that has surprised me about what this gov- ernment has not done, and that's around the issue of detox services. You will know, Madam Speaker, that detox is a significant essential. Whether you do it yourself, which is not recommended generally, or whether you go to a detox centre, it's an essential first step to dealing with addiction. Several years ago our closest detox treatment was in New Westminster. It was subsequently switched to Burnaby. Now it's in Surrey, and it simply is not good enough.

It surprised me immensely, actually, that the government has not put in more detox services. If you have someone who is fighting to get off an addiction and needs to go to a detox centre, first of all, some of these people — quite a few of them in my com- munity and throughout the province — do not have a lot of financial wherewithal. I think it's safe to say that be- cause of their addiction and sometimes attendant mental health issues, nor do they have a lot of internal capacity in terms of ability to stay focused on an issue to get there.

I mean, some of them don't even have the bus fare oftentimes to get to Surrey. So it's a real impediment to have to go that far to access detox services. On top of that — and I think this is a longstanding policy that probably predates this government; I don't know — the policy that you can't make an appoint- ment for detox simply doesn't work. There should be the capacity to make an appointment and go in, like any other medical treatment. I hope something is going to happen positively in that regard because of this bill.

Right now you have to go every morning at nine o'clock or whatever the time is and say: "Here I am. I'm presenting myself for detox." You get told more often than not: "Sorry, no room today. Come back tomorrow."

12042 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 That is not acceptable, and it doesn't work. We talk a lot about homelessness, both sides of this House. We talk about addictions, how important they are, yet addictions services — and I'm focusing right now on detox — are sadly lacking. I don't see how we can really address homelessness, for example, in my com- munity without adequate detox services. [1510] I don't see that really happening in this bill. I look forward to the government — maybe the minister in his wrapping-up speech or maybe when we get to the committee stage….

This is a thick bill, and there's certainly a lot of stuff in here that we will want to examine. I'm sure the Health Minister will want to examine it with us and provide all those an swers about how this is going to work, how this bill on the ground is going to provide better services — whether it's the protection of public health through the protection of drinking water, whether it's improvement in detox and other kinds of addiction treatment services or whether it's the issue of homelessness, which has been canvassed fully by a member before me. I look forward to the an swers to those questions.

With that, I'll take my seat and pass it over to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. N. Simons: I'd like to thank the previous members who have spoken on this bill, especially as it relates to an issue that's concerning to me as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I know that the Sunshine Coast has been mentioned a few times in relation to Bill 23, and I just thought it would be an appropriate moment to bring up some concerns I have about the changes that this legislation makes to the ability of the public to become involved in issues that they believe concern them and directly affect them. In this particular case, the residents of the Sunshine Coast, in very large numbers and in eloquent expression of community interest, spoke loudly against certain practices that were taking place in the Chapman Creek watershed.

The Chapman Creek watershed on the Sunshine Coast provides clean drinking water to approximately 90 percent of the population, and as such, it has for many years been the focus of a lot of attention and the focus of concern not just by environmentalists and conservation- ists but by the community at large. It was clearly evident in those demonstrations, with large numbers of people coming out to express their concern. They're concerned about the protection of our drinking water.

I think there's a renewed understanding and inter- est in how we protect our water not just for today but for years and years to come, because as we all know, there's nothing of more valu e in a watershed than the water. We have to recognize that the watershed on the Sunshine Coast…. The highest value in that watershed is the water that we drink and the water that we use to survive. It's no surprise that when the community of the Sunshine Coast spoke vociferously in defence of their drinking water….

They did so this past summer upon realizing that some logging activity was going to take place, which could potentially have an impact on the quality of the water. At first it was unclear as to what response the community would be able to put forward in the face of Western Forest Products' ability to adhere to provincial regulations and, thus, not have to take into consideration, to the same level of concern that the residents wanted, the protection of drinking water.

Bill 23 specifically amends the Health Act, which actually, in effect, takes away one of the triggers, one of the mechanisms that the community has to have a say over what happens in their watershed. In this particu- lar circumstance on the Sunshine Coast, there was a convergence of voices, a convergence of concern over this watershed issue.

