2007 Legislative Session: Third 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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Brent Hayden

R. Hawes

Introductions by Members

Statements

Legislative precincts land claims

agreement

Hon. M.

de Jong

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 22)

Hon. S.

Bond

Public Protection Act (Bill M211)

Farnworth

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement ( Tilma )

Act, 2007 (Bill M212)

Sather

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Battle of Vimy Ridge

Rustad

Alberni wrestling program

Fraser

Dover Bay Dolphins basketball

champions

Cantelon

Kate Forster

Fleming

Victim services

MacKay

Maple Ridge Secondary School

girls basketball team

Sather

Oral Questions

Raw log exports

Trevena

Hon. R.

Coleman

Forests Minister's role in

Vancouver Island forestry issues

Fraser

Hon. R.

Coleman

Environmental assessment of

Flathead Valley

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Government action on farmworker

safety

Chouhan

Hon. O.

Ilich

Puchmayr

Government action on forest

worker safety

Puchmayr

Hon. O.

Ilich

Xyolhemeylh child protection

services

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Emergency needs assessment for

income assistance

J. Brar

Hon. C.

Richmond

Visitor access at Deni House

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

East Kootenay regional district

bylaw approval by Community Services Minister

Macdonald

Hon. I.

Chong

Petitions

S. Fraser

Committee of the Whole House

Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco

and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill

10)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Robertson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco

and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill

10)

Committee of the Whole House

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 14) (continued)

Ralston

Hon. C.

Taylor

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 14)

Committee of the Whole House

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Tabling Documents

Office for Children and Youth,

annual report, 2005-2006

Hon. M.

de Jong

Royal Assent to Bills

Public

Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

Child

and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 7)

Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)

Tobacco

Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools)

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 10)

Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)

Finance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 14)

Supply

Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

Fleming

Karagianis

Chudnovsky

C. Wyse

[ Page 6617 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

BRENT HAYDEN

R. Hawes: This morning in Melbourne, Australia, Canada's flag was raised and the national anthem played at the FINA World Championship swim meet when we won a gold medal, by Brent Hayden from Mission, who finished in a dead heat with the Italian swimmer. This is the first world championship freestyle 100-metre medal that we have won at the FINA World Championships. I'd like the House to congratulate Brent Hayden.

Introductions by Members

J. Nuraney: Today I have a very special guest in the gallery. His name is Ilahyas, and he is my grandson and a great pride of our family. This is his first visit, and he's accompanied by my good wife. I ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: Today we're continuing to celebrate excellence in British Columbia. It is Education Week. Joining us in the Legislature today are five outstanding principals that are being recognized during Education Week as British Columbia's recipients of Canada's Outstanding Principal award. They are among 32 national recipients of Canada's Outstanding Principal award, an initiative of the Learning Partnership, a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to championing a strong public education system.

[1335]

This program honours the extraordinary contributions of dynamic education leaders in publicly funded schools. The award honours principals who have made a measurable difference in the lives of their students and their own local communities.

It was fantastic to meet with them at lunchtime. They are inspiring. They have great ideas about how to improve public education. Please join me in welcoming Clyde Dougans from the Chilliwack school district; Chris Harvey from the Greater Victoria school district; Scott

McLean, Sandra Sellick and Janet Slaney — and listen to this — all from Central Okanagan school district. They must be doing something pretty incredible there.

Please join me in making them all feel very welcome in the gallery today.

V. Roddick: I was really fortunate to be able to join 20 B.C. Young Liberals for lunch in the dining room this afternoon from Camosun College, Malaspina and the University of Victoria.

There are four of them in the gallery up there. Kristine Zellweger, administrative director of Kwantlen University club president; Cody Hedmen, Vancouver Island regional directory for the B.C. Young Liberals; Steele Gorosh, youth chair for Nanaimo-Parksville, and Zack Poturica, communications director for Penticton-Okanagan Young Liberals. It shows there are still youth out there to support all of us aging people in the Legislature.

Will the House please give them a good welcome.

N. Simons: I'm sorry I'm late. I'm not sure if it's happened already, but it gives me pleasure to recognize a gentleman in the House, a former MP for Powell River–Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky country — who is a former MLA in the House. I'm sure someone will introduce him from the government side as well, but it's nice to see Mr. Reynolds here today.

J. McIntyre: I was about to make an introduction, but I would like to add my welcome to the former MP John Reynolds as well, since we had overlapping territory. Welcome.

I'd also like to introduce to the House today Laura Hope, who is one of our new legislative assistants. She's here today along with her brother David Hope, who lives in Whistler and is a dogsled driver. I hope the House will join me in making them both feel very welcome.

S. Hawkins: I would like to join the Education Minister in congratulating three local principals from the Kelowna area: Scott

McLean, Sandra Sellick and Janet Slaney. I would also like to welcome two other people from my constituency: Mark Stathis, who is an outreach worker, and Kelly Kubik, who is the director. Both are from the Okanagan Metis Children and Family Services and are here to have some meetings with the Minister of Income Assistance with me this afternoon. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: This week is Social Work Week here in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to introduce a number of social workers on Monday. Today I was joined for lunch by a number of social work professionals from throughout the province. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

From the north region is Natalie Kockeritz. Natalie is a guardianship worker, has been with the ministry just under two years and actually relocated to Prince Rupert from Toronto — bit of an adventure, I'm sure. Good to have Natalie here.

From the interior region, Ruth Verkerk from 100 Mile House and Twyla Russell from Kamloops. Ruth works as a team leader, started her career with MCFD in 1990 and continues to build and strengthen relationships and partnerships in the community she serves.

Twyla is from Kamloops, has been with MCFD for 22 years and plays a critical role now in helping to train new social workers. In fact, Twyla was nominated for an international award for social work last year.

From the Fraser region is Gail Hildebrandt from Mission. Gail has been with MCFD for some time. Her

[ Page 6618 ]

dedication and perseverance to her profession certainly is recognized and appreciated.

[1340]

From Vancouver Coastal we have Tracey Potter. Tracey is a team leader with the Vancouver South family development response team and has been with the ministry since 1990. Her team facilitates our family resource programs that support and strengthen families within the community.

From Vancouver Island is Melissa Allen. I had an opportunity to meet Melissa up in Port Hardy last week. She'll forgive me for not being that great a dancer at the coming-home ceremony there. She was involved in one of MCFD's recent innovative programs that reunites aboriginal children in care with their families.

We're also joined by two social workers from delegated aboriginal agencies. Representing Scw'exmx Child and Family Services is Kirby James. Kirby is a member of the Shackan Indian band in Merritt and works as a child protection supervisor doing critical work in his community. He is truly an inspiration for aboriginal youth in his community.

Representing Xyolhemeylh Child and Family Services is Diane Garner. Diane is a community development worker and serves 23 Stó:lô first nations communities. She is an active member in the community. She was actually awarded the B.C.-Yukon provincial award for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and last year was named as the national volunteer of the year.

These are highly educated, well-trained, dedicated professionals that are making a difference in our communities every single day of the year. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming them to the precinct.

D. Hayer: I would like to remind all members of the House that during the next two weeks while the House is in recess, we have very significant events in our multicultural communities. On April 3 the Jewish community celebrates Passover. In the Christian community we have Easter, with Good Friday on April 6 and Easter Sunday on April 8. The Muslim communities also celebrate the prophet Muhammad's birthday, while on April 14 the Indo-Canadians celebrate Vaisakhi.

