2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

International Day for the Elimination

of Racial Discrimination

R. Chouhan

Reading 44

K. Whittred

E-One Moli Energy

M. Sather

Immigration to northern B.C.

J. Rustad

Chinese Canadian artists

N. Simons

Medical imaging system

M. Polak

Oral Questions

Non-compliance list of industrial

polluters

R. Austin

Hon. B. Penner

S. Simpson

Racial stereotyping

R. Chouhan

Hon. J. Les

Hon. G.

Campbell

J. Kwan

Child care action plan

D. Thorne

Hon. L. Reid

M. Karagianis

Hon. I. Chong

Hon. G.

Campbell

Availability of beds in health care

facilities

D. Cubberley

Hon. G. Abbott

C. Wyse

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report,

Committee of the Whole House

Budget Measures Implementation Act,

2006 (Bill 2) (continued)

S. Simpson

Hon. C. Taylor

J. Kwan

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation Act,

2006 (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House

Employment Standards (Compassionate

Care Leave) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 8)

C. Puchmayr

L. Mayencourt

Hon. M. de

Jong

H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Employment Standards (Compassionate

Care Leave) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 8)

Second Reading of Bills

Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access

to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 12)

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Cubberley

M. Farnworth

J. Horgan

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House

Agriculture and Lands Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 4)

B. Ralston

Hon. P. Bell

C. Evans

D. Chudnovsky

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Agriculture and Lands Statutes

Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 4)

Proceedings

in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

M. Sather

Hon. S. Hagen

A. Dix

S. Simpson

N. Simons

H. Bains

N. Macdonald

[ Page 3083 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce today four special guests: my constituent and past president of the Society of Punjabi Engineers and Technologists, Balraj Singh Mann, who is the managing director of Metro Testing Ltd.; Harry Watson, CEO and president of Metro Testing; and Connie Travers, office administrator. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

R. Chouhan: On March 21, 1960, in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa, police opened fire and killed 69 people who were peacefully demonstrating against apartheid's past laws. The United Nations General Assembly subsequently declared that day, March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and called on the international community not only to commemorate that tragedy but also to work together to combat racism and discrimination wherever they exist.

Forty-six years have passed since that Sharpeville massacre, and much has been done to combat discriminatory practices. We must all provide leadership towards removing the prejudices and erroneous beliefs that still cause pain and division in our society today. Human beings all over the world suffer from institutionalized or indirect discrimination, from acts of violence and hate crimes, from harassment and religious persecution.

Internationally, the United Nations has decided to strengthen its commitment to human rights by restructuring and improving its human rights commission so that higher international standards are set for human rights. This new body will have more stringent membership criteria and will, for the first time, have the power to censure nations with records of human rights abuses.

For the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2006 we must resolve ourselves to encourage interaction of cultures and civilizations through education and awareness-raising and with a view to promoting mutual respect, diversity and equality. We must encourage the full and active participation of all stakeholders in the elaboration, planning and implementation of anti-discrimination activities through government-initiated education programs in order to contribute to progressive change to eliminate racism within our own communities and the world at large.

READING 44

K. Whittred: Today I would like to speak to the House about an innovative and internationally recognized achievement of teachers in North Vancouver. Teachers in North Vancouver have designed, developed and implemented a number of outstanding learning resources. Reading 44 is but one of these.

Reading 44 is aimed at improving reading skills from kindergarten to grade ten. We all know, whether we're a parent or a teacher, that reading is essential and fundamental to all learning. North Van teachers have designed the program based on that belief — the belief that the ability to read is fundamental to success in all educational programs. Reading 44 is used throughout North Vancouver and in many school districts across the province, across Canada and, in fact, around the world. The most recent order for the reading 44 curriculum, in fact, came from Australia.

[1410]

The learning resources for reading 44 are based on current and sound research that shows that reading is complex and develops over time. The purpose of the framework is to assist teachers in using the research of teaching reading in their everyday classrooms. It translates what the current research on reading shows into everyday practical teaching resources. Longitudinal studies show us that reading 44 is significantly beneficial to reading proficiency of at-risk children.

Reading 44 is but one of many great examples of how our teachers in this province are improving the learning successes of our children.

E-ONE MOLI ENERGY

M. Sather: I rise in the Legislature today to praise the work of E-One Moli Energy, one of the largest employers in my community and one of the world leaders in lithium-ion battery technology.

Moli Energy was incorporated in 1977 to develop a commercially viable battery using technology from the lithium research program at the University of British Columbia. E-One Moli Energy employs over 400 staff with over half the employee base living in Maple Ridge and immediate surrounding communities.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting with Ms. Alyson Cuthbertson, manager, general affairs and Mr. Ken Broom, executive vice-president of Moli Energy. The company has a world-class research and development team who are at the forefront of lithium-ion innovation. The recent introduction of a new high-rate application resulted in an investment of over $6 million for state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment.

[ Page 3084 ]

This new product is the energy source for the world's first complete line of lithium-ion cordless power tools. E-One Moli Energy is committed to minimizing the impact of their operation on the environment, including manufacturing impact on the community, plant discharge and prevention of pollution, waste recycling and disposal plus emergency preparedness and response.

Lithium-ion rechargeable battery technology is a highly competitive field. Manufacturing of these products has largely moved offshore. However, Moli Energy is unique in maintaining production in North America, providing important jobs for my community. This is a company whose innovative capabilities have allowed them to remain competitive, and I am encouraged that Moli Energy has been able to use their business skills to remain an important employer in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

IMMIGRATION TO NORTHERN B.C.

J. Rustad: B.C.'s history is built on immigration. It doesn't matter whether you're speaking about Vanderhoof or Vancouver, Burns Lake or Burnaby. Immigrants are a huge part of our province's social and economic fabric.

Yet it might come as a surprise to some to know that there is a huge range of cultural diversity in northern B.C. created by immigrants moving north to build a future for themselves and for their families. In my riding of Prince George–Omineca there is a large immigrant population with cultures drawn from every corner of the globe. From tradespeople to teachers to doctors, immigrants are living and working in northern B.C., and the north is better for it.

Now, with the skills challenges created from our expanding economy, immigration is becoming increasingly important. In fact, over the next 12 years there will be an estimated one million job openings in our province. Many of those will be in B.C.'s booming heartlands. We're training more people now than ever, but the fact is that we will need immigration to meet the fast-growing demand for skilled people. We recognize this challenge, and through the provincial nominee program we're helping to solve this issue.

So on this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination I'm extending an invitation on behalf of northern B.C. to newly arrived British Columbians looking for a place to live, work and raise their families. We have jobs, we have amenities, and we have a low cost of living that is tough to beat anywhere in B.C. The north welcomes you with open arms, and we look forward to the contributions you will make to our collective cultures and to our communities.

CHINESE CANADIAN ARTISTS

N. Simons: Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of attending the annual dinner presented by the Chinese Canadian Artist Federation in Vancouver. It was my first opportunity to meet with the leaders of the Chinese artist community, and I was honoured by the welcome I received.

[1415]

As the son of an immigrant musician myself and a classical musician as well, I understand the importance that art plays in our communities. Whether it be poetry, calligraphy, painting, theatre or music, art is an integral part of our culture and our identity.

These are the building blocks for strong societies. The more we can share with each other, the better we can understand and celebrate our differences.

The evening's events exposed me to a rich collection of artists from all fields, including painter and master professor Chow Su-sing, calligrapher Chen Fengzhi, world renowned poet Luk Fu and painter Lai Yukman. While these names may not be familiar to people in my cultural community, their talents and their art enrich us all. I also had the opportunity and pleasure to meet curators, collectors and community leaders, including Tseng Sing-tin, Tsao Sing-uan and Ku Siu-kwan, as well as Gabriel Yiu. These people are fundamental to the richness of our society and are instrumental in making this province a symbol of diversity to the rest of the world.

I was particularly interested in the fact that among those in attendance were respected representatives of both China and Taiwan enjoying and celebrating the same achievements. To me this illustrates how art will and must always be a stronger force than politics.

MEDICAL IMAGING SYSTEM

M. Polak: I rise today to tell this House about an exciting innovation in medical imaging taking place in the Fraser Health Authority. The picture archiving and communication system, or PACS, is a filmless medical imaging system. PACS is a computer system that allows the digital capture, storage and transmission of medical images.

Through PACS, a network of computer servers and web-based work stations are interfaced with hospital diagnostic imaging equipment such as X-ray, CT scan, MRI and ultrasound. Once the images are stored, physicians are able to review their patients' films at any location within the health authority, as well as in their own offices and even from their homes when they're on call. Teams of physicians in different locations are able to view the same patient films as they discuss treatment and diagnostic issues. Patients will no longer have to pick up films before a doctor's appointment.

Duplication of exams will be reduced, as every examination performed at any FHA site will be included in a patient's record at their local hospital and will be readily accessible by physicians.

As PACS is implemented across the province, it will also enhance access to quality health care for residents of rural British Columbia. For example, someone injured in a remote location can have their images viewed by physicians and specialists in a larger centre without having to wait for those images to be physically transported.

PACS went live at Langley Memorial Hospital on October 18, 2005. Along with other sites in the Fraser Health Authority, Langley is part of an exciting new

[ Page 3085 ]

era of technology for Fraser Health. Clearly, the increased efficiency provided by innovations such as PACS will assist our province as we face the challenges of a quickly changing health care environment.

Oral Questions

NON-COMPLIANCE LIST

OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS

R. Austin: The opposition has asked the Minister of Environment to publicly release the list of top polluters in B.C. He would not agree. However, we know from the last existing compliance reports that Canfor, West Fraser and Teck Cominco were among the top companies out of compliance in 2001. Will the minister release his polluters list, so that the public can know whether these companies are continuing to flout the law?

Hon. B. Penner: As indicated yesterday following question period, the ministry is working towards producing a new document. Instead of just being offered twice a year, as the former inconsistent and somewhat ad hoc list was offered, it will actually be provided four times per year. It'll be a

summary of compliance and enforcement activities in British Columbia involving tickets and orders made by the ministry, as well as convictions by the courts. That will be made available because of enhanced technology that this government is putting into place. We had to fix up a problem that we inherited from the previous government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Skeena has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I'm so glad five years of work has brought us to that point. The old polluters list is based on audits and compliance inspections. We know that these are positions that were cut and compromised by this government in the past.