Reside nts in the hundreds turned out to public meetings and public demonstrations to express that concern. [1515] I believe it was rewarding, in a manner of speaking, to see that the community was concerned and was on top of that issue, and it was drinking water and the protection of drinking water being higher on the list of priorities for the community than any other interest. The Chapman Creek watershed has been the subject of numerous past public debates and has been central, in effect, to the debate over the protection of the public's drinking water source.

In fact, in the past referendums have been held over how we were going to protect the water. Numerous legislative amendments were put forward in order to attempt to deal with what is the most precious resource on the Sunshine Coast. Unfortunately, the threats continued, and the sensitivity of the public to those threats grew over time as well. So when the time came, in the summer when the issue was before the public, the community reacted quickly. I was informed that there was some intention to do some logging right in the watershed.

I called up a representative of the company, and I suggested to him that it would likely result in some public response and that I wouldn't blame the public for becoming concerned. There had been a moratorium on logging in this watershed. There had been a moratorium, for reasons expressed already, in order to protect the water against unforeseen circumstances. I think everybody should know that as the climate chan ges, so does the climate's impact on the earth, on soil erosion, on water and stream flows and ultimately on the quality of the water coming out of our drinking water treatment plant.

Many residents of the Sunshine Coast wondered how it was possible that the legislative framework — in other words, the laws that control or manage our water — could allow for legislatio n to exist that speaks only to the quality of water as it emerges from the water treatment plant and not before it enters that same treatment plant. How is it possible that the only safeguard that we have in legislation is for the water after it leaves the water treatment plant?

I think most British Columbians would agree that w e s h o u l d d o w h a t w e c a n t o e n s u r e t h a t w a t e r requires as little treatment as necessary. So while it's possible to treat water with chemicals and through

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12043 various processes, it would ultimately be better if we didn't have to do that and if we could keep our water as pure as possible. Another quasi-legislative effort to protect the water in the Chapman-Grey wate rshed was undertaken by the regional government in full cooperation with the Sechelt First Nation under the leadership of Garry Feschuk at the time. Chief Feschuk went to Ed Steeves, and they discussed this issue. They said: "We need to make sure that the watershe d is protected.

This water has served our people for mi llennia, and it should con- tinue to serve our communities." Out of extensive discussion and deliberation, an agreement was signed in the Sechelt First Nation long- house, and the joint watershed management accord was endorsed by those present. I say "quasi-legislative" because it doesn't hold, in fact, the effect of law in the province. It is certainly a statement of intent, and it is certainly a statement of value, but it doesn't have the legislative authority or the legislative teeth that the community wanted it to have in order to protect their water.

So you have a community on the Sunshine Coast, almost entirely reliant on this source of drinking water, that is searching for whatever legislative tool is available in that toolbox in order to protect their water. They went to public discourse, they went to joint watershed management accord, and then they were faced with the realization that the legislation itself is unable to ade- quately protect the drinking water source. [1520] So as imaginative and progressive and forward- thinking as they were on the Sunshine Coast — and as they are on the Sunshine Coast — they looked for another legal mechanism.

They found that legal mechanism, and they found that legal mechanism in the Health Act. Unfortunately, this is part of the Health Act that is going to be amended with the eventual potential passage of this legislation in Bill 23. Specifically, what Bill 23 does is remove the ability on the part of a citizen, an individual citizen, to trigger a review to ensure that a health hazard does not exist. The public has had until now the ability to go and trigger an investigation into a health hazard. That's under sections 57 and 58 of the Health Act.

They did so only because no other legislative tool was available to them. The regional district, which is liable for the quality of water being provided to its citizens, does not have the ability and the power to control what may impact that water. So we have a situation where the legal liability for the quality of the water rests with the regional district, but the regional district at the same time is unable to influ- ence the quality of the water going into the treatment plant. What I see there is a chasm between the public interests and the public's ability to influence that interest.