I would ask all members to join me in recognizing these special events and also to join the communities to celebrate these events.

Hon. I. Chong: Joining us today are members from the Victoria Newcomers Club. There are 39 people in this group who have come to the Legislature today. These are newcomers to Victoria, and they're here to watch the proceedings in the House. The person leading them, I believe, is Mr. Colin Hoskin. They've just enjoyed a tour, and I hope they will also enjoy question period. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, as you know so very well, March 25 through 31 is also Pharmacist Awareness Week in B.C. Today we have representatives of the B.C. pharmacists association joining us in the gallery.

The members of the association here include Marnie Mitchell, who is the CEO; Linda Lytle, the vice-president of the board; Ken McCartney, the deputy CEO; Susan Ogilvie, the director of communications; as well as Suzanne Solven, the deputy registrar of the B.C. College of Pharmacists.

I do want to note the quite remarkable partnership we've had with British Columbia's pharmacists in distributing our B.C. Health Guide . It has been a remarkable success. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the B.C. Health Guide have been distributed through this partnership. I think all members of the House will be remarkably appreciative of that partnership.

The pharmacists are also assisting us through B.C. NurseLine. You can now contact a pharmacist through that organization and get answers to questions really at any hour. So I want to have all members of the House join me in thanking the pharmacists association and saluting them for their excellent work on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I stand to provide the following introduction with some personal risk to life and limb, noting that I sit in between the two hon. ministers from Kamloops. I wanted to introduce to the House — or actually introduce to the golf courses — the Kamloops Blazers, who of course were swept by the Prince George Cougars last night four games in a row. So let's hope the Kamloops Blazers enjoy their golf season.

[1345]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. John Reynolds is also a former occupant of the chair that you sit in. I hope our behaviour in this chamber hasn't prompted you to begin calling in the reserves, but we will be mindful of that today.

Statements

LEGISLATIVE PRECINCTS

LAND CLAIMS AGREEMENT

Hon. M. de Jong: I wanted to advise members very quickly…. They will recall that just before Christmas, a ceremony took place here in the chamber involving an unresolved claim relating to this chamber and, more particularly, the land that it is situate on. The two bands, the Songhees and the Esquimalt, have now voted on that and have ratified that agreement overwhelmingly.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

[ Page 6619 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm pleased today to introduce Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. This act supports our government's commitment to school safety and to an education system that is transparent and accountable to parents, students and communities throughout British Columbia.

Under this legislation, school boards must establish codes of conduct for their districts to help prevent bullying and harassment at their schools. It also introduces new measures to make school district business companies more accountable and transparent and to allow the province to communicate directly with our teachers.

Miscellaneous amendments to the School Act will include the additional use of personal education numbers, will more accurately describe the role of the board of examiners, will prevent conflicts that may arise when the school funding announcement date specified in the School Act precedes the provincial budget announcement, will partially reimburse students for expenses incurred in earning an external credential or post-secondary credit, and will reflect titles currently being used by the Francophone Education Authority, the Conseil scolaire francophone.

Other amendments include clarifying that only the Ministry of Education can issue Dogwood graduation certificates, and making full financial reporting possible for the College of Teachers annual meetings.

These legislative changes deliver on our government's commitment to ensure that B.C. students are safe, that the education system in our province is transparent and accountable, and that it runs as efficiently as possible.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC PROTECTION ACT

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Public Protection Act.

M. Farnworth: I move first reading of the Public Protection Act.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: The Public Protection Act will deal with one of the issues of the pernicious problem of criminal gangs in British Columbia. The Public Protection Act will make it an offence to wear gang colours in any licensed premises in British Columbia. Gang colours are defined as a sign, symbol, logo, or other representation identifying, associated with or promoting a group of persons who conspire to engage in unlawful activities.

Criminal gangs use gang colours, logos, emblems and patches as a means to intimidate, threaten or bully, either indirectly or directly. This is unacceptable. The public has raised the issue of gang violence as a concern in this province, and it's about time we started paying attention and being proactive.

This bill is a step in that direction. It will ensure that the onus is not on the owners of licensed premises — small business owners who may feel uncomfortable having to try and enforce a no-colours law. This makes it an offence. It gives the police a tool to deal with.

[1350]

That's why I ask all members of the House to support this particular initiative to help make the lives of people safer. It's a step in dealing with the activity of illegal criminal gangs, which we all know are a scourge in this province.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M211, Public Protection Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND LABOUR

MOBILITY AGREEMENT (TILMA) ACT, 2007

M. Sather presented a bill intituled Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) Act, 2007.

M. Sather: I move introduction of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Sather: The Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, or TILMA, is a far-reaching agreement that bestows considerable authority on individuals and parties, particularly in the field of investment.

As most government measures can be construed to restrict or impair investment, the potential restrictions on the government of British Columbia to enact and maintain public policy for the benefit of our citizenry are considerable.

TILMA maintains that all regulations and standards in B.C. and Alberta must be mutually recognized and reconciled. Although our government maintains that this does not mean the lowering of standards, there is a strong likelihood that persons or parties will appeal to TILMA to lower standards due to perceived negative effects on trade investment or labour mobility. Certain areas are listed as exceptions to TILMA or are considered legitimate objectives that B.C. or Alberta can maintain outside the purview of TILMA.

However, the exceptions are limited and are to be reviewed annually with a view to bringing them into

[ Page 6620 ]

compliance with TILMA. Legitimate objectives must meet the test of not being more restrictive than necessary. No parties have been able to successfully defend legitimate objectives under the existing national agreement on internal trade.

Sadly, the public at large has had no opportunity to discuss or debate TILMA with the government of British Columbia, nor has the government sought legislative authority to implement this deal. This bill seeks to solve the latter situation by bringing TILMA to this House for full debate.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M212, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

J. Rustad: It was early in the morning on April 2, 90 years ago in London, when the residents heard a distant rumbling. The haunting sounds continued hour after hour, day after day. On the battlefield many miles away, shells fell relentlessly from the largest artillery barrage ever undertaken to date as the Canadians opened the long-prepared battle of Vimy Ridge — close to a thousand guns pounded the enemy lines, using more than a million shells — which the enemy called the week of suffering. Then came the deadly quiet before the storm.

At dawn on Easter Monday, April 9, the Canadians attacked behind a wall of creeping artillery and more than 150 machine guns using indirect fire to pin down the enemy. It would be the first time that the four Canadian divisions would attack together.

It was a windy day with driving snow and sleet at their backs and into the faces of the enemy. The Canadians moved up the ridge, clambering over shell craters, torn entanglements and vast pools of sticky mud churned up by the bombardment. They were well aware that this was also an open graveyard, since previous French attacks had failed with over 100,000 casualties.

There were countless heroic efforts and sacrifices during the battle, and after three more days of costly fighting, the Canadian victory was achieved. It came at a cost of 3,598 Canadians killed and another 7,000 wounded. Four Canadians would win the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour.

The Great War would drag on for another 20 months, and thousands more Canadians would die. But when the survivors returned home, they and their countrymen would consider that Canada's right to be a nation had been bought and paid for in blood. I ask the House to join me in thanking all of the soldiers and their families, both today and throughout our history, for the gift of freedom they've given us.

[1355]

ALBERNI WRESTLING PROGRAM

S. Fraser: The Alberni Valley wrestling program has a rich tradition of close to 30 years in B.C. and in Canada. The program encompasses teams at local middle schools Neill and Dunne and Alberni District Secondary School as well as club components that have opportunities for youngsters right through to alumni.