[1420]

Furthermore, the government moved to a deregulated, results-based compliance regime for resource industries that relies heavily on ministry officials to monitor the outcomes of industry activities. To the minister: does the Ministry of Environment still conduct such audits and monitoring despite sustaining personnel cuts, and if so, can he tell us who has been found to be out of compliance?

Hon. B. Penner: The ministry does get involved in compliance efforts. You will be aware that just a few weeks ago we announced the hiring of 18 additional conservation officers around the province on a seasonal basis.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: It's questionable.

If the member was actually listening yesterday, he would have heard that for the first time in British Columbia the conservation officer service is putting together a dedicated plainclothes investigations unit requiring an additional four full-time conservation officers that will specialize in industrial and commercial compliance investigations. That's something the previous governments didn't see fit to do. It's something that we are doing, and it's going to provide good results for British Columbians.

S. Simpson: Yesterday the Minister of Environment admitted: "There is a challenge in pulling together accurate and informational reports across the ministry." He went on to say that this "made it difficult for the ministry to put out reports that were considered fair and reasonable even by their own staff." He then admitted that he was just implementing a system — and he spoke about that a little bit earlier here — that would "give us the ability, for the first time ever, to more accurately go after these types of violations and to get timely information for members of the public."

After five years in office, this is an incredible admission of ministerial chaos. Since the minister has acknowledged that even his own staff can't have confidence in the accuracy, fairness or reasonableness of ministry information, how can he expect British Columbians to have any confidence in what the Minister of Environment tells them?

Hon. B. Penner: It appears the opposition critic wasn't listening either yesterday. I indicated that the ministry has been challenged by the fact that we have inherited 62 antiquated information systems that don't adequately communicate with each other, and so it provides difficulty for staff to get consistency. That problem has been identified, so last summer the ministry put out an RFP asking for a solution, and I'm pleased to announce — again, as I did yesterday — that earlier this year the ministry signed a contract.

We allocated $1.3 million for that project, and I'm told by the officials in the ministry who do the actual monitoring, compliance and enforcement that it will give them many more advantages in terms of being timely in the information and more effective in their investigations and, ultimately, prosecutions.

I should also pause to mention that just a few days ago the opposition critic was on CFAX radio, where he said he agrees with our results-based approach. He agrees that you can get rid of needless regulations when you set the objectives and you tell people to work towards those objectives. Then today we're hearing something completely different from the opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: You know, the results-based approach can work, but not if you gut the ministry.

Interjections.

[ Page 3086 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: If the ministry was restored the 300 staff positions, it might have a chance to work.

But the minister likes to talk about the 1990s. So let's talk about that. In 1998 the Premier, who was then Leader of the Opposition, wrote a letter to the Freedom of Information Association. In that letter he stated: "The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people, not the government. This means…that all citizens must have timely, effective and affordable access to information."

My question is to the Premier. Considering that the minister yesterday told this House that we can't expect reasonable, fair or accurate information from his ministry — and those are his words, not mine — will the Premier tell us whether he believes that his ministry has, in fact, met his fundamental principles of accountability?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, just to be clear to help the members opposite, what I said was that the NDP list was not accurate, reasonable or fair on all accounts. We're working to make it better.

[1425]

But I should also point out that 86 percent of the freedom-of-information requests submitted to the Ministry of Environment are provided free of charge.

I went through the explanation yesterday for the member, but I'm happy to do it again if he wasn't listening. The request that Sierra Legal put forward was very broad, very expansive. When I asked why it was so costly in terms of the cost estimate, I was told it was because it would take 5,000 staff hours to go and do the work of photocopying virtually every conservation officer's notebook in the province, across the province, in various regions.

British Columbia is a big province. It's bigger than downtown Vancouver, I'll have the opposition critic know. It's a very big province. There's a lot of work to be done.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are taking charge. We're adding $1.5 million this year to our compliance and enforcement efforts, which is allowing us to hire the extra staff I've talked about, in addition to the new computer system that will allow us to accurately get information on a timely basis.

RACIAL STEREOTYPING

R. Chouhan: An Ipsos-Reid poll published last week revealed that nearly two-thirds of respondents blamed ethnic groups for crime. Poll results show respondents put Indo-Canadians and Asians on the top of their list. But crime statistics in British Columbia do not support that perception.

This poll is troubling, because it shows the growing stereotypes against ethnic communities in British Columbia. Given that the Attorney General is not here, my question is to the Premier. What steps is his government taking to stop the stereotyping of ethnic communities?

Hon. J. Les: We are very proud of our record in terms of crime prevention in British Columbia. As I'm sure the member is aware, we have seen the largest expansion of police available to communities in British Columbia in over 20 years. We have made resources available to communities in British Columbia on a scale that is unprecedented, frankly. We have, for example, turned over all traffic fine revenue to communities to help them. We have increased technology. We have integrated our policing resources. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that crime is eradicated wherever it occurs and by whomever it is committed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Before this government dismantled it, the Human Rights Commission had the mandate to provide public education to combat racism and raise awareness against negative perceptions against ethnic minorities. Today marks the international day against racism. My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier honour this day by agreeing to restore the Human Rights Commission with a full mandate to educate the public against racism?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, let me say that I think that the Human Rights Tribunal is doing a very good job in British Columbia of shortening the period of time that it takes for complaints to be dealt with directly on behalf of complainants. That was exactly what it was set up to do.

Secondly, on this day I think we should celebrate our multi-ethnic and cultural diversity in this province. Whether it's dealing with issues of crime or issues of economic opportunity or issues of educational opportunity, we want to make sure that every single British Columbian, regardless of their background, can live to the fullest extent of their lives. That's why this government is so committed to expanding opportunities throughout British Columbia to members of all ethnic communities and all backgrounds. It is our diversity that is our strength, and it's what's going to build an even more prosperous province in the future.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General has completely missed the point on the question around racial stereotyping. The issue is this. The government is not doing enough, in my view, in addressing racial stereotyping. So the Solicitor General's not answering the question. He thinks that it's about combatting crime.

My question, then, is to the Premier. What is this government doing in addressing racial stereotyping of which the Indo-Canadian community and the Asian community are on the top of the list of being targeted, according to the Ipsos-Reid poll?

[1430]

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let's all be clear that crime is in no way an ethnic issue. What we have been trying to do in this province is make sure that information is

[ Page 3087 ]

available. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General work tirelessly to make sure that media outlets as well as our own law enforcement agencies are aware of that. They are working constantly to build connections and bridges between different communities into our law enforcement agencies. They will continue to do that.

Frankly, what the polls suggest to all of us in this House is that we all have work to do. We will continue to do it, and we welcome the opposition to join us in that work.

CHILD CARE ACTION PLAN

D. Thorne: Last fall the government engaged parents, child care providers and communities in a public consultation on child care. They committed to releasing the results of these consultations. They also committed to releasing a child care action plan.

British Columbians volunteered their time and their energy for this process, and they are waiting for this government to follow through on its end of the bargain.

To the Minister of State for Childcare: will you table B.C.'s child care action plan today, and will you also table the results of the public consultations on child care that you held last fall, both of which your ministry committed to providing by January of this year?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm indeed delighted to respond to this question. We had probably 500 respondees to the issue of how they would like to see child care delivered in the province of British Columbia. I'm pleased to tell this member opposite — and British Columbians generally — that those consultations are ongoing. Just last Friday we had a meeting in the city of Vancouver, and we had meetings in Richmond, where we had people come together to talk about hub delivery, how we will continue to deliver child care as we go forward.

We intend to continue to bring those discussions forward, and we continue to add material to that discussion as we go forward, because it's vitally important that we bring the best information to the table. Our challenge has been and will continue to be how to deliver the best possible programming. That work is underway, and I'm delighted to share that information with the member opposite as it becomes available.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville has a supplemental.

D. Thorne: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to add to the minister's response that it isn't me who needs the updates; it's the people of British Columbia who took

part in the consultations. These people have been waiting, watching the website, wondering what's happening. We're now into the third month after it was supposed to be released, but I will go on to my supplemental.

Yesterday the YWCA released a report, Building a Community Architecture for Early Childhood Learning and Care , which was inspired by the OECD report that described Canadian early childhood services as fragile, underresourced and virtually a patchwork of services. Not surprisingly, this report found that parents wanted a comprehensive system of care for their children to enable them to work outside their homes without constant anxiety and worry. B.C. parents feel the same way, and they wonder what is preventing this minister from releasing the government's plan to fill these child care needs of our own B.C. workers.

Families are still waiting for this government, and it is staying silent. I will ask again, because it is the families in this province that want the information, not the opposition — although we'd like to hear it as well. Again I will ask the Minister of State for Childcare: will she commit today to tabling B.C.'s child care action plan and commit this government to invest in child care to families? If necessary, if consultation is still happening and will continue, then let's update as we go along, but for heaven's sake, let's have the plan.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond in terms of the reference to the YWCA report of just yesterday. Indeed, that was a study that's been ongoing for the previous three years. It looked at four sites in Canada, of which British Columbia was one. It made particular reference to the hub discussion that wishes to be part of an ongoing discussion for Canada. It said that British Columbia was leading in how we deliver child care. In fact, hub discussion….

The report was funded by Social Development Canada and will continue to figure prominently in how the country goes forward on the child care question, how the city goes forward on the child care question and, frankly, how the province goes forward. Indeed, ongoing dialogue is always welcome. I thank the member for her question.

[1435]

M. Karagianis: Certainly, that information is three years old. We have now seen that this province has one in four children living in poverty.

But let's talk. The facts here are that women with small children cannot enter the workforce without child care. Parents cannot work without child care. This government's failure to plan for a comprehensive child care program will only exacerbate the current skills and labour shortage.

Last year in estimates the Minister of Community Services talked about how important it was to encourage women to enter the trades, and she said: "This ministry works across other government ministries to ensure that we will provide options for women seeking employment opportunities in the trades."

My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Have you lived up to this commitment and pressed the Minister of State for Childcare to develop a comprehensive child care program for British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm very proud to be able to talk about the achievements that we have made with this

[ Page 3088 ]

government in ensuring that women have opportunities to succeed in an economy that is doing so well. Prosperity is here. Hope and opportunity are here.

Just recently we were able to offer a mentoring program called Empowered to Work. In fact, I was in the member's own riding, where we announced this particular program. We're going to see a number of women enter the workforce who have perhaps never been there or who have been absent for a while, or university and graduate students who haven't worked before, be able to occupy jobs in non-traditional roles. It is an exciting program. I would hope the opposition joins us in celebrating these opportunities.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Esquimalt-Metchosin has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Let's be clear: $40 million in cuts to child care under this government.