Perhaps there are other mechanisms in law that we have to rely on. Perhaps there exist other mechanisms in law that we'll have to rely on, but reassurance for not just the Sunshine Coast community but for various communities across the province who rely on drinking watersheds is necessary. We need to ensure that legis- lation adequately protects the public interest. There's no more important role for legislation to take as far as this issue is concerned. How we protect our water is defined in legislation, and it's defined in regulation.

So the concern simply arises when we see some of those mechanisms being eliminated. In this case, we eliminate the role of the public — the individual citizen. While this is not in and of itself an admission or a resignation to the impossibility of doing anything about protecting water, it simply eliminates one of those mechanisms that was used as a last resort, because the community was very concerned and remains very concerned. The public will that was expressed in the summer was clear.

They knew — we all knew — that the suc- cess or failure of this particular mechanism would result in the issue being br ought to the attention of government. We recognized that forcing a particular industrial activity in our watershed to be suspended would garner the appropriate attention to the issue, the issue being how capable we are as a community and, in fact, as a society to ensure that protections exist for our water. Nothing really is more important than the protection of our water.

I do imagine that there ar e citizens in Powell River– Sunshine Coast who anticipated legislative change re- moving the individual's right to trigger an investigation.

There were those — cynical, perhaps myself included — that thought this would be where government would try to close off one of the event avenues that the public has to express their concern about drinking water. [1525] Some of us were also hoping, maybe against hope, that the province would look at the legislation that existed on the books and try to figure out a way we could ensure that our water is protected — to ensure that the legislative framework exists for all occasions, for all eventualities, whether they be climate change or industrial activity or even recreational activity.

We need to be able to have the mandate and the jurisdiction at a local level to protect water sources. Nobody understands that more than those who are reliant on that water. I could add that hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are guaranteed, in essence, the safety of their water — residents of Victoria, residents of Van- couver — but we folks in the rural areas have to try and find something else on our tool belt that'll do what legislation does to protect the water for Victorians and for Vancouverites.

I think there's a double standard here that needs to be addressed regardless of the success of this bill. There needs to be an effort to ensure that our water is protected and to ensure that the water accessed by rural residents of the province is as safe as the water accessed by our urban friends and relatives. With that in mind, it's important to realize and recognize the impact of this particular legislative change that's being proposed to the Health Act. We need to recognize that it has a direct impact on our communities. Our communities should be aware and

12044 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 vigilant to ensure that their interests are protected in this chamber. I leave it up to the public to determine whether or not removing their voice from this particular aspect of drinking water protection is a good choice. I personally think this could have been an issue addressed with a more positive rather than a more negative approach, which is the removal of the individual's right. How- ever, on committee stage I'm sure that certain questions will also be able to be canvassed of the minister.

Really, to recap what happened, the regional dis- trict was unable to demonstrate that logging in the Chapman Creek watershed would result in an imminent threat, as required by the Drinking Water Protection Act. We have to just for a moment, if I could stop for a second, recognize that the Drinking Water Protection Act requires an imminent threat and the demonstration of an imminent threat. I think most people in this chamber would recognize that sometimes imminent is too late.

Sometimes we need to be a little bit more proactive to prevent that imminent threat from occurring but to first and foremost ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide input into how that imminent threat is mitigated. When they failed to demonstrate an imminent threat is when the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, a group that has a long histor y of some very excellent work on behalf of the broader community…. It's got a lot of broad support from numerous different sectors in our community. They filed a complaint, essentially. I'll take my seat.

I think the member opposite would like to make an introduction. [1530] D. Jarvis: Permission to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D. Jarvis: I apologize to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for interrupting his brilliant debate. That's what we're doing here, debating a health act in the committee stage. I would like to introduce to you approximately 35 or 40 students from Drummondville, Quebec, who are here on exchange with the children from Laura Secord School. Would the people please say bonjour and wel- come to British Columbia. Debate Continued N.