The program expanded this year to include North Island College, where they've established wrestling as the very first athletic program. Alberni wrestlers have won numerous regional and provincial honours as well as close to 50 national titles.

I am excited to announce that this strong program may have two alumni competing at the Olympic Games in Beijing, China, in 2008. Alumni Travis Cross, now a firefighter — or fire wrestler maybe — in Port Alberni is the reigning national champion at 84 kilograms and is, as I speak today, at the senior national wrestling championships in Calgary.

Alumni Ashley Mcmanus is finishing her degree and wrestling at Simon Fraser University and is another Olympic hopeful.

There is another amazing story about this proud program. Living in Port Alberni, Travis was separated from the national training centre. Local governments, businesses, organizations and individuals have contributed in many ways to help Travis. The club has attracted a world-class training partner.

Ivan Diaconu was a ten-time Moldovan national champion and was sixth at the Olympic Games in Sydney in 2000. Ivan is now the new coach at North Island College and is involved in the Island regional wrestling program.

Ivan and his wife and young daughter are now seeking to stay in our great province and are applying to the provincial nominee program for support as permanent residents in Canada. I am very honoured to support their application.

The Alberni wrestling program has never looked brighter, hon. Speaker. We will continue to be very proud of them, and they will continue to make us so.

DOVER BAY DOLPHINS

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS

R. Cantelon: The Agrodome was the scene during spring break for British Columbia's version of March Madness as the 16 best high school boys basketball teams played off in a knockout tournament for the privilege and honour of being known as B.C. champions.

The Minister for ActNow B.C. was in attendance. For him, it was a dream tournament full of action and excitement, designed to inspire young fans to take up sports and pursue an active lifestyle. For the fans, it was exhilarating as their team went down the floor to score and then anguishing as they fell back to defend against the opposing team.

But there could only be one champion, and the final pitted the Kitsilano Blue Demons against the Dover Bay Dolphins from Nanaimo. It was an epic struggle. The Dolphins were ahead 7 to 0 at the half, but the

[ Page 6621 ]

Demons stormed back with a 10-0 run to take the lead in the fourth quarter.

It all came down to the last eight seconds, with Kitsilano leading by one point, 57-56. The Dolphins got the ball into their big power forward, Pat McCarthy, under the basket. Kitsilano had to foul him to prevent him from shooting and put him on the line. He missed just a few minutes before, but not this time. He coolly drained both baskets to give Nanaimo the win and its first championship. Pat McCarthy was named MVP of the tournament, and guard Clint Germyn was made defensive player of the tournament.

They'd be the first to tell you it was a team effort and want the rest of their team to be recognized. They are Torrey Gillies, Damon Gilmour, Alex Mayser, Clint Germyn, Sean Corcoran, Greg Gillies, Joe Salazar, Sheldon Brunt, Iain Little, Gareth Saunders, Pat McCarthy, Nash Khushrushai, Colton Clouthier and Kasey Hepner, and they were coached very ably by Mark Simpson. Let's congratulate them and all the great athletes who participated in this tournament.

KATE FORSTER

R. Fleming: I'd like to take the opportunity this afternoon to congratulate an outstanding constituent of mine, Ms. Kate Forster, who is the recipient of the volunteer representative award at the first annual Burnside-Gorge volunteer appreciation ceremony held this past month.

Kate Forster is a longtime resident of the Burnside-Gorge area. She's been active on the community association for many, many years — too many years for me to recall. I personally know she's been a tremendous volunteer asset to the strength of that organization. She's a former president of the community association as well as a former vice-president.

[1400]

During her time at Burnside, she has spearheaded a number of important projects, including one that is near and dear to my heart, the Cecilia Creek cleanup, which is a significant waterway in the Victoria Inner Harbour, which went from a time of heavy contamination to again being a fish-bearing stream. That was at the behest of Kate taking the lead in our community.

She also helped found a monthly broadsheet that comes out regularly, the Burnside Gorge Community News , and the first community mural along the Galloping Goose trail, which is a significant cycling and pedestrian transportation corridor in our community. She does all of this while continuing to sit on the neighbourhood land use committee.

The award that she received this past month is a significant recognition of Kate's dedication and her commitment to her community over a number of years. Her hard work and achievement has been identified by her peers. I would like to add my voice to offer congratulations and recognize her achievements in the House today.

VICTIM SERVICES

D. MacKay: The province of B.C. is pleased to join the federal government in proclaiming April 22 to 28, 2007, as the second annual Victims of Crime Awareness Week. Municipalities are encouraged to proclaim the week locally. The theme of the week, "It's time to listen," presents opportunities to promote awareness around the victims of crimes' needs.

In this province we support more than 150 individual programs in communities across B.C. for victims of crime, plus additional services, so that they can get the help where and when they need it. These programs provide emotional support, information, referrals and practical assistance to people affected by crime.

In 2005-06 victim services programs provided assistance to 66,000 people in B.C. Victim services workers and volunteers dedicated around 59,000 hours of service to British Columbians, and we want to thank them for their invaluable contributions.

I also note that the victim services division in the Ministry of Solicitor General has provided services and benefits, including counselling, to 250 family members of the missing women's case since the police investigation began more than five years ago.

We have a provincewide toll-free phone number called VictimLINK, where callers can remain anonymous, if they like, but they can get help in a crisis or be referred to another resource in their area as needed.

During Victims of Crime Awareness Week we are providing our 150 victim services programs with practical tools and information to help them promote the week and the message, "It's time to listen," in their communities. We know numerous events and campaign activities are being organized by local victim service providers.

This government is committed to ensuring that people living with the aftermath of violence and crime know that help is there when they need it.

MAPLE RIDGE SECONDARY SCHOOL

GIRLS BASKETBALL TEAM

M. Sather: Felicia Wijenberg, Kelly Cook, Alana Pilling and the Maple Ridge Secondary senior girls basketball team have a lot to be proud of. On March 17 the Ramblers won the provincial girls basketball title. Their coach, Don Herman, said that all the girls put their team first and that teamwork and knowing their role in the framework of the team was the key factor in the Ramblers' success.

Coach Herman said their game plan for each game was to be the hardest-working team on the court. Though there were many ups and downs along the way, the team pressed forward and on to victory.

Alana Pilling was especially inspirational to her teammates. As the team's best player going into the season, Alana started getting arthritic-type symptoms in her joints and could not play this season. Even though she could not take part physically, Alana attended every practice and game, including the 6:45 a.m. conditioning sessions before class. Alana is a true leader and supporter for her team.

The Ramblers played exceptional defence throughout the tournament, holding opponents to an average

[ Page 6622 ]

of 46 points per game. Kelly Cook won the Defensive Player of the Tournament award. Coach Herman said all the teams they played at the provincials were more experienced, had bigger and stronger players, but our girls worked so hard together that they overcame the strengths of their opponents.

With such fortitude and grit, the Maple Ridge Secondary senior girls basketball team fought for their title, and we congratulate them, along with Coach Herman, on their well-deserved victory.

[1405]

Oral Questions

RAW LOG EXPORTS

C. Trevena: TimberWest will be shutting down the Elk Falls mill in Campbell River for at least two weeks because there are not enough logs. Elk Falls mill provides 250 well-paying jobs for people in Campbell River, and next week at least 190 families won't be receiving a paycheque. A memo from TimberWest reads: "The coastal forest industry has been faced with a persistent tight log supply through the latter part of 2006 and continuing into 2007. Most coastal lumber mills have either had to reduce shifting or curtail operations."