Women are major contributors to the economy. Stats Canada reported last week that the increasing participation of women in the paid workforce is one of the most significant trends anywhere in Canada. Many of those women have small children. Without child care, these women may not be able to participate in the paid labour force.

Again to the Minister of Community Services: will this government acknowledge the importance of women's contributions to this provincial economy and create a universally accessible child care program?

Hon. G. Campbell: The opposition has difficulty because they're so intent on being negative and pessimistic. The fact of the matter is that this economy is thriving in British Columbia. There are more women working in British Columbia today than ever in the history of the province.

This government has invested in the bridging employment program. We've invested in including women in the trades — in a new way, as the minister just mentioned to the member opposite. We're investing $178 million over the next two years to be sure there is early childhood learning and child care for children across British Columbia. But the opposition still doesn't understand this. The only way we have those resources is because we've turned this economy around and there are jobs for women and men in every region of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

AVAILABILITY OF BEDS

IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

D. Cubberley: A new survey of nurses showed that nearly half were providing care to patients in hallways and closets at B.C. hospitals. Government reaction has been to claim it's a problem of patient flow, not capacity. However, evidence available to the minister suggests it's a common practice to operate B.C. hospitals above 100 percent of their designed capacity, based on available beds.

[1440]

Can the Minister of Health tell the House whether it's government policy to allow hospitals to regularly operate over their capacity in order to handle patient volumes that exceed existing bed stocks?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's hard to believe, based on the comments that one hears from the opposition, that the principal policy that drove their health human resources strategy in the 1990s was actually to restrict the costs of health care by restricting the number of health professionals that we were educating in this province.

It's hard to believe, for example, that the number of nurses that we were educating in this province actually declined under the NDP. It's only under our leadership that we have seen the number of nurses being educated in this province increase by 62 percent — 2,511 new nursing spaces in this province since we took office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: What's hard to comprehend is the minister's inability to acknowledge that he cut too many acute care beds. In the past week alone, stories about Shuswap, Vernon and Peace Arch hospitals have shown B.C. hospitals operating over 100 percent of capacity, meaning patients are being admitted to wards, hallways and closets. Yet the minister claims there's no bed crunch.

In a January 2006 IHA report on patient flow, a month-long snapshot shows eight IHA hospitals running above the 90-percent recommended threshold and all eight regularly at or over 100 percent of capacity much of the time. Vernon and Shuswap, in the minister's own riding, are consistently over 120 percent of capacity.

Will the minister acknowledge that the B.C. bed crunch engineered by his government means the IHA and other hospitals routinely are forced to operate over capacity, with negative impacts on patients and on staff morale?

Hon. G. Abbott: I had the opportunity last week to visit both Shuswap Lake and the medical staff there and to visit Kelowna General Hospital and to have a look at some of the challenges they face there. In both cases there is a capital reinvestment in those facilities that's long overdue. I'm happy to report, for the member's satisfaction, Shuswap Lake General Hospital is currently in the early stages of a $13 million retrofit, which will see an expansion and improvement. Certainly, we will be seeing that in the future in Kelowna as well.

I should also remind the member that between 1993 and the year 2000 the NDP reduced the number of

[ Page 3089 ]

acute care beds in this province by 3,334 — the biggest reduction ever in acute care beds in this province.

C. Wyse: My constituents wish to deal with the now and the present, not ancient history. I continue…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Wyse: …to receive correspondence from my constituents. In a letter, Ina Boxer wrote: "It is not acceptable that we have such a shortage of beds. Male and female patients are put in the same room." Ms. Boxer goes on to note: "We had three good facilities right downtown, which provided excellent care for intermediate, extended and dementia patients. The location of these was perfect. These facilities were closed down before other beds were ready."

Ms. Boxer is right. The government prematurely closed three facilities before replacements were ready. In fact, because of the chaos these closures caused, the government has been forced to reopen some of them.

My question: will the Minister of Health confirm Ms. Boxer's concerns that the deep and shortsighted cuts made by this government have wreaked havoc on health care in the interior?

[1445]

Hon. G. Abbott: I do thank the member for bringing these issues forward. It would be helpful to me and my staff were he to provide — for example, in relation to the question asked yesterday — a little bit more information. We only know the name of the patient from the question yesterday, and today I'm not sure which community the member is referring to.

If he is referring to Williams Lake, I'm pleased to advise that in Williams Lake we have seen, just in the last couple of years, Williams Lake Seniors Village — 66 residential care beds and 15 assisted-living units — opened July 2004. An additional 33 residential care beds are planned to be open June 2006 — again, an addition onto Williams Lake Seniors Village by Retirement Concepts.

We have recently opened two new palliative care beds in Williams Lake. We've added, in September 2004, 34 independent housing units at Glen Arbor. Very recently, as the member knows, Interior Health has announced the addition of ten new residential care beds for Williams Lake as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cariboo South has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: The facilities that were referred to by my constituent — not a patient…. Her observation deals with 80-plus beds that were shut down. The minister is quite right when he refers to beds that are promised and are in the future. There is no question about that fact.

However, we are dealing, as I've said, with the now and the present. The government did promise 5,000 long-term care beds. They haven't delivered on them. The government closed long-term care facilities without providing replacements. That's the key point in our discussion. Now our hospitals in the interior are operating well above capacity all the time. That's the point. It is no longer the exception; it is the norm.

The minister must show leadership. My question: will the minister be courageous enough today to call for an independent review into the impact that bed cuts and closures on seniors and patient care in the interior…?

Hon. G. Abbott: If it's Williams Lake we're talking about, the net number, as I understand it from IHA, is plus 11 net, with more to be added later this year. So we do look forward to that.

I guess it depends on what one compares it to, Mr. Speaker. Again, I should remind the member about his government's own record in respect of this. This comes from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, generally reflexively sycophantic in relation to the NDP. Here's what they have to say in relation to this: "Between 1993 and 1999 there was an 18-percent drop in residential care beds in B.C. Thousands of new residential care beds are needed, and existing facilities over 30 years old require upgrades or replacements."

Fortunately, we've made a huge investment — $1 billion to date — and will be investing millions and millions more to produce a better life for frail, elderly British Columbians.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I table the 2004 annual report for the Labour Relations Board.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call continued Committee of Supply, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and in this chamber, Committee B, continued committee debate on Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[1450]

For the information of members, following the completion of that bill, we will be going to the bill that is referred to somewhere in a note that I don't have at my disposal. But it's the continued debate on the employment standards act, Bill 8.

Committee of the Whole House

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2006

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

[ Page 3090 ]

Sections 23 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what the value of this levy is — the current value of the $3 levy — in total?

[1455]

Hon. C. Taylor: About $10 million.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us how much of that $10 million roughly goes towards paying for the current tire recycling programs and how much of it is excess, and where does the excess go?

Hon. C. Taylor: Approximately $7 million goes into the tire program. The other $3 million goes to the sustainable fund.

S. Simpson: That sustainable fund, where the other $3 million goes…. Could the minister tell us: what does that money, the other $3 million out of the levy, get spent on since it goes there?

Hon. C. Taylor: That would be within the Environment Ministry, and the minister would be able to speak to you about this. Today this bill is just enabling legislation to allow, when the Environment Minister does change programs, for it to happen.

S. Simpson: Well, around that, then, the minister is confirming that the purpose of these clauses in this bill today is to allow an industry stewardship program to be put in place at some time in the future?

Hon. C. Taylor: This particular legislation is just enabling legislation so that when the Environment Ministry decides what program will go forward, then we will be able to repeal this program.

S. Simpson: Well, to follow up on that, could the minister tell us: what is the expectation about when this legislation would be called and how that will happen? Will it happen through an order-in-council? Does it have to come back here to the House in some form?

Hon. C. Taylor: This legislation allows us to do it by regulation, and it will happen sometime this year.

S. Simpson: Is the minister committing here that we're not going to see any changes in the current practice until such time as the Environment Minister has in fact brought forward a stewardship program, and it's been passed and dealt with here?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not today, with this bill, making any changes to the program. This just — when the Environment Minister has looked at the program and decided how he is going forward — enables us by OIC, by regulation, to repeal what we are doing currently.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe I'll just explain my concern here. I don't have a problem, necessarily, with at some point in the future going forward with an industry stewardship program. I look forward to being able to have that discussion with the Minister of Environment at the appropriate time.

[1500]

The concern that we have here is a bit of the "cart before the horse" on this one, in terms of bringing forward a program that takes a levy off the table that currently pays for a recycling program and puts dollars into another fund that's needed — the sustainable environment fund — without knowing when that stewardship program is coming forward.

So my question for the minister would be: why would we bring this forward now and pass these particular clauses when in fact we haven't dealt with the question of the stewardship program yet? Why wouldn't we do it the other way around or do it concurrently?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is simply to give flexibility to the Minister of Environment so that he can act quickly. If, for instance, it happened in July and the House wasn't sitting, if we hadn't passed this enabling legislation, then he would not be able to move immediately.

J. Kwan: Just so that I can clarify with the minister on the process here. What I understand is that the minister is saying that an industry stewardship program would likely be introduced at some point by the Minister of Environment. That will replace, then, the tire levy that is in this bill. That's what this

section of the bill does. It allows for the repealing of the tire levy that exists right now.

However, if I'm understanding this correctly, we will not be — and the government would not be — moving forward in enacting this

section of the act until such time as the new industry stewardship program is actually in place. Am I correct in understanding that?

Hon. C. Taylor: Just to keep the words proper, we will enact this bill. The regulation that will finally repeal the levy will depend on the timing of the Minister of Environment when he has designed the subsequent program.

J. Kwan: Presumably, the subsequent program would need to be brought to the House in a bill for debate. Is that not correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: I don't know what the plans are for the Minister of Environment, and I would ask that the member opposite ask those questions of the relevant minister.

J. Kwan: Well, the problem here is this. Here we have sections of the bill, sections 29 and 30, which relate to a government initiative around an industry stewardship program related to tires. But we don't know yet what that new program looks like. We don't know when the new program would come in. All we

[ Page 3091 ]

know is that it will come in at some point, and what we're doing here is passing the legislation that would allow the government to repeal the existing program with respect to the tire levy.