Simons: May I also add: c'est dommage que les Canadiens ont perdu mais à la prochaine fois, à l'année prochaine. An Hon. Member: Yeah, show off. N. Simons: Well, I had to express that in French in case there were Canuck fans here. But it is too bad that the Canadiens are out of the playoffs. [K. Whittred in the chair.] As I was saying, my responsibility here in this chamber is to question the ac ts and the legislation that are being brought by government.

Part of doing that is to point out where there maybe are some frailties, for lack of a better word, in the legislation and where per- haps some more attention could be paid, whether through amendment or through…. It may be unneces- sary, if we are, in fact, reassured at committee stage that amendments are not required. I certainly would have liked to see a government that at least speaks to issues of conservation and would see this perhaps as an opportunity to strengthen legisla- tion that protects our drinking water. We need, obviously, to be vigilant.

We mustn't let legislation, if it's in fact enacted, prevent us from suggesting better legislation, should that be needed. What happened on the Su nshine Coast was that the regional district, acting as a local board of health, which is its right under some legislation, held hearings and issued an order. They held four days of hearings and subsequently issued an order restricting the in- dustrial activity — not halting it, not vetoing it but restricting it. What they considered the potential health hazard — that is, the harvesting of old growth within the watershed….

What they considered problematic was the logging on slopes of gr eater than 60 percent. Their conclusion was that it did pose a risk. Subsequent to that, the Supreme Court said that the complainants did not in fact make the case adequately. Unfortunately, this has led the public of British Columbia, at least the public of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, to say: "Well, then, what are we going to do to ensure that our water source is safe? What are we going to do to ensure that a co mmunity that's landlocked, from which there is no ro ad to another community…?

How are we going to ensure that our water is safe?" I'm hoping that the minister will be able to reassure and assuage any fears we might have about the protection of water. I don't want to put too heavy a burden on him, but it is his mandate. It is under his authority that the water we rely on in this province is protected. [1535] Amendments to the Heal th Act might eliminate what they considered a bit of a nuisance, what they might have considered a bit of an impediment to the companies that provide government with so much of their funding. Perhaps other reasons exist beyond that.

We'll figure that out, perhaps, at committee stage. I can't help but think that the reaction to the activities on the Sunshine Coast, or what triggered government's intent to change how we protect our water, how we protect our health, was pretty much prompted by the actions of residents on the Sunshine Coast. I want to reiterate that first nations and the non– first nations population of the lower Sunshine Coast, new residents and long-time re sidents alike, have said repeatedly that we need to ensure that our drinking water is protected. I certainl y hope that this kind of

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12045 protection can be guaranteed somewhere in the act so that individuals whose right has been removed will still be protected by other legislative mechanisms. Now, when the regional district formed itself, in effect, as a local board of health, it did so under

section 37 of the Health Act: "A local board of health is estab- lished in each municipality, consisting of the council of the municipality." Elected representatives of the re- gional district on the Suns hine Coast heard testimony. They heard testimony from a number of witnesses. They are accountable to residents on the Sunshine Coast, and the residents of the Sunshine Coast spoke in clear and eloquent terms.

They said to their government: "We want you to do what you can to prevent hazard to our drinking water and to ensure that the provincial government is aware that we find the current protections inadequate." So we have one reaction, which is to eliminate that sort of thorn in government's side. I'm hoping that we can perhaps see an opportunity to see government come in with legislation that will protect our water. We have a number of concerns. The concerns that I wanted to raise and specifically address today are specific to the concerns of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

They're concerned about other aspects of the legislation as well. Other speakers will obviously have the opportunity to address it. Whether it's a concern or the identification of an issue that's going to be canvassed further is really up to them. This was an issue that dominated the public dis- course. It dominated in conversation and was a top of mind issue. On the Sunshine Coast, as you all likely know, there is a very stro ng consciousness about the importance of managing and being stewards of our natural resources, whether they be our wood or our water or our minerals.