A persistent tight log supply. We are seeing truckload after truckload after truckload of logs heading off the Island. I would like the Minister of Forests and Range to explain why, with mills shutting down, he's allowing log exports to increase from our public lands.

Hon. R. Coleman: In fact, log exports are down 700,000 cubic metres in the first quarter of 2007.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: It's not just myself who's talking about log exports and the problems on the coast. We have TimberWest saying this. They're talking about a persistent tight log supply. We have the Truck Loggers Association saying that there are problems on the coast. We have the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers saying this. We have people throughout the industry saying there are problems on the coast. Let me quote again from the memo from TimberWest: "We have exhausted all avenues to stay running."

The minister doesn't seem to understand the severity of the situation. He is approving log exports when the log supply for mills in my community is at an all-time low. The effects are being felt throughout the community in Campbell River. There are 190 families who are not going to be able to get work. There used to be a time when forest ministers of all political stripes….

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose her question.

C. Trevena: I will get to my question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Trevena: I was just getting to my question. I would like to ask this Minister of Forests and Range why, unlike other ministers in the past of all political stripes, this minister does not care about our coastal communities.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased that the member opposite is actually waking up to the fact that the Pearse report told us in 2001 — and what we've been trying to deal with for the last two years — is that there are problems on the coast in the forests of British Columbia. That's a fact, hon. Member. We know that. So what did we do?

A year ago we started the forests coast recovery plan with the people from the truck loggers, the communities, the companies and the unions, as we came to work through a strategy for the coast. In addition to that, we went out and actually had somebody do a report on log exports — something that government never had a policy on either.

But the reality is that somebody is going to have to deal with log exports as a result of that report. The work is being done now. The report will actually go forward to our group fairly soon in the processes that we have to do. I told the member this before.

The coast recovery plan will be coming forward. The log export plan will be coming forward, and the people on the coast will have a future in forestry in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

FORESTS MINISTER'S ROLE IN

VANCOUVER ISLAND FORESTRY ISSUES

S. Fraser: Well, it's a selective view of history. What this government is known for is releasing 100,000 hectares of land out of the TFLs into the private sector, which has exacerbated the whole problem, against their own ministry advice. That's the problem with this government. They haven't been listening. This minister hasn't been listening — not to the value-added sector, certainly not listening to coastal communities.

[1410]

It's about a year ago that this minister committed to visiting my community, Port Alberni. I'm telling you one thing, hon. Speaker: flying over at 2,000 feet doesn't constitute meaningful consultation. Fly-by consultation will not put food on the plates of people in my constituency.

One of the only oversight responsibilities of this minister is under the new forest laws, and it's to intervene when there is a corporate monopoly. Why did this minister not listen and not intervene when he should have, to prevent a corporate monopoly on Vancouver Island before it was too late?

Interjections.

[ Page 6623 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually landed in Port Alberni, for the member's information. I sat down in a round-table discussion with my staff, and I spoke to local media.

Frankly, hon. Member, I love it when you say revisionist history, when you fail to tell the House that on three separate occasions members representative of SOVA and other organizations in your community have come here to this precinct and sat down with me for extensive meetings.

I've met their concerns. I funded a study for that group of people in the Alberni Valley. I funded a study with regards to log exports, which they asked for. You guys all pooh-pooh, but the fact of the matter is they asked for it from your community. We did it, and now we're going to act on it.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The only reason those meetings that he's referring to happened was because we forced it in this House in question period, and groups like…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: …SOVA — that's Save Our Valley Alliance in Port Alberni — forced it by protests in their communities. A protest is happening right now, so the minister's take doesn't seem to be reflected in communities.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the coast doesn't have a Minister of Forests. It has a high-paid insider in the Premier's office. If the minister won't take responsibility for forest crises on Vancouver Island, do the people of Port Alberni contact Ken Dobell?

Hon. R. Coleman: I notice the member wasn't available for a number of the meetings. I actually met with people from Port Alberni. I don't know where his commitment is to the file.

In addition to that, it's this. The fact of the matter is that the industry, when I became minister, said they wanted to deal with concerns on the coast of British Columbia. We sat down at the truck loggers convention a year and a bit ago with all the participants in the forest sector, and they asked for a coast recovery group to be put together to do the work. They asked that it be funded, which it was, and for studies and information to be brought together to look at the long-term health and the future of the coast of British Columbia.

They have completed their work. Those recommendations are now here. We will shortly be releasing the coast recovery plan for the forest sector on Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF

FLATHEAD VALLEY

S. Simpson: The Flathead Valley in the East Kootenays is a critical environmental area in our province and has been designated for its world heritage value. There are great concerns surrounding the future of the valley and the Flathead River regarding water quality, habitat and species at risk, including the fishery. These concerns are raised by many in the Kootenays.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: I know the member for East Kootenay has a lot more time on his hands these days, so I guess he could do that.

The concerns are raised by many in the Kootenays as well as Alberta officials and Montana's Governor, whose state shares the valley and the river and has protected it on their side of the border. This concern is driven by the government's support for the Cline Mining Corp.'s application for an open-pit coalmine.

[1415]

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Why has the minister ignored the wishes of the people of the Kootenays, as well as the Montana Governor, and refused to declare the Flathead Valley a protected area?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm surprised to once again hear that the opposition has so little regard for an environmental assessment process. They seem to be willing to rush through a completion of that review before it's even really started.

They had that record in the 1990s. When it came to a proposed natural gas–fired plant on Vancouver Island, what did the NDP government do? They exempted it from an environmental assessment review. They exempted it from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

We believe in proper process, and that member should also respect due process.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The environmental assessment process is a key part of the problem with this application. It's this minister and this government that have eroded the environmental assessment process since 2001. They've been undermining it since 2001, and that's the problem.

This concern about the erosion of the environmental assessment process has been raised by British Columbians across this province for the last five or six years. Now it's being raised by the Governor of Montana in a March 16 letter to the federal Environment Minister and the federal Foreign Affairs Minister.

Among other things, the Governor's concern is that the terms of reference do not extend beyond the footprint of the mine and the haul road and do nothing — absolutely nothing — to look at the impacts of the mine downriver and into the Flathead basin. Nor do they provide sufficient detail regarding the cumulative impacts, including impacts of the mine on internationally significant wildlife populations.

[ Page 6624 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

S. Simpson: The Governor's concerns are legitimate. So my question to the Minister of Environment: if he isn't willing to do the right thing, to do what British Columbians want and protect the Flathead Valley, will he at least, at a minimum, ensure that the scope of this environmental assessment is complete enough to result in a credible final analysis and not a sham?

Hon. B. Penner: I would like to thank the member from Montana for that second question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. B. Penner: Any day of the week, I will gladly put our environmental record up against Montana's environmental record. That member seems to be endorsing the policies of the state of Montana, where they literally have thousands of coalbed methane wells. They have coal-fired generation.

The NDP is opposed to clean energy in British Columbia. Their Energy critic the other day said: "Why are we so interested in becoming energy self-sufficient?" They seem to support continued imports of coal-fired electricity from Montana.

What state is that party representing? What jurisdiction? Do they want to represent British Columbia, or are they here to constantly advocate for the state of Montana?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

R. Chouhan: Families of the three farmworkers killed in the tragic accident on March 7 met with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture on March 15.

Also, the same day during the question period, a question was asked of the Minister of Labour but answered by the Minister of Agriculture in the presence of those family members in the gallery. He said, "I will be meeting with my colleagues over the next number of days to respond effectively and quickly" to deal with this.

[1420]

The families gave the government a two-week deadline. That deadline is today. My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will she advise what effective steps have been taken to address the concerns raised by the families?

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, we do take the issue that was raised by the farmworkers very seriously, and we have already instituted a number of steps. As the members opposite know, the farm vehicle inspections started very quickly. We actually have a letter here from Charan Gill saying: "I am pleased to note your government has taken quick action and has started to enforce the rules and regulations."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Charan Gill had also asked to implement all aspects of the Employment Standards Act to cover farmworkers, which the minister has denied so far.

On March 15 the families presented some very explicit recommendations. They want to see the recommendations from the 2003 coroner's report into Mohinder Sunar's death fully implemented. The government's own inspections over the last two weeks show how widespread the problem with farmworker transportation has become.

Will the Minister of Labour confirm today that this government will commit to the 2003 recommendations and support the opposition private member's bill that will achieve that goal?

Hon. O. Ilich: We did meet two weeks ago with the B.C. Federation of Labour and representatives of the families and the farmworkers union. We didn't have to take their recommendations to act quickly. In fact, we started acting beforehand. We have already started on 15 of the 19 recommendations that relate specifically to our ministry, and we are continuing to work with other ministries to make sure that workers are safe in British Columbia.

C. Puchmayr: Well, this government has quite a habit of deregulating and then putting some temporary measures back in place when the heat is on.

We're talking about a 2003 coroner's inquest of a farmworker's death that this government did not react to. We have now had a horrific accident on Highway 1 earlier this month, where three women farmworkers were killed.

What we're saying to the government is: what are you going to do to immediately implement the 2003 recommendations and work quickly on an inquest so that we can deal with the issue of the farmworker fatalities that happened earlier this month?

Hon. O. Ilich: As I've said already, we are working quickly to implement many of those recommendations that we received two weeks ago.

Recommendation 8 is that the committee must work closely with the Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association to expand education. We have

[ Page 6625 ]

asked WorkSafe to work closely with that organization already, and it will provide 100 percent of the funding. So we are continuing the work on those things.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST WORKER SAFETY

C. Puchmayr: Just imagine that. In two years prior there were two written orders and one fine — over two years on farms. That just really makes the point I'm trying to make here.

My supplementary to the Labour Minister. It's now been almost six months since the inquest on the Ted Gramlich fatality, and it's also been a year and a half since Ted Gramlich died in the forest. The forestry coroner made 23 recommendations, and those recommendations include putting back regulatory changes that this government recklessly took away.

[1425]

I want to ask the Labour Minister what she will do to ensure that those regulations are put back so that forest workers and all workers in British Columbia can work safely.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue, just to remind members not to call out personal names.

Hon. O. Ilich: All of the recommendations of the Ted Gramlich inquiry are under active review, and many of them have already been acted upon. Safety, as we know, is everybody's responsibility — workers, the union, management — and we're working very hard to make sure. Fatalities, as the member knows, are down, and so are injuries in the forest sector. We're working very hard on that.

XYOLHEMEYLH CHILD

PROTECTION SERVICES

M. Karagianis: Earlier this week I met with the Stó:lô Tribal Council regarding the urgent issues in their community over the services for children and families. The Stó:lô Tribal Council, after many months of pleading with this government, has given notice that they no longer recognize the authority of the existing Xyolhemeylh service agency. There is an indication that potential RCMP involvement may occur, and there's certainly a high degree of anxiety in that community with regard to child protection.

I know the minister is aware of this, and I know that he also met with the tribal council. My concern is for the children and families in that community. My question to the minister is: can the minister tell us today what steps he is taking to solve the problems and when?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member raises obviously a very serious issue. The Ministry of Children and Family Development has been working with the Stó:lô Tribal Council, with the Stó:lô Nation Society, with other aboriginal groups and other first nations in the Fraser Valley over the course of the last number of months to try and come to some resolution around governance of the Xyolhemeylh delegated agency.

I can assure this House and the member that MCFD's number-one priority and my number-one priority is to ensure that services remain available to the children and families that are served by Xyolhemeylh, and that the number one-priority is always ensuring that child protection services are available to all British Columbia children.

EMERGENCY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

FOR INCOME ASSISTANCE

J. Brar: Can the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance tell this House what the government policy is for conducting emergency needs assessment and who qualifies for it?

Hon. C. Richmond: Emergency needs are something that we do take very, very seriously. We have just conducted a lengthy review with all of our staff on emergency procedures. The policy is that when anyone comes into any one of our offices in a state of emergency, they are dealt with as quickly as possible — usually within the same day but certainly within 24 hours. If the need is a shelter for the night, they are dealt with immediately.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Despite this policy, advocates from across the province are telling the opposition that every day there are hundreds of people being denied emergency access by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and that people are even made to wait for one week or more than one week just to get an appointment. A recent example is that a diabetic man from downtown east in need of emergency assistance was left homeless, without food and without shelter, just a few weeks ago.

So I would like to ask: can the minister explain why the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre had to file a court case against this government for denying assistance to this diabetic man?

Hon. C. Richmond: I know of the case that the member speaks of, and really, my hands are tied about talking about a particular case. As usual, there is more to this case than meets the eye and that the member is telling this House.

[1430]

But if he has instances of people not receiving emergency treatment in a very expeditious manner, then I would ask him to give me those names, because we will deal with them.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Richmond: If you have names, you give me the names, Mr. Member, and they will be dealt with immediately.

[ Page 6626 ]

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members: through the Speaker, please.

VISITOR ACCESS AT DENI HOUSE

C. Wyse: On Tuesday of this week the community administrator of the Interior Health Authority assured me that families would have ready access to their parents living in Deni House. Later that day my office received complaints of the guards continuing to impede access for family members to visit their parents. I personally have spoken with Bob Kopp, Jake Thomas, Nola Keenan and Monique Goward on issues involving their parents.

Yesterday the minister refused to give assurances that Interior Health Authority would live up to their commitment to allow ready access for family members to their parents.

Today, will the minister give families and friends the assurance that they will have ready access to persons living in Deni House?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know we've had some discussions on this earlier this week. One of the things that I noted in my comments yesterday was the apprehension by the Interior Health Authority that they were dealing with a serious outbreak of influenza in Deni House. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control has conducted their tests and confirmed that in fact is the case. This poses even more difficulties in terms of the transfer of the residents of Deni House to the Williams Lake retirement village.

Again, I can assure this House that I've been in continuous contact with Interior Health. Interior Health is attempting to undertake what can be a difficult transition for people in their lives from one facility to another, but they are undertaking that transfer with all of the sensitivity and all of the sympathy one would expect and hope from an organization.

They are doing their very best at trying to cope with a difficult situation, and I hope the member can appreciate that that is precisely what they're trying to do.

EAST KOOTENAY REGIONAL DISTRICT

BYLAW APPROVAL BY

COMMUNITY SERVICES MINISTER

N. Macdonald: The regional district of East Kootenay sent two bylaws to be signed by the Minister of Community Services in October of last year. One was an official community plan, which in its preparation included an extensive public process. The minister's staff told the regional district staff that the bylaws were on this minister's desk for her to sign by January 5, but she refuses to this date to sign them.

The minister has left these bylaws sitting on her desk for three months because she knows that if she does not sign these bylaws, in fact, by today she will get a result on a property near Kimberley that the MLA for East Kootenay might want, but no one else in the area does.

Will the minister explain to this House how she feels she has the right to subvert a local government process that she actually has ministerial responsibility to safeguard?

Hon. I. Chong: I would caution the member to be very careful about his comments. If he wants to make allegations, he should be prepared to make them in the hallways as well.

Every item that has come before me to be signed has been signed save for those two binders that I received this week, because I've been in the House dealing with legislation. I do not, contrary to what he has alleged, have any documents sitting on my desk waiting to be signed after three months.

What I can tell him is that when bylaws come before us, there is an obligation to ensure that all provincial agencies, all interested parties and all issues related to any potential changes are reviewed and reviewed thoroughly. I do understand that those particular bylaws that he is referring to do have some challenges, do have some issues. My staff have been working diligently to ensure that the process is fair and reasonable. They have been in contact with the regional district as well.

[1435]

I can also tell the member that in the past, under that administration, they had to have every single bylaw reviewed. We have streamlined the process to expedite those. That member should get his facts straight.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The minister's contention is not supported by what has transpired, nor is it supported by a series of e-mails originating from the MLA for East Kootenay. In fact, she is directly contradicted by those e-mails. I would like to thank the member for his continuous stream of e-mails. They're useful.

In fact, there has been considerable behind-the-scene activity. The minister is fully aware that she is participating in undermining the regional district of East Kootenay. It's deeply disillusioning not only for me and for members of my community, but for the citizens that normally — and would have in the past — support this government.

She will have received an e-mail from Bob Johnstone, who lives in the affected area. It reads:

"As a citizen, a member of the B.C. Liberal Party and campaign manager for Wendy McMahon during the 2005 election, I am appalled at the disregard this government has shown for local residents. It seems the wishes of rural people are of no concern to this government. I will be informing the Premier and the president of the B.C. Liberal Party that I am terminating my membership in the B.C. Liberal Party."

You can hear the justified disgust in that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

N. Macdonald: Ordinary people of all political stripes know what is right or wrong. They expect their

[ Page 6627 ]

government to know what is right and wrong. This minister can still do the right thing. My question is: will she sign those bylaws and do the right thing?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. I. Chong: If that member suggests that the right thing is to be done, then the right thing means to allow professional staff to do their work.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

S. Fraser: I submit another stack of petitions in support of the safe antifreeze bill.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 10, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it's continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND SCHOOLS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Dix: Just for the minister's and staff's information, most of the questions we're going to ask are going to be on

section 3, with a little bit on

section 13. Then for the rest we'll move through quickly.

First of all, with respect to this section, it's an important debate. It's one that I know the minister himself has been having. I'm talking about the issue around banning sales of tobacco in pharmacies. I'm talking about

section 2.1, which bans it from public buildings. I think it's an important debate, and I just want to give the minister an opportunity to explain why he chose not to include a ban on sales in pharmacies in the legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the opposition Health critic for his question. In terms of the issue of whether tobacco should be sold in pharmacies, it's an important question, I guess, in a couple of different ways, and one that I've certainly given a good deal of thought to over the past several months.

Tobacco remains a legal product. Hopefully someday in our world it will not be, or we'll go to some different form of sale or distribution of tobacco, but it is a legal product today.

It is an interesting question of whether government ought to undertake to have only certain categories of retailers selling tobacco. I thought about this also, bearing in mind that there are some important provisions in this bill with respect to how tobacco will be advertised or not advertised, displayed or not displayed. There are very new restrictions in respect of both of those things in this bill.

[1445]

With those provisions put in place, I do not find a logical, rational reason why one would say that pharmacies…. Of course, pharmacies now sell a very broad range of products; at least, a typical pharmacy will. I do not have a logical reason why one would say that the category of retailers that we call pharmacists should be excluded from the opportunity to sell tobacco products.

Indeed, some would argue…. There would be some pharmacists among that number who would say that now the display of tobacco products is eliminated and now that the advertising within the context of the store is eliminated, in fact perhaps the best place one might sell tobacco products is in pharmacies. They can educate their salespeople with respect to the dangers of smoking and make available information from the pharmacy association or other sources alerting customers to the dangers of tobacco.

I do not — and I have given it a good deal of thought — believe that it would be a valuable public policy for us to extend this to the point of saying that the category of retailers we call pharmacists are undeserving of selling this product and that every corner store across the province is. I do not see the reasoned basis for that public policy.

I should also note to the member that this has been an issue of debate among some in the pharmaceutical world for some time. It has been the position of the College of Pharmacists, I believe, that they would like to see restrictions around or the elimination of the sale of tobacco in pharmacies. They have argued the position that that was inconsistent with what their members did. The B.C. pharmacists association, however, has taken a different view. They've taken the view, as I articulated, that in fact pharmacists are experts in this area and they can provide excellent advice to British Columbians about the dangers of tobacco use.

I should note that among the submissions I have received since the introduction of this bill is one from the College of Pharmacists, and I think it's important that I read it into the record. Again, as I noted to the member, the view of the College of Pharmacists historically has been that there should not be sale in pharmacies. I do want to note that this letter says:

"As you know, the College of Pharmacists in British Columbia is mandated by government to protect the public interest in the practice of pharmacy. Therefore, we

[ Page 6628 ]

have long struggled with the inconsistency of tobacco being advertised and displayed in the same venue where patients are being counselled by pharmacists on how to quit smoking.

"We've had the pleasure of working with you, your ministry staff and your caucus colleagues on how best to protect the public in this matter, particularly those members of the public struggling with tobacco addiction. We were therefore pleased to see the introduction on March 6, 2007, of Bill 10.

"Having to pass large display walls of tobacco on the way to consult the pharmacist on how to quit smoking is challenging not only for patients, but also for the profession of pharmacy and the overall health of British Columbians. From our perspective, Bill 10 and attendant regulations will remove the visual temptation of tobacco from pharmacies and provide a measure of comfort to pharmacists that the counselling services they provide to patients aren't being immediately undermined.

"The College of Pharmacists of B.C. offers its congratulations on the introduction of this Bill 10 and offers to provide input as supporting regulations are drafted. We believe this is a great first step towards the creation of tobacco-free pharmacies."

That is from Marshall Moleschi, who is the registrar of the College of Pharmacists.

Again, this has been a debate in the pharma community between the association and the college, but I think that as the letter from the college notes, much of their concern around this issue is resolved by the fact that there will no longer be open displays of tobacco and there will not be promotional materials for the sale of tobacco in pharmacies.

[1450]

All of that, pursuant to this bill, will be a thing of the past.

Pardon me, Madam Chair. May I introduce, on my immediate left, Shelley Canitz. I hope I have got her name correct. Next on my left is Nancy Letkeman, and behind is Assistant Deputy Minister Andy Hazlewood. All of them work, and work vigorously, in this area of tobacco management and enforcement.

A. Dix: The minister will know this too because he consults with pharmacists regularly, as do I. There is actually a debate in the pharmacist community that goes beyond the organizations. Certainly, many pharmacists argue — I think they rightly argue — that there should not be tobacco sales in pharmacies.

In fact, there are many products where there are restrictions on who can sell in Canada, both under Canadian and British Columbian law. So this is not, as the minister suggests, an unusual measure. Other provinces — Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland — have taken it. I think that it's a logical next step.

I think that the minister will agree with that, probably as a result of some of the meetings he's had this week with pharmacists. All of us are hoping to broaden the role of pharmacists in our public health care system. It is simply inconsistent with the idea of a pharmacy as a health centre — albeit one run by London Drugs or Shoppers Drug Mart, very much involved on a range of issues with the government on terms of health — to sell tobacco, given what the minister has said, what this bill represents and everything else. So that's the debate.

I think it's inconsistent, and I think that people know. Many people buy cigarettes in pharmacies. I think that it's inconsistent with their main purpose. I think that many pharmacists believe that it's inconsistent with their main purpose. So I guess my question to the minister is…. I recognize, and we could have a debate and move amendments and so on…. We've continued to work on this proposal. He knows that the member for Saanich South has taken a leadership role in bringing this proposal forward in terms of a private member's bill.

We are not going to have an extended debate on this, but I think it's clear and that it makes sense to say that if, in fact, a pharmacy is going to be…. The minister says that it's true that many of our pharmacies now are much broader than that. There are pharmacies at our local Safeway and so on. They sell a wide range of products. That's true. But it's actually an argument — I would say an equal argument — that they are not dependent and they ought not to be dependent on the sales of tobacco. The sale of tobacco should not take place in those establishments.

You have to choose. It's reasonable to ask people to choose between the health care role of a pharmacist and the role of a person selling tobacco — which, as the minister says, is a legal product. So that's what I'm suggesting to the minister. I just wanted to ask him to comment on that — whether that is a legitimate question to ask people to choose between in a society that has made, I think, strong decisions, including the provisions of this bill, which I support.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the arguments that the member has put forward. I understand those arguments. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I respect those arguments.

I guess the first thing to note is that no pharmacist and no pharmacy operation is under any obligation to sell cigarettes or tobacco products. They can decline to offer that line of product if they wish to. That is completely their prerogative. Certainly, there are pharmacies in this province that do not sell tobacco products. Good on them, if that's the decision that has been reached.

Among the B.C. pharmacists association in…. I think this is one of the things that they vigorously debate on an annual basis when they get together as pharmacists — whether they ought to have a ban on sale of tobacco or not. Invariably those resolutions have lost at the association level. Again, I'm not saying which side was right and which side was wrong, but they have lost. The majority of pharmacists wish to continue to have the opportunity to sell, if they wish, tobacco within their retail operations.

[1455]

Earlier, I went through the debate that I conducted in my own mind and with others about this. Again, I think that in many respects I am more comfortable — particularly with the ban on display of tobacco prod-

[ Page 6629 ]

ucts, with the ban on promotion and advertising of tobacco products — having a retail operation that is managed by health professionals selling that product than I am with the other retailers selling it.

I'll relay to the member a discussion I had with one pharmacist, a pharmacist businessman in this area. His submission to me was…. I found it an interesting one. He said: "What you've done here is the right thing. It gets the tobacco products undercover, behind other surfaces, takes them out of the public view, and gets rid of the power walls. All of that is exactly the right thing to do."

He said also that he was appreciative of his pharmaceutical operation continuing to have the opportunity, should they wish, to sell tobacco products. He said to me: "Now having that continued opportunity, now having that banning of power walls and the banning of promotion," what they were going to do, or what he was going to do as a retailer, was put in place even more vigorous tobacco-cessation measures and more tobacco-cessation advice.

When people were to come to his business to go and buy cigarettes they would, at the same time they were purchasing tobacco, be seeing all manner of very good advice from the pharmacist about the dangers of smoking — inviting the customer, if they had questions about the dangers of tobacco, to submit them to someone who is actually able to give them good advice on what very real health dangers tobacco might pose.

I am not in any way dismissing the force of the member's argument. I think I understand it. This was the challenge to me: why would I take one class of retailers, or why would the government…? It's not me. Why would the government take one class…? It's actually the Legislature. Why would we take one class of retailers and say, "No, you can't sell this product for some reason," and say to the rest of them: "Yes, you can continue"?

I think that there are different things that we could do if we really wanted to underline the concern about this. We could say that the product will only be sold in certain liquor stores — government liquor stores; we could do that — or liquor stores generally.

We could probably with even more force, logic and reason say: "This product is dangerous and we're going to ban it." I expect that some day this Legislative Assembly — maybe in 2030, 2050 or God knows when — will have a bill that will ban this product. I hope that we're all still alive to be able to salute that moment.

A. Dix: We're certainly more likely to be alive if we don't take up smoking.

I guess the point I'd make…. The minister said, "Good on those pharmacies that don't sell tobacco," but the business reality is that the people that he's applauding are in some respects at a commercial disadvantage when they make that decision. That's the reality of the business world they live in.

In fact, a decision to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies…. As the decisions that I think are taken to ban them from…. Sometimes the private businesses that are within public institutions, which are part of the bill….

I think that a decision to ban tobacco sales in pharmacies would in fact level the playing field between those who have taken that decision…. I think it's the right decision, which is that you go up in your pharmacy and ask whether you can buy cigarettes there, and the pharmacist or the people running the pharmacy say: "No, you can't buy cigarettes here because we don't think that we should be selling cigarettes."

I think that's the right response. That's the right discouragement. That's as strong a message as you can possibly send.

[1500]

I hope that we'll continue to have this debate. I appreciate the minister, perhaps, keeping an open mind as we continue to go forward on this. I know it's an issue that we'll continue to raise again.

I want to ask the minister a question almost out of curiosity, because

section 2.1(1) talks about a person not selling tobacco in certain public buildings. Can he tell us — and presumably, from his notes he can: what is the extent of those sales? How many institutions? How many agencies actually sell in those institutions that they're going to ban? And has there been some estimate of the financial impact of that? Just to have a sense of the extent of the action we're taking today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question.

The information we have would suggest that in terms of 2.1(1)(a) — that is, buildings or structures such as hospitals, other health care services — we understand that only Fraser Health at this point has done a formal, outright ban of tobacco sales in their hospitals and health care facilities. There may be some in other health authorities. It won't be extensive, likely, but there will be some.

We anticipate that there are extensive sales of tobacco products at public universities and public post-secondary education institutions. That's very commonplace. I was pleased to hear that some of the student societies…. I may not be recalling correctly, but I think I recall the University of Victoria and the University of British Columbia student societies resolving that they would move away from tobacco sales quickly and, in fact, in advance of when the regulation will bring that about. I'm delighted by that, but that's apt to be a bigger change than around hospitals and health care facilities.

Athletic or recreational buildings — I suspect that we would see tobacco sales in many of those. Again, we don't have a good handle with respect to how many, but undoubtedly there will be a significant number of facilities that will be affected by this ban.

A. Dix: Just a question with respect to the provisions of

section 2.2: "No smoking or other tobacco use in schools." One of the issues — certainly in my community and, I think it's fair to say, in lots of communities — is around tobacco use in schools, and I want the minister to comment on this. I think one of the things we've got to help….

I know that the provisions of the legislation aren't permissive. They put an obligation on the superintendent, on the school boards to implement and enforce

[ Page 6630 ]

these provisions. I agree with that, and I support that. Frequently in schools one of the practical challenges of principals who actively and vigorously enforce tobacco bans on students — which have always been in place, in effect — is the tendency to displace issues into neighbourhoods.

I'm wondering if the minister or the ministry has thought about this, thought of ways to assist schools and school communities to deal with this side of the problem, which has the potential of going however far you extend the ban in the neighbourhood — school property and maybe slightly beyond — and to help neighbourhoods deal with what could be a problem of displacement into neighbourhoods and into communities.

[1505]

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. I think it's a fair point that's being made around displacement, because that does happen. I know in at least some of the schools — not the elementary schools, happily, but the senior secondary schools typically — one might see in some area on the school grounds away from the school what's referred to as a smoking pit, which is typically a squared-off area with little concrete bumpers around it, and students are advised that's where they are able to smoke. Of course, with the implementation of this legislation that will no longer be permitted.

They're going to have to go somewhere else. That may have some implications in terms of them going on to some other place to smoke. First of all, some school boards and some schools have taken the position earlier that they're not going to tolerate smoking anywhere on their property, and that's very good if they've done that.

People, obviously, have developed certain patterns and practices around smoking in places other than the school property. I suppose with or without this legislation people or students who smoke are smoking off school property already, and we may see some increase in that as a consequence of this.

I know the member agrees with this. The object of all of this inconvenience and harsh messaging to the student population is that you shouldn't smoke and that smoking is bad for your health. This is one of the ways as a society that we can send a very direct and very clear message to young people. We are not going to tolerate smoking on public property. We're not going to tolerate it on school grounds. It is wrong for you to be smoking.

Having those smoking pits…. I know in some ways people thought that was an enlightened way to deal with the issue. I guess, in the context of the time, perhaps it was. But it also sent an implicit message to students, I think, that we're going to sort of close a blind eye to this one portion of the school property and allow them to smoke there. Indirectly, it's a message that in some measure condones the activity.

As one who had a tobacco addiction for a number of years, the most important thing we can do is try to ensure that young people up to 19 years of age never take up smoking. All of the studies point very strongly to the fact that if you can keep kids from smoking until they're 19, the chances of them taking it up in their 20s are really slim.

Typically, if kids are going to succumb to peer pressure, try smoking and perhaps try smoking enough that they get addicted, they're going to do it in their teens. So we don't want to be directly, indirectly, implicitly or explicitly condoning some portion of the student population smoking on school property. That's wrong.

[1510]

There will be, I'm sure, some unintended consequences of that. That is, kids will go off and smoke in front of Mrs. Jones's house and she won't like seeing that. That's true. What we're trying to do is send the message, and I think I've said enough about that. But we also want to work as a ministry with the Ministry of Education and with school boards across the province to ensure that we have in place all of the opportunities to consult with teachers, bring in health experts to educate on the dangers of tobacco use.

We've partnered with the Ministry of Education to create a website to deal with this, bc.tobaccofacts, a tobacco prevention resource for teachers grades 4 to 12. So that's something that is valuable. It's a resource to try to persuade young people that they shouldn't take up tobacco and, if they have, why it would be such a good idea to quit quickly before they are seriously addicted to this product.

I appreciate the member's question, and it is a very good question. I think we'll all have to be cognizant of the law of unintended consequences here, but I think it's more important that we send that direct, explicit message to them that smoking is wrong. It's not going to be tolerated on school property.

A. Dix: Just quickly to the minister, on the enforcement side of this provision. The enforcement is essentially the responsibility of the superintendent and the school board. I want to know just in general with the legislation whether the minister anticipated, as a result of the legislation — and we can discuss some of this in estimates, perhaps — an increase in the amount of enforcement and the cost of enforcement by the government of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: The research in this area of public policy would suggest that there are a couple of things which will help to determine the success of this piece of public policy contained in Bill 10. That research would suggest, first of all, that education around the impact of this legislative measure — what it means to retailers, what it means to consumers, what it means to schools and hospitals and others in the province…. There will be a focused education initiative around this bill to ensure that everyone understands what it does, what its implications are. We're going to be doing that — very much focus on the education side of it.

The other side of the coin of the efficacy of this piece of public policy will be to go out with strong enforcement. The experience of other jurisdictions and our own experience earlier with other initiatives sug-

[ Page 6631 ]

gests that there will be the strongest need in the first weeks after this is implemented for that very strong presence by enforcement officers in this area to ensure that people understand the new law, how it works and how they will obtain compliance within the new law.

[1515]

We will be working with health authorities in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that the resources are in place in the form of tobacco enforcement officers and others to ensure that we have an effective implementation of this. We may also enlist the support of others like liquor inspectors from the LDB to assist us in supporting enforcement. It is in everyone's interest, I think — and I know the member agrees — that this be undertaken successfully, and we will be working tirelessly in the months ahead to ensure that it is.

A. Dix: But is it the minister's intent to ensure, either directly or indirectly, that more enforcement officers are hired to deal with the new provisions, including the new provisions around signage and other issues?

The point of a liquor inspector is well taken, but as the minister will know, the work of liquor inspectors is…. Many of them are overworked these days. It's actually quite dangerous work. So while they may be able to assist, and I think that's a good idea, I just wanted to ask the minister if it's his intention to increase the number of inspectors that are going to go out, given, I think he'd agree, the quite significantly increased scope of the legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: We can't necessarily anticipate what exactly will be undertaken by a particular health authority in respect of the number of tobacco enforcement officers that they may have on their staff short term or long term.

What we think will be the case is this: that again, given — as I noted in my earlier answer — that really those first few to several weeks are the critical period in ensuring that retailers, restaurant and bar operators, consumers and the public understand the nature and implications of the new law. The first several weeks is really the critical period.

What we anticipate will happen will be that — those people who are involved in the area of tobacco enforcement, health promotion, a range of areas that often revolve around tobacco use or the sale of tobacco and so on — there will be in those first weeks probably in many cases a reallocation from education or health promotion purposes to the enforcement side of the equation.

As we see the full compliance that we hope for achieved over several weeks, it's likely that some of those would again shift after that point back to what they might more customarily do in the way of health promotion or education or things like that. I know that is not a "We're going to increase from 16 to 24" kind of answer. It's not, and we can't give that kind of answer.

[1520]

Certainly, we will be allocating resources in a way with the health authorities to ensure that we achieve the public policy objective, which is to have the public and those who operate premises in which tobacco is used or sold fully understand the legislation and the regulations pursuant to it.

A. Dix: I just want to ask the minister about his rationale for essentially getting rid of smoking rooms in bars. Does he agree with me and I think most medical experts that working in those environments, working and serving drinks in a smoking room, is a danger to the health of workers in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

A. Dix: With respect to this provision, we're going to have a short debate about the bringing into force of the provision shortly, and I think this is one of the issues. We had a debate about the past in second reading. I don't want to go back through that, but I want to have a debate about the present and the future.

What does the minister think is required to implement the provisions that will ban smoking rooms in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: The anticipated process for the implementation of the measures contained in this bill is roughly this. A draft discussion paper will be produced and circulated this spring. It will of course be up on a website and circulated widely to all of those who sell or who operate premises in which tobacco may or may not be consumed. So that discussion paper will go out this spring.

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

We'll be welcoming comments, obviously, from the time it's released. But through the summer we will have an opportunity for anyone to comment on the draft discussion paper, and that opportunity to comment will continue until late summer. At that point we will begin to prepare our regulations, and we will have draft regulations in place and then finalized in the fall with implementation, we expect, early in 2008.

A. Dix: Specifically for a smoking room, in order to implement the provisions, what has to happen is that there has to be no smoking. Am I right to conclude that? Really, in a technical sense, if a notice was sent out, these provisions of the bill could be brought into force right away.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's suggestion that we could simply announce today or tomorrow