I would say that I have a bit of a problem with that — without knowing what the new program is. We don't even know if the new program will be debated in this House from the way it sounds. I would find that troubling, because we have a lot of questions related to that program. How, then, could the government expect the opposition to simply move forward with this without knowing what that new program looks like? In essence, what this will do when sections 29 and 30 go through…. The government, by the stroke of a pen — through regulation, through OIC — would be able to repeal the existing program.

Nobody knows what the replacement program looks like. We don't know what the implications are with respect to the replacement program.

I would find that troubling. We know that from the environmental community in consultation with them, they are troubled by that as well. They don't know what the implications might be either. It appears that nobody knows at this juncture. So why not stand down this

section of the bill until such time that — in the interests of accountability, in the interests of really ensuring that there is proper debate and understanding by the public of what the government is doing around an industry-led stewardship program around tires — we see that information and until we actually have the opportunity to properly review it and properly debate it? It then may well be very appropriate to repeal this

section of the bill related to tire levies.

[1505]

So I'm very troubled by the answer — or the lack of answers, if you will — from the Minister of Finance related to this. On that basis, I would be very uncomfortable in actually supporting the passage of this

section of the bill.

Hon. C. Taylor: The Minister of Environment has kindly informed me that, in fact, the intentions paper was posted on the website in November after broad consultations, so that information has been in the public domain. Further to that, the estimates for the Minister of Environment are still to come, and you will have ample opportunity to discuss the tire levy and possible programs and initiatives.

Today what I'm responsible for is bringing forward legislation that will enable us, when that program is in place, to repeal the old program.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister misses the point here. The point is that it sounds to me like we're getting no commitment here that the stewardship program will get into this House and be dealt with and debated in this House where it can have a full hearing. The only way we get to discuss anything even vaguely related to that in this chamber is to discuss it through this $3 levy.

The point that I would make is, essentially, that if we pass this today, then whatever the ministry does…. I think the Minister of Finance made some comment about maybe in the summertime the stewardship program will get put in place, when there isn't anybody around to talk about it, necessarily — not in this place — and that's a problem.

I'm very loath to support this. I think the hammer, quite frankly, that we have here is to remove sections 29 and 30. When the Minister of Environment brings forward a stewardship program, at some point this House will have to come back and discuss the changes to this clause. That may give us an opportunity at least at some point in second reading or someplace to have some discussion about the merit of a stewardship program that this is predicated on. I have a real problem with that.

I'd ask the minister to think long and hard about hoisting this section. Bring it back after we know what the Minister of Environment is doing. Otherwise you're backdooring this thing, as far as I'm concerned, and doing it in a way that allows a program to be put in place with no accountability back here.

J. Kwan: Let's just be very clear here. What the minister said was that we could debate this matter in estimates debate with the Minister of Environment. The Minister of Finance said that there's some information posted on the website around this.

But what we don't know is when the program will be brought into play. We don't know what the details of the programs are. There's no commitment from this minister that until such time as we actually have a public review of the program, the government would invoke sections 29 and 30 in Bill 2, which is to repeal the existing tire levy — a program that was brought in, in the 1990s, which has actually worked quite well.

I'm not necessarily even suggesting that there should not be changes to the program. I'm not necessarily saying that the industry-led stewardship program is a bad one. But there are questions associated with that program, and we don't know what that program looks like at the moment. We don't know whether or not the new program would actually address some of the concerns that my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the critic for Environment, had raised during second reading and which the environmental organizations have brought to our attention as well.

I don't know how it is that members of this House, for that matter, would vote for a bill without knowing what the implications of the sections of the bill are. I don't know how people would feel comfortable about doing that.

The whole thing around the tire levy is to encourage an environmentally friendly recycling program for tires and to encourage the usage or the reusage, if you will, of what's called tire-derived fuel or tire-derived products. We have no idea what the ramifications might be by simply repealing it, because we don't know what the new program looks like.

[1510]

I would say this. Without the government committing to engaging in a debate, allowing for a public de-

[ Page 3092 ]

bate related to the new program prior to sections 29 and 30 being passed — or even prior to sections 29 and 30 being brought in by OIC, by regulation — I would argue that we cannot support sections 29 and 30 at this time, by the sheer, simple fact that we don't know what the new program looks like.

I would challenge all of the members in this House to look at these bills, to review the sections of the bills and to understand the implications related to them. This tire levy program is all centred around protecting the environment, encouraging alternative usage and recycling tires. If people are interested in protecting our environment in that regard, then they would not support the passage of sections 29 and 30 at this time, or they would get the government to stand down sections 29 and 30 until there's a full hearing and review of the new program.

The opposition will not be supporting sections 29 and 30 at this time.

[1515]

Sections 29 and 30 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Bennett

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

de Jong

Campbell

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Hawkins

Krueger

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 27

S. Simpson

Evans

Farnworth

Kwan

Brar

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Ralston

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Sections 31 to 41 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1520]

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2006

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate of Bill 8.

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

(COMPASSIONATE CARE LEAVE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:23 p.m.

section 1.

C. Puchmayr: We had debate on this bill yesterday, and we've certainly looked at the details of the bill. We are going to flesh out some of the concerns through this committee stage. I've also given the courtesy to the Labour Minister of a copy of a proposed amendment to the bill, which I will submit to the Clerk now, as well, so the House has it in advance.

I just want to make some comments with respect to the mechanisms that explain this bill to the public and to the workers who should be benefiting from it — the many young workers that may be in need of taking time off on compassionate leave, the many immigrant workers and the workforce in general. I want to flag some concerns upfront that I have with respect to the mechanics of this bill and how the people, other than the millions who are watching here today, will understand the direction that this is going. I hope to flag those issues through the process as we look at the different mechanisms of this bill.

The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

section 2.

[ Page 3093 ]

[1525]

L. Mayencourt:

Section 2 defines who is eligible to be able to benefit from a compassionate leave, and it specifically defines "family member" as "(

a) a member of an employee's immediate family, and (

b) any other individual who is a member of a prescribed class." With respect to the immediate family, my question to the minister is: how are same-sex partnerships — gay and lesbian partnerships — cared for under the definition of immediate family?

Hon. M. de Jong: The bill, and the amendment that it captures and proposes to make to the Employment Standards Act, defines

"family members" for the purposes of compassionate care. It includes anyone within the current Employment Standards Act definition of immediate family, plus any other individual who's a member of a prescribed class.

"Immediate family," within the context of the Employment Standards Act, includes a definition of spouse and also includes "any person who lives with an employee as a member of the employee's family." In so doing, both common-law and same-gender spouses are covered within this definition as they presently are within the Employment Standards Act.

L. Mayencourt: Just further to that, if I could get a statement from the minister on how children of a spouse would be affected. In other words, if there is not a direct blood relationship, how would that be accommodated for this type of a union?

Hon. M. de Jong: That would, I think, be a clear example of a situation that would be captured by the provisions that say "any person who lives with an employee as a member of the employee's family." I think that would include a child in the circumstance that the member has described.

L. Mayencourt: It does if they're residing with them, but it may be that you have two women living together, and one of their daughters is going to act as a caregiver for the parent who is not her birth mother. My concern is just this: how do we incorporate that kind of a relationship into this act?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is correct to this extent. The passage that I cited relates to a circumstance in which all three of the individuals are residing together.

The second provision of the

section we're dealing with that I would draw to the member is subsection (

b) dealing with "any other individual who is a member of a prescribed class." In fact, what we're trying to do is create statutorily a provision by which we can coordinate with anticipated changes to the federal legislation as well.

The scenario that the member has just described also applies to — dare I say — a more traditional stepchild circumstance, as well, whereby we anticipate the likelihood of a regulatory provision that would specifically include people in those circumstances that aren't necessarily within the household, in the type of example that the member portrayed. We think we've preserved the ability to ensure that people who have a loved one suffering, in the eyes of a doctor, from a fatal illness will have the benefit of the protection in this case — the eight-week protection that the act seeks to provide.

L. Mayencourt: Madam Chair, through you to the minister, I thank him for that.

I guess there are a number of situations that are similar to that, just slight variations on it. I understand that by cabinet, they can make a decision to define family members under that prescribed class. I would just encourage the minister to describe that prescribed class, if you will, in as broad terms as possible.

The example that I gave just a moment ago, for example, would be very, very useful when we're dealing with elder care. Often, family members that are not blood-related are actually involved in the caregiving, so it gets a little murky sometimes with same-sex relationships in terms of the definition of spouse in some acts versus others. I'd just like to very clearly say to the minister that it is to our mutual benefit, the benefit of all British Columbians, if we can extend that to as many people within that family unit as possible.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you to the member for Vancouver-Burrard for bringing some of my questions, also, to the forefront here.

Maybe to get some clarification now on the questions that were brought up. Could the minister tell us: why restrict leave to family members, especially…? I'm sure the member across from me has brought up some concerns and is probably aware of care commitments that may be as close as a neighbour that's dying and caring for another neighbour. Could the minister explain why to restrict it merely to the definition?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short, quasi-technical answer is that what we were seeking to do here is ensure that statutorily our legislation fell into line with what has emerged out of the federal Parliament and the changes that were made there.

[1535]

Beyond that, I can say that the genesis of that, the rationale behind that and what we were trying to do here is, quite candidly, to ensure that family members — those that live as family members or have a family-like relationship…. One can contemplate, I suppose, a series of other potential circumstances, but we did need to establish a definition by which people could ascertain people employees, the ill, and employers could ascertain with some certainty whether or not a particular employee qualified.

C. Puchmayr: I understand with respect to employment insurance regulations of the applications that are required to get benefits of the employment insur-

[ Page 3094 ]

ance for an employment insurance application. But that does not preclude — and correct me if I'm wrong — having leave granted with provisions that may exceed the employment insurance regulation but still be leave granted and leave that would protect the person and allow the person to return to the employment that he has sought leave from.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the question is: is it possible? Yes. The member is about to propose an amendment at some point here that does just that. We have chosen not to do it.

C. Puchmayr: Just to get some more clarification about the questions from the member for Vancouver-Burrard, could the minister then clarify this for me: can this leave be taken for the care of a same-sex partner?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to future regulations of the prescribed class, we spoke about the prescribed class,

section 52.1(1)(b). What regulations are anticipated? Do we have those regulations ready at this time?

Hon. M. de Jong: What I can tell the member is that the federal government is in the process of consulting around a definition of prescribed classes of individuals. I don't have a draft regulation at this point so that I can say: next week, upon proclamation of this act, we'll be there. It includes stepsiblings; broadly speaking, the kind of example that the member for Vancouver-Burrard explained — generally, circumstances where people are residing in separate households but maintain that family-like relationship.

There is, in the draft language we've seen from Ottawa…. I will offer this up to the member as well. There is this — again, dare I say? — catch-all: "…whether or not related to an employee by blood, adoption, marriage or common-law partnership, an individual with a serious medical condition as described in the

section who considers the employee to be, or whom the employee considers to be, like a close relative."

That's a far broader definition than is presently the case. That is something we will be looking at, at the same time that the federal government is engaged in that consultative work.

[1540]

C. Puchmayr:

Section 52.1(2): "…within 26 weeks, or such other period as may be prescribed" — could the minister please explain what he would anticipate as beyond the 26-week prescription?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not anything at the moment. What we do want to preserve, though, is the ability to initiate change either of our own or in the event that the federal regulations were to change, to be able to track them.

The member has correctly, a few moments ago, identified the fact that there is value in maintaining a symmetry between the federal EI legislation and what exists here, though it is not an absolute necessity. But we did want to create statutorily the ability to take into account and respond to any changes that might occur federally.

C. Puchmayr: On 52.1(4), why can an employee not choose when the leave will begin?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm afraid the answer to this one isn't very elegant. It's basically an administrative matter. The other models that we've examined and looked at, including the federal model, allow the employee a great degree of flexibility, but in terms of measuring the time, it's weekly increments.

In that scenario it's not possible to trigger these provisions and say to an employer: "I want two days off to be covered by this." The reality from a practical point of view is that I don't think that's an issue. In order to trigger these provisions, at a minimum the employee is saying: "I'm taking a week off without pay to go deal with this." In terms of measuring that, it's deemed to begin at the beginning of the week in the week that the member begins it.

C. Puchmayr: If an employee finds out on Monday that a loved one is very ill and may not be there by the end of the week, would that employee not have any protection with respect to having to leave the employment?

Hon. M. de Jong: Absolutely they would. But it would involve triggering the protection, and that would be week one of the eight-week period. Regrettably in that case, that might be all that was necessary.

The reality, I think, and the practical application of this is that in examples like the one the member has cited, very few people — I hope no one — find themselves in a position where that's an issue. It tends to be an issue where someone discovers that a loved one has been diagnosed and is in need of longer-term attention. We want people to be able to go to their employer and say: "Here is what's going on. My mom or dad or grandparent or child is involved in this situation.

I have this letter" — which the act defines as a certificate — "that says there is a significant likelihood of death in the course of the next 26 weeks, and I need to attend to that. I'm going to attend to it. I want the protection to know that my job is going to be here when I come back."

I don't think it's those very short-term or immediate circumstances that have given rise to the need for this. It is more likely the longer-term scenarios.

[1545]

C. Puchmayr: I'm complete with 52.1(5). I would like to introduce the amendment now to

section 52.1(5)(b). The amendment reads:

[ Page 3095 ]

Section 52.1 (5) (b)

(5) A leave under this

section ends on the last day of the week in which the earlier of the following occurs:

(

a) the family member dies;

(

b) the expiration of 26 weeks or other prescribed period from the date the leave began,

or 104 weeks, in the case of the care of a child under the age of 18. ]

On the amendment.

C. Puchmayr: If I could speak on the amendment, the amendment we would like to see…. I know the minister illustrated yesterday the positives of this bill with respect to having someone, who is certainly struggling with the reality of a future loss of a loved one, not having to worry, for an eight-week period, about the employ or having to re-apply in that period of time.

The amendment, and the genesis of this amendment, is for one who has found out that they have a terminally ill child — the child, of course, under the

definitions of a child in this province and federally, up to the age of 18. They would not have to worry about triggering those re-applications in order to spend some very, very short weeks with a child that has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the member for having provided an advance copy earlier today of the proposed amendment. I simply note, technically, that what he is actually proposing to do is amend

section 2 of this bill. I don't think the written version of this indicates that. But be that as it may, I think we can talk about the substantive provisions.

I will begin by observing to the member and to the House that the bill in its present form does contemplate a re-application or an extension of the original eight-week period to a subsequent eight-week period. That would be 16 weeks, four months, of protection in the happy event that the person who is diagnosed doesn't succumb to the illness during the first eight-week period.

I will actually ask during the course of my comments that the member…. In anticipation of his amendment based on his remarks yesterday, I sought to canvass, again, what the circumstances were in other jurisdictions. To my knowledge, the province of Quebec is the only province that we were able to discover that has the provision — in fact, I think, precisely the provision that the member is proposing here. If there is another jurisdiction that does so, then I'm interested in hearing what it is. Quebec is the only one that I am aware of.

The notion that we would extend the protection offered here in circumstances where the employee is a parent — that it is that parent's child who is in need of the care — is not one, in my view, without merit. But I have to say to the member that we have endeavoured to proceed down this path, keeping in mind what has taken place at the federal level, where the provision does not exist in the form that the member is proposing here.

Further, we have endeavoured, also, to ensure that employees' and employers' groups are supportive and willing to make the proposals that are here work. I think we have managed to do that thus far. That isn't to say that we shouldn't be prepared to examine other alternatives, but I must say to the member that before recommending the amendment that he is proposing here today — and recognizing the merit in the idea and the concept — I would feel obliged to engage in a level of discussion and consultation with affected parties that, quite frankly, I have not done. Insofar as it alters for a certain group, it alters in a very significant way the level of protection that is afforded here.

[1550]

The member has, I think, succeeded in planting a seed today by virtue of the amendment and his comments yesterday. I, however, feel obliged to advise him that I am not going to be able to cultivate that seed with the speed with which he would like in lending support to the proposed amendment today.

C. Puchmayr: I'm at least somewhat pleased to hear those comments. I believe there is a provision for bringing that in under regulation, and if the minister wishes to bring it in under his name, I will totally support him on that.

Your first comments were with respect to the order, and just a technical order. According to the bill as you presented it to the House,

section 2 does have 52.1 in it. I don't know if that was a clerical error, but it does link the amendment, in a housekeeping manner.

The concerns with respect to regulation…. I would like to canvass that a little bit on the regulation. There have been some very severe amendments to the employment standards legislation and regulations, to such a degree that it's no longer mandatory to post the regulations in the place of employment. I personally find that very problematic, especially with young people who really don't often know their full rights in the place of employment. I would like to ask the minister to enlighten us as to how this information could get to employees who could benefit from it.

To just take that a little bit further, many new businesses start daily, probably, in this province — small businesses, 80 percent of the generators of employment in this province. Often people venturing into small businesses or starting small businesses…. Because the regulations are no longer mandatory to be posted, even for the small-business owners who have very good intentions, most of them don't understand the act or the legislation or the regulations. Therefore, not only are they depriving themselves of the knowledge that they need to pass on to their employees; the employees don't have that knowledge in the workplace.

I'd like to canvass that with the minister — how the minister expects to communicate this legislation to employees who rightly will benefit from its application.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the first point that I would want to emphasize is that part of the reason that we — and I, I guess — thought this was an appropriate step to take is because it fits with what people are doing

[ Page 3096 ]

now. We have statistical data out of the federal employment insurance bureau that allows for us to break down provincially when people are accessing the program that was set up federally. I think those numbers are in the neighbourhood of…. Well, close to a thousand in '04.

[1555]

The reality here is that when a loved one is struck down, people are doing what they need to do to provide the level of care. We want people to know about this protection. Ensuring that it is part of all the material posted on the website — in a variety of languages, I might add — so that people are aware that they have the ability and the protection they need to take care of their loved ones at times of crisis will be a big part of the effort going forward once this legislation is proclaimed, as I hope it will be very soon.

The member may, with some validity, I think, make the point that in the vast majority of cases of responsible employers, it won't be an issue, because it wasn't an issue to begin with, but that in some instances it will be necessary for employees to know that they are acquiring this right and this protection. I would agree with that proposition. We will want to take steps to ensure that our materials that are routinely made available to the relevant groups and employee advisers contain up-to-date information about this new protection.

C. Puchmayr: You made the comment, and I agree with you, that with most employers you wouldn't need to go to this extent. But it's not because of most employers that we have regulations; it's because of a few who may not understand the regulations or may interpret what regulations there are in a way that is detrimental and, frankly, illegal to the workforce.

Hon. M. de Jong: I may not be able to offer the member precisely the degree of satisfaction he is looking for, but I will say this. I support wholeheartedly the proposition that people…. It is a responsibility but also a fundamental right of living in this country and being a citizen in this country that one knows what one's obligations are under the law and what one's protection is under the law. To the extent that there are ways we can ensure that is the case and work with the advocacy groups…. In general terms, I'm never reluctant to examine and re-examine whether or not we are meeting our objectives in terms of providing that information to people.

This is not meant to be as partisan as it may sound. But I suppose a logical…. I'm actually interested in the member's response, so I'm going to wait until he's paying attention.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

It strikes me that this is a provision for which it would make sense, as well, to perhaps engage in a bit of advertising to make sure that workers do understand that this change has taken place. In the past there has been commentary around the use of paid advertising, but if the member has a view on that as it relates to this specific provision, then I'm obviously interested to hear it.

C. Puchmayr: Well, the fact that new businesses start daily and always have…. Also, unfortunately, many new businesses fail daily. Advertising money spent to communicate this would certainly not capture future businesses.

[1600]

I certainly wouldn't want to see the taxpayers' dollars being used on a weekly-monthly basis from here on in when we can do something as simple as going back to pre-2002 and making it mandatory to post the employment standards regulations in a place of employment. I think that's the cleanest, simplest and most cost-effective way of dealing with that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate that the member has a view, and we may not share the same one, around the effectiveness of the bulletin board. The reality is that the notion that employees could go to a wall at their workplace and get a comprehensive view of the regulations governing their rights, I think, was something of a fallacy. I hope, and I think the member hopes, that this is a provision that will have relevance not just now but going forward for new workers who come into the workforce.

I'm not sure we solved the issue, which I think is a legitimate issue. How do we ensure that people know what their entitlements and their rights are? I'm not sure that the solution proposed is the panacea for making that happen comprehensively. But I do, obviously, appreciate the member's views, both with respect to that proposition and my suggestion about at least an initial notification via the press that this provision is…. I, too, would not contemplate an ongoing advertising campaign. I think that's unsustainable. It doesn't make a lot of sense. But to at least alert workers, perhaps over the course of the next month, that this House has supported this proposal might make some sense.

C. Puchmayr: I haven't been in this House very long, but I've been here long enough to understand that the answer to my question by the minister is no. So I will move on.

Along the same vein, I think it is important that we look at how the triggering of a dispute with respect to employment standards now works with the self-help kit. You only need to phone to get assistance to find out that you can't even speak to an officer anymore. There's been, I think, a 50-percent reduction in field officers. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[ Page 3097 ]

The Chair: Member, can I just ask: are we through with the amendment, or are we still debating the amendment? I would like to put the question on the amendment.

C. Puchmayr: Yes, I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. On the amendment itself — yes, please.

The Chair: Members, I'd like to put the question on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

C. Puchmayr: We were so engaged in that debate, we forgot about the amendment and moved right along. I thank you for catching that.

The final issue with respect to enforcement…. Again, I do have concerns with enforcement. I'm hearing concerns with enforcement. I know there is a statistic of fewer cases going to the employment standards that need adjudication.

I have some real problems with the self-help system. Rather than going into it in detail, I want to just focus on the self-help component, how it could affect this and maybe make some suggestions. I know that in extreme cases, you can actually bypass the self-help kit; you don't have to, basically, fill out a subpoena, hand it to your employer and say: "I'm challenging you on an issue."

[1605]

Would the minister consider in regulation, specifically on this issue…? I think I already know his answer if I asked a generic question, so I'm just going to ask specifically on this. Could the minister, through regulation, when it comes to an issue of compassionate leave, make a regulation that would force the employment standards branch to bypass the self-help process on this and immediately put it to an investigation officer?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I respect the member's views enough to want to convey that I am prepared to look at any reasonable suggestion.

I think the practical reality of this provision is that disputes are likely to arise after the fact. If one contemplates the kind of scenario we're likely to find, an employee is going to be confronted by a situation of a loved one who is ill. They'll do what they need to do — go look after that person and then come back to work. The violation, if you will, will occur if they come back to work and aren't re-employed. At that point, they will be in a position to access the provisions here and to seek enforcement of those provisions. In those circumstances, it seems to me it's important that it be dealt with expeditiously, and we should ensure that we do that.

I think there's another part of what the member has referred to, though, that will be important in terms of properly conveying to people what their rights are here, and that is how to make use of the section. They will need, for example, to get the letter from a physician who is treating the loved one, because that's the authorization, as it were. The act refers to a certificate. Conceivably, that language could confuse some people, whether it's a second language or not. I don't think there's any doubt that we have to make sure that people properly understand (

a) what their rights are under this legislation and (

b) how, procedurally, to access those rights. We should do that in as procedurally friendly a manner as we possibly can.

C. Puchmayr: The minister states that the violation would probably happen after the employee returns to work, but I think the violation could very easily happen during denial of that request. I think that has to be understood in the question that I ask. It's not only on returning to work. You would think that once they've returned to work, they've gone through the proper protocol. It's when the employer says: "No, you're not granted leave, and if you leave, I'm just going to hire someone else to replace you."

What concerns me is the self-help kit — how the person would have to respond to that by having a form filled out and then serving their employer, rather than now saying: "Look, I have the note from my doctor. The loved one is dying." Can't they just phone the employment standards branch and have an officer deal with that one? Couldn't that be one of those extreme cases where you would be able to bypass the other provisions for enforcement?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have a better answer for the member than even I thought possible. The answer is yes. Apparently, the leave provisions of the act, of which this will become a part, are exempt now from the self-help provisions. So the scenario that the member described — the negative scenario — shouldn't happen and wouldn't happen. That more direct access would exist.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for that.

When does the minister anticipate the regulations that will govern this? Is it clearly after federal legislation or federal regulations through this task force, or is the ministry already looking at, potentially, some other regulations that may be generic to some of the other eight provinces and two territories?

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: Our intention is — with the permission of this House, of course — to proclaim the act immediately so that the benefit would accrue immediately for the defined class of persons.

As we talked about earlier, the provisions for expanding the prescribed class exist within the legislation. As that evolves and as the federal government completes its work, we can channel into that. But our hope and intention is for this to be in place virtually immediately so people can…. When I say that, I don't mean virtually immediately next year. I mean virtually immediately in the next few weeks so that people can enjoy the protection forthwith.

[ Page 3098 ]

H. Bains: A question. As we know, we're talking about the Employment Standards Act here. There was a clause at one time in the Employment Standards Act that no collective agreement could be inferior to the Employment Standards Act if you put them side by side.

My question is: does this cross over to the organized sector? And do the employers have the obligation to provide this leave to employees who have a collective agreement in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: As it is with the other leave provisions of the act, this is the minimum standard. A collective bargaining organization can certainly negotiate beyond this, but these are the minimal standards to which people included within a collective bargaining structure would be entitled.

H. Bains: Just to clarify absolutely that this is a minimum, and any employee with a collective agreement in place will be entitled to this leave under the similar circumstances.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm just going to take a moment. It's an important enough question that I want to be able to convey to the member and the House with absolute certainty what I believe to be the case. I believe the answer is yes. I want to check.

Apologies to the members.

The advice I have received now, I think conclusively, is that the provisions, the entitlement to leave, would apply and would accrue to the benefit of the employee. The enforcement mechanism would not be via the Employment Standards Act but would be via the terms of the collective agreement.

[1615]

H. Bains: Now, if I can move over to, not the area of the enforcement part, but…. In non-culpable discharge cases, as you know, if an employee is off sick due to injury or illness longer than the average employee, the arbitrators have ruled that the employer has the right to terminate this employee because they failed to live up to their part of the contract.

My question here is: can the employer use this leave to add to the absences when they're calculating for the purpose of non-culpable discharge?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, it's a mechanism triggered by the employee, not the employer.

H. Bains: I understand that — if an employee is provided with this leave, as they're entitled to, according to the answer we received. But at the time of termination, the employer looks at the past two or three years of the employee's absenteeism record which is of non-culpable nature — WCB cases, sickness, injuries, etc. Then they add them up, and then they decide that this employee has a higher than average absence in the plant. So, therefore, the employer has the right to terminate for non-culpable discharge. When they add the absences…. My question is: will this leave, if this employee has taken this leave in the previous year or two, be used to calculate the absence?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I better understand the member's question, and the answer is no. The act specifically prohibits against an employer engaging in that kind of a calculation. It is designed to ensure that for all other purposes, it is as if the employee was there. So if there is a wage increase during the time of absence, the employee receives the benefit of that wage increase. There are provisions dealing with the continuation of benefits. So the answer to the member's question is: no, that would not be something that an employer could engage in.

H. Bains: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the minister. Those are my questions.

The Chair: The member for New Westminster has a question.

C. Puchmayr: Those were my questions. Thank you.

Section 2 approved.

The Chair: Members, we just need to go back to

section 1. I'm not sure if the question was put.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1620]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

(COMPASSIONATE CARE LEAVE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Bill 8, Employment Standards (Compassionate Care Leave) Amendment Act, 2006, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 12.

[ Page 3099 ]

Second Reading of Bills

TOBACCO SALES

(PREVENTING YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. G. Abbott: I know my comments on introducing this bill yesterday were quite exhaustive, and some members claimed that it may have been a surrogate for actually second reading debate, but I would like to add a few notes here today.

Yesterday I introduced Bill 12. This bill, as we know, aims to improve compliance with the Tobacco Sales Act, particularly as it relates to preventing the sale of tobacco products to minors, something that I'm sure should be of great concern to all members of the House. With these changes, British Columbia will become the first province in Canada to have an administrative process that can impose financial penalties for contraventions of tobacco legislation.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

These changes will help avoid lengthy and costly court processes. The existing rules do not set out clear rules regarding what retailers must do to assess the age of prospective tobacco purchasers. The new rules will require that identification be checked for persons appearing to be under the age of 25 — something I'm not likely to be in danger of, but other members of the House may have that — a process similar to existing rules under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

Deciding if a person looks 25 years old can be a very subjective process. However, it is better to err on the side of caution, and indeed, many of us would not object to looking younger than we actually are. That's actually in my speaking notes, around that point. It was intended to be amusing, I'm sure.

An Hon. Member: Looking younger all the time.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

The amendments will allow regulations to be made to specify the types of identification that are acceptable. Violations of the act must presently be addressed through court prosecutions. Cases are not often pursued due to competing court and Crown counsel time. It is anticipated that under the new administrative scheme it will take anywhere from a number of weeks to a couple of months to process violations under the act. This contrasts with the years it often takes to wind its way through the current court process.

Indeed, very few have been secured. On average, the Ministry of Health initiates around 35 suspensions each year but is only able to implement three or four because of the difficulty in securing convictions. If our goal is to control youth access to tobacco products, and indeed it is, we need a better, more efficient process for managing these convictions.

Suspensions under the existing system after multiple court convictions involve two separate pieces of legislation, the Tobacco Sales Act and the Tobacco Tax Act, involving two ministries, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The courts have described this process as convoluted, and that would not be a good thing. Convoluted, from a legal perspective, is not good.

The amendments will establish an administrative penalty system that allows for monetary penalties and/or suspension of the sale of tobacco to be levied by the administrator without requiring prosecution through the courts. This will be similar to the system recently adopted by the government in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Environmental Management Act.

Procedural fairness requirements will be set out through regulations, and decisions of the administrator will be subject to judicial review. Consequential amendments will be made to the Tobacco Tax Act to allow desired policy goals to be implemented in the most streamlined fashion to minimize regulatory impacts for retailers.

[1625]

Linkages have been made between suspensions under the Tobacco Sales Act and the Tobacco Tax Act to ensure continued consistency between the statutes and to reduce the risk of black market tobacco sales. Finally, the amendments will ensure that enforcement officials who are employed by regional health authorities know where tobacco products are being sold.

Tobacco use continues to be the number one cause of preventable disease in this province. As other members may know, British Columbia is in the enviable position of being the most successful jurisdiction to this point in the number of people who smoke in the province. Currently about 16 percent of British Columbians smoke. We aim by 2010, when we host the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, to have reduced that by a further 10 percent or down to about 14.4 percent.

Much of that effort in reducing the percentage of British Columbians who smoke has to be aimed at the youth of this province. If we are to be successful, we need to reduce the number of young British Columbians, particularly those under 19 years of age, but also those 19 to 24 who currently either smoke or who are in some jeopardy of becoming smokers.

To ensure that that opportunity does not exist inappropriately, we need legislation like this so that we can be effective in ensuring that penalties are brought to bear and enforced effectively. I think this is a very important step that we are taking here today in moving forward with this initiative. It's one of the pillars of the ActNow B.C. program which aims to continue B.C.'s downward trend of tobacco use and to make us the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

These amendments will complement the broader tobacco control environment which includes education, cessation programs, workers compensation provisions and local government bylaws restricting smoking in public places.

I know I and other members of the Legislature, including the opposition Health critic, had the oppor-

[ Page 3100 ]

tunity this morning to meet and have breakfast with the Canadian Cancer Society and appreciate further some of their outstanding work in respect of advocacy around, indeed, more stringent ways that we can manage some of these issues. That was very useful.

Most importantly, these amendments will reinforce the province's commitment to reduce the adverse impacts of harmful and addictive tobacco products, particularly on children and youth. I think what we have seen in recent years is that it is a very small percentage of irresponsible retailers who ever sell to children and youth under 19 years of age. For that small percentage of irresponsible retailers, we do need to have some effective mechanism for ensuring that penalties are brought to bear and that appropriate prohibitions are put in place around their ability to sell tobacco.

Reducing youth access to tobacco requires tough laws that are effectively enforced as reflected in these amendments.

Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move second reading and to hear from other members of this Legislature their views with respect to this bill and this important matter.

D. Cubberley: The Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006, if somewhat inelegantly titled, proposes changes to improve compliance with the Tobacco Sales Act provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products to minors. It is intended to clarify the obligations placed upon retailers to assess the age of prospective purchasers.

[1630]

Essentially, it will establish a process similar to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act regulations requiring ID checks for people appearing to be under the age of 25. It will also establish an administrative penalty that allows for monetary penalties and suspensions to be levied by an administrative, as opposed to a court-based, process. Finally, it will establish a comprehensive register of where tobacco products are being sold in order to assist enforcement efforts by officials employed by regional health authorities and charged with that function.

Tobacco continues to be the number one preventable cause of disease, disability and death in British Columbia, despite our lower levels of smoking. Measures designed to keep tobacco out of the hands of our children are worthy of support. People who don't start smoking prior to age 19 tend never to start.

Earlier today — as the minister mentioned — at the Cancer Society breakfast for MLAs, tobacco was referred to as a scourge, the elimination of which should form a priority public health objective. Programs like this that control access to a product as addictive, we hear, as heroin or cocaine are important measures in the public toolkit. The social and health care costs associated with new generations of smokers make early intervention a priority. It is indeed much easier to prevent habituation than it is to get someone who is addicted to quit, and I can attest to that from personal experience.

Members on this side of the House need no convincing in that regard, as it was a previous NDP administration that introduced the very regulations this act seeks to streamline.

At this morning's breakfast, the Cancer Society challenged British Columbia to once again become a leader; indeed, to return to being the leader on tobacco reduction as it was in the 1990s — the halcyon days for tobacco reduction. That would, of course, require a re-engaging of a more comprehensive tobacco control strategy of the kind that was being pursued in the '90s, taking account of new measures that have been tested successfully elsewhere.

The world has indeed changed a lot since that time. I can remember when the capital regional district became the first municipal entity in Canada to introduce a full smoking ban. That, of course, would need to be more than simply brave words about reducing the incidence of smoking by 2010. Surely a worthy goal, but one only timidly supported by government action to date, and more importantly, one threatened by certain regressive steps and failures to act during government's prior term of office.

Of course, today…. I want to congratulate the government for reversing its position from its time in opposition on this matter, when it opposed the tobacco lawsuit. The courageous actions of a prior government in the '90s in pursuing big tobacco for damages have now been endorsed by the Supreme Court, because this government chose to continue the lawsuit. That's a worthy endeavour by government and one which we obviously support, our predecessors having commenced that action. But while it will offset some of the costs to society of tobacco-related disease, it will not reduce the scourge or the threat to future generations of our kids one bit. That requires action on other fronts.

First, by restoring the innovative and highly successful mass-media campaigns to discourage smoking that were fielded in the '90s, along with the secretariat and appropriate levels of funding to make the program operational — an initiative that was dropped, and a program and a staffing commitment dramatically cut during the darker days…. Currently, British Columbia's annual tobacco control budget represents less than 1 percent of the $699 million in tobacco taxes collected in '04-05, which is far below that allocated as a share of revenues in the '90s, when taxes were lower and more was spent on tobacco control.

The media program is desperately needed in order to counter the existing social norms related to tobacco, to deglamorize it on an ongoing basis and to counter the persuasive and subtle effects of big tobacco's advertising.

[1635]

Another decision that needs reconsideration is the permitting of designated smoking rooms. A policy of 100-percent smoke-free restaurants and bars is becoming the norm across the country, and B.C. now lags behind the leaders. Let's lead again.

Other initiatives recommended by the Cancer Society are also worthy of consideration. Increased tobacco taxes would easily finance a comprehensive strategy that would bring results and, in and of themselves,

[ Page 3101 ]

would reduce the incidence of new smoking. Tobacco availability could be further curtailed while its visibility and prominence at point-of-purchase could be dramatically diminished. Cessation programs could be made available through doctor referral as part of MSP-funded activity.

Madam Chair, if all these initiatives were added to the well-intended statements we hear around ActNow — that is, if we collectively did, indeed, commit to act now on this scourge — there's no doubt we could make significant progress towards our objectives, objectives that I believe members on both sides of the House generally support, but it requires political will to take the appropriate steps.

This bill represents a commendable action to improve upon an existing program, and it deserves support, but it is only a small step in the right direction. We need to do much more and can do much more to wrestle tobacco addiction to the ground.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to this bill, because it is something that I think is of importance to most British Columbians. It's something that the opposition has said it supports. I'm speaking not just in the capacity of the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain but also as a former Health Minister. Like my colleague the current Health Minister, this issue is probably, in terms of preventative health in British Columbia, one in which, as a province, we can have a larger impact than just about on any other health issue. It is the biggest killer. It is the biggest cause of cancer in this province, and it is also the one that is most preventable.

My colleague the member for Saanich South has talked about the issue in terms of where our party stands and the opposition stands in terms of the questions we have around the bill and in terms of supporting the bill, but there's an area in this bill that I just want to touch on. I think it is something that we need to focus on, the government needs to focus on, and that is around young people — in particular, teenagers — and their attraction into tobacco use.

As tobacco companies well know, old smokers die. They need a new crop of smokers to keep the industry going. So it's from young people. The minister talked about the statistics about British Columbia having the lowest smoking rate in the country. That's true, and that's an admirable position that we have right now, but it's something we need to maintain.

There are some very disturbing trends, however. The fact is that in the case of young women and teenaged girls, they are more likely to take up tobacco use than boys, and they are the fastest-growing group of users. That is something that we need to be extremely concerned about.

So this piece of legislation, hopefully, will allow for us to monitor more closely, to have more ability to deter use. But I also think the government needs to realize that while this measure is great and it's one that we support, we need to become more aggressive and continue to be more aggressive in terms of focusing preventative measures, ways of reaching young people — in particular, young women and teenaged girls — on the dangers and hazards of tobacco use. The sad fact is that men die of lung cancer, women die of lung cancer, but women tend to die of lung cancer earlier.

They contract it earlier, and it is often more aggressive. That is a fact that young people don't seem to understand.

So we support this bill. We support the measures that are contained in the bill, but we would also encourage the government to be more proactive and to invest more in terms of anti-tobacco campaigns with young people.

With that, hon. Speaker, I will take my place. We will await the comments of the next member.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate in this debate today on a piece of legislation that I support wholeheartedly.

[1640]

As a former smoker, I am delighted to see government acting in this area. I know in the 1990s…. It's a decade of doom and gloom for many on that side of the House, but I'm certain…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members, please.

J. Horgan: …the Minister of Health would acknowledge that great strides were made in the 1990s on this front, and I'm pleased to see that his government is picking up the ball and carrying it a little bit further.

The challenge with addictions of any kind, whether it be nicotine, alcohol, any other substances, is that it's a direct target on our young people. That's why this legislation is so important, that's why I support it, and that's why it's a good step on what we were doing in the 1990s.

Again, I see the Minister of Agriculture smiling in support of my comments that the 1990s were a positive time in this area. There was a good deal of activity done. Certainly, the Attorney General would endorse that as well: strong steps taken to curb the strength and might of the tobacco industry. I certainly feel that this government has done a commendable job in carrying on the work done in the 1990s.

With that, I just want to conclude by saying that I do support this legislation. Any way that I can assist the Minister of Health and anyone on that side to reduce access to this toxin and killer of young people and old people alike, I'm happy to do so.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the comments that have been made by members of the House in respect of the second reading debate on Bill 12. I appreciated the thoughtful comments and certainly agree with many of the sentiments expressed.

For those of us who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s and often took up smoking with not a lot of thought about what the health consequences would be for ourselves, I think we probably, perhaps, appreciate more

[ Page 3102 ]

profoundly, those of us who were smokers, just how damaging this can be to young people and how addictive it can be to anyone who takes up the habit. The most important thing we can do as a society is to provide vulnerable young people with whatever protection we can against the opportunities to take up this very destructive habit.

I'm delighted that all three of my kids have now got to the late teens, early 20s, and have never smoked. That's the case for many young people today, and I think society is the better for it.

I do thank all members of the House for their very generous comments, and I'm delighted that this is an area of public policy where I believe that both the opposition and government will work together very constructively to build a stronger public policy framework around these important issues.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Tobacco Sales (Preventing Youth Access to Tobacco) Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Bell: I call committee on Bill 4.

Committee of the Whole House

AGRICULTURE AND LANDS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 4:45 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

B. Ralston: Could the minister explain the justification for the addition of sub-paragraph (c), "Another member of the executive council"?

Hon. P. Bell: Just before we get started, I'd like to introduce and acknowledge my assistant deputy minister for Crown land management, Warren Mitchell. Warren has been with government for a very distinguished 32 years under a number of different governments and actually will be leaving us in about ten days, I think. We will definitely miss the quality of work that he has done over that period of time. Just on behalf of this House and everyone, I'd like to thank him for his work.

The question the member asks, really, is the purpose of this bill. It allows me as Minister of Agriculture and Lands to delegate to other members of executive council, other ministers, the authority to enter into land transactions in British Columbia. An example of that might be the Minister of Transportation entering into a land transaction with regards to an airport or a port, which would now fall underneath his responsibility since the recent restructuring of government last June.

B. Ralston: Presumably, airports and other public works were constructed without this amendment, so perhaps the minister could explain why the amendment is necessary at this time and why it's brought forward at this time.

Hon. P. Bell: It reflects the reorganization of government that was done last June.

B. Ralston: Well, the government is no stranger to reorganization. Reorganization, as I'm sure Mr. Mitchell will tell you, is perhaps a constant in the life of government.

I'm not clear what the minister means when he says that it's due to a recent reorganization. Presumably these things occur, as I've said, on an ongoing basis. Why has this particular reorganization occasioned the necessity for this particular amendment?

Hon. P. Bell: The purpose is actually to streamline the process for any Crown land transactions. One of the objectives of this government has been to attract industry and business into the province. We've been reasonably successful with that, as is evidenced by the unemployment rate and the growth in gross domestic product in the province. Clearly, this is a simplification process to eliminate the requirement for one minister to come to me and request that I approve a transaction that could easily be done through a different member of executive council.

It's important to note that I've had the ability, or the minister responsible for the Land Act has had the ability for some time to delegate authority to other individuals within government — senior civil servants and statutory decision-makers. This simply extends that authority out to different members of executive council, and for those watching who don't know what executive council is, that would be cabinet.

B. Ralston: Will this lead to the fragmentation of the sale of land throughout all ministries of government, potentially, and therefore to much more difficulty in keeping track of individual land sales?

[1650]

Hon. P. Bell: One of the great things about having a senior civil servant who's been around for a long time is that he can give a very full answer, and I'm trying to contract it down just a touch.

But the simple answer to that is no. The process for identifying Crown land transactions, be it leases or sales, will continue to be the same as it has always been. The statutory obligations for identifying those sales remain. It will simply be a process that will elimi-

[ Page 3103 ]

nate one of the steps in a transaction requiring a minister — we've used the Minister of Transportation as an example — requesting myself to sign off on that transaction. We think it will bring continuity to the transactions. Rather than having clients deal with multiple ministers, they can deal with an individual minister instead.

B. Ralston: Can the minister give examples of other ministries where this amendment might come in use?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts could enter into transactions revolving around resorts, and the Ministry of Forests and Range could enter into different forms of range tenure.

C. Evans: Hon. Chair, before I stood up to talk here, I went to the library to read the words that are being deleted in the 1996 version of the Land Act.

What the minister says is quite right. Essentially what's happening here is that we are changing legislation which has said either the minister responsible for the Land Act or an employee of government has to sign off on the sale of a piece of Crown land. This legislation will allow this minister, the minister responsible for the Land Act, to delegate that job to any other member of the executive council at his or her choice. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Bell: That is correct.

C. Evans: I just think this is a moment of perhaps…. I mean, it looks like a tiny little bureaucratic change and nine words disappearing. It feels to me like a moment of fairly monumental folly. I would like to explain to the minister how it looks from here and have the minister give me some comfort and help me understand why I'm confused and think that what is just a bureaucratic step is, in fact, folly.

Hon. Chair, in British Columbia we are hugely gifted — our generation, yours and mine — in that people who worked in this building in previous generations managed to sustain the idea of the Crown, the idea of collective ownership in British Columbia. I think at this point we own something like 88 percent of the land base. Maybe the minister could verify whether or not that's true.

Hon. P. Bell: That is actually incorrect. Rather than getting into a number-guessing game, I'll just identify it for the member as 94 percent.

C. Evans: That's what I wanted to know. Okay, great — 94 percent. That makes my point 6 percent more real.

[1655]

Throughout all the time of the governments that managed this idea of Crown, the minister responsible for the Land Act became a kind of elevated persona — not quite judge. But the minister responsible for the Land Act…. All land has value — to a logging company, to a tourist operation, to a heli-skiing operation, to a salmon or sport fishing operation, to a mining company, to another ministry or to first nations.

All of these competing land values resolve themselves not in the partisan nature of politics and not in the stovepipe nature of the ministers of the Crown responsible for advancing a file, but in this quasi-judicial individual: the minister responsible for the Land Act. We would appoint people to that position who could hear various points of view — first nations' points of view, industrial points of view, the general public's points of view, and all of their fellow ministers at cabinet's points of view — and judge, from amongst those options, the wisdom of the Crown: "What is the benefit for the Crown?" And by the "Crown," I take it to mean future generations.

If we delegate that to a civil servant — as the historic bill, the Land Act of 1996, suggested — the civil servant is still acting on behalf of the minister responsible for the Land Act. That's true if the minister becomes the Minister of Agriculture or for anyone else chosen by the Premier to be responsible for the Land Act. The civil servant still answers to this elevated persona: the minister.

Once we make this change, I think we change the responsibility for the disposition of Crown land to a minister who actually has a job to advance a file, not at all the quasi-judicial role of gauging between various interests and deciding what's best for the people.

But if we delegate it to the Minister of Tourism, then the Minister of Tourism would say: "In the case, say, of Jumbo Resort, okay, we want to sell this land to this individual." If we delegate it to the Minister of Transportation, and there's a highway: "Okay, let's sell this to build the highway or an airport." If we delegate it to the Minister of Forests, he'd say: "Oh, you know what? We need a log dump here. Never mind first nations values or salmon fishermen or all the other interests. We need a log dump." Because that individual would be the Minister of Forests, and of course he'd be advancing a file.

The function of an executive council is really a balance point. Even when I disagree with their partisan positions, I hugely respect the fact that there are 15 or whatever around a table. They are, essentially, acting in balance for the Crown. That's the essence of democracy. We change this to say that it's not the executive council, through the minister responsible for the Land Act, but any minister he chooses, and we essentially say that from now on, the idea of the Crown disappears.

It will be replaced with what the minister has just told us is essentially the business interests of removing regulation and speeding the development of the province. That's a moment in…. Never mind what I think.

I wonder if the minister would please explain to me if there's anything in what I just said which is not true. If he agrees that the balance at executive council is being removed by this legislation, how would we then put that balance back in once he changes the law?

Hon. P. Bell: I've never actually considered myself to be an elevated persona, but I appreciate the member

[ Page 3104 ]

for Nelson-Creston identifying me as that. I'll have to put that down in a historic memory somewhere. That may pass as well.

[1700]

So this is not a passing of the torch, as the member has indicated, to a member of the Ministry of Forests — as an example the member used — where the minister would no longer have to factor in all of the other conditions of a particular transaction to ensure that it's done in a balanced way as the member identifies — quite rightly so. The cabinet member would have all of those same obligations, should they be delegated forward. I think this is just simply a process that should simplify the development of different sorts of land tenures in the province, and certainly we see it as a progressive step.

C. Evans: I thank the minister for his answer, and I take no comfort at all from his answer.

Hon. P. Bell: I might point out to the member that although he doesn't think it's appropriate for an elected official to have responsibility for the Land Act, that actually that's exactly where it's delegated right now — to the minister responsible for the Land Act, which would be myself, in this situation.

C. Evans: I must have misspoke myself, because the minister thinks that I object to an elected official having this job. In fact I think…. I didn't mean to refer to this particular minister as an elevated persona. I meant that whoever has the job in the province of British Columbia, as the minister responsible for the Land Act, essentially clutches to their breast the people's wealth and the people's tradition and the well-being of future generations.

It is the job, not the individual, that I would argue is challenged to meet that objective when they become the minister responsible for the Land Act. I don't think that if you delegate it to the Minister of Transportation — as wonderful as that individual might be, as well-meaning, as lovely a person as the Minister of Transportation might be — that it is the same job as the minister responsible for the collective well-being, which is the minister responsible for land.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Order.

Continue, member.

[1705]

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order, please.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd suggest to the member that in fact all ministers of the Crown swear an oath that indicates they have to protect the public interest of the province. The same way the Minister of Lands would be bound by that oath — and the member will know; the member was on executive council at one point in time — each member of cabinet has that responsibility to protect the interests of each British Columbian and the Crown in general.

The notion that because a minister is the Minister of Transportation, that minister's only priority is advocacy for the interests of the transportation industry would, in my view, be inaccurate. We, as ministers of the Crown, have to provide that balance in all judgments and decisions, going forward. I think that really, I'm trying to get to the nub of the member's question. I hope that responds to it.

[ Page 3105 ]

C. Evans: I would be interested, if the minister has the oath, if we could read it out here, because I'm wondering about the wording. I, one time, swore that oath. It is precisely because I had some of those jobs responsible for various portfolios that I understand that while you represent the Crown on executive council, the measurement of your success is your ability to drive files.

I don't think that the disposition of Crown land…. I think that Social Crediters or, I don't know, New Democrats — whoever it was — who originally put together the Land Act did not wish to have the disposition of Crown land constitute a measure of the testing of ministers to drive files. I know that the political culture, in this building and town and in the press and in political parties and perhaps in this province, measures ministers by their ability to "get stuff done." Sometimes the stuff you want to get done, the stuff that you're told to achieve to advance your job, is not necessarily in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

[1710]

I'm going to say this into the record, hon. Chair. The worst moments I ever had in executive council — you might remember the times, hon. Chair — had to do with the disposition of a piece of land, not Crown land but zoned by the Crown, called Six Mile Ranch.

My measurement of integrity, honesty and political skill was measured by both sides of the House, the press gallery and the people of British Columbia about whether or not I had the capacity to advance that file. And in my heart I never thought it was the right thing to do. It was a job. That's how come I'm standing here, because I have lived the experience that divides, kind of, that grey area of moral judgment and your job on executive council in my life.

I do not think that the minister's proposed change in this legislation recognizes the fact of how we live, whether or not we swear an oath. The fact of how we live is that people are assigned to the chairs in cabinet to do a job, to advance files and get stuff done. Then they are measured over a year or a term of office by their ability to have achieved that. This change is going to feed the culture of what we do and denigrate the balance that the Land Act originally had.

Now my question for the minister is…. I've been standing here for 30 minutes attempting to explain my perception. Did this change…? Whether or not the minister agrees with my comments, did the possibility that this would change forever how we manage the Crown's land, in a negative fashion, occur to the minister prior to bringing this legislation into this House?

Hon. P. Bell: We take a balanced view of this legislation. We believe it's the right thing to do; otherwise I would not have tabled it and brought it forward. Certainly, the member will have the ability to vote against this

section if he so sees fit.

C. Evans: I'm going to ask the question in a different way. Did the minister or the minister's staff or other folks at executive council have a discussion about this change in legislation and its long-term implications on Crown land and ministers'