The Sunshine Coast has a wonderful mix of industry. That wonderful mix of industry also creates situations where you have a wonderful conflict between interests. [1540] Our role as legislators is to take those conflicts and stickhandle them — slightly better than the Montreal Canadiens did. An Hon. Member: Hey, watch that. Watch that. N. Simons: You weren't here. That's all right. We stickhandle those competing interests to en- sure that ultimately the public interest is protected.

I'm hoping that with this legislation, whatever happens to it in the next stage, we'll be able to fully examine the implications that it has on us and on our drinking water. With that, Madam Speaker, I either adjourn debate, or I cede my place and allow one of my distinguished colleagues to continue. R. Fleming: I'm pleased to speak to Bill 23 this af- ternoon to put some comments on the record about areas of the bill, the Public Health Act, that directly relate to issues, some of which have been quite ani- mated in my constituency, and to some of the areas in this act that give cabinet extraordinary powers.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast just talked at some length about drinking water protec- tion in his community as one illustration. Here, too, in the capital region there's an experience, I think, that does touch upon the provisions in this act that I wish to comment on this afternoon. I appreciate that we are dealing with over a century of legislation that is to be modernized by government at this time.

Some of the previous legislation has titles that are not even the topic of polite conversation and that have long left the lexicon of health care and chronic disease management and preventative health care. I appreciate all of that — that these statutes do need to be updated and revisited and that often gov- ernments don't get to this kind of business for very legitimate reasons, I think.

Many governments in many sessions of the Legisla- ture have come and gone where the Public Health Act has remained unexamined and not integrated and amalgamated into a bill like this — not this bill, but a bill like this — because other business of the House has more urgency. Sometimes that is very legitimate. We saw earlier this afternoon that the government intends to have its way and push through many bills that deserve full scrutiny an d fulsome debate, and that is unfortunate. That is a product of the inability to manage properly the legislative calendar and to also push through changes in the way that….

Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. R. Fleming: It's very definitely related to changes to the way budget estimates are conducted in this place. The point I'm making is that for legitimate reasons over many, many years governments have failed to integrate legislation into a new Public Health Act. I think that there's no problem on this side of the House with getting around to that business. I think: why now?

Perhaps Vaughn Palmer got it right when he commented that this is a year when the Liberals were "hungering for material to bulk up their post– Conversation on Health legislative reform package." Indeed, if the minister or the government want to show progress by claiming a new compendium health act, then I'm absolutely cert ain that they're going to do that. It will potentially be brought in with closure or displaced by other bills that will be pushed through with the use of closure. [1545] It's interesting that this bill comes after legislation where we debated sustainability.

Again, it was a curi- ous point that the minister…. I was going to say "members of the government side," but I don't think any of them spoke to it, although apparently they were proud to add a "sixth principle" to medicare. But it was interesting that the minister's justification for the act seemed to contradict itself on many occasions.

12046 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 At one point sustainability was sold as having the virtues of its imprecision — that the word was mean- ingless. "Don't worry. This isn't in any way going to displace other principles of medicare or lead to attacks and reductions in health care services." Then, on the other hand, it was used alternatingly by the minister to claim that this is actually an innova- tive, revolutionary change, a new practice that signified the boldness and vision of the government.

Never mind that not a single othe r jurisdiction in Canada agreed with him, is not adding that clause to their…. Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that the topic we are debating is Bill 23, the Public Health Act. R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I've made my point that some of the context of Bill 23 is similar to a previous bill that was up for debate, which is a bit hollow. Let me get back to Bill 23 and some of the aspects of it. I think the segue has proved that the government doesn't have a lot to say and that as Mr.

Palmer, indeed, put it: "This is great to bulk up a rather hollow agenda on health care." I want to examine some of the provisions in the act that I think warrant debate, because this legislation does, indeed, afford cabinet some new powers. I think the area that members on this side of the House are particularly sensitive to and want to examine are the powers over local government, specifically. It runs contrary, again, to government sentiments and statements on prior occasions about their respect for partnership with local government and for the authority and jurisdiction of local government.

I think t h a t i s o

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0506pm-06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0506pm 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	12230c624d02b225bb0a08e56da8048e330afc0f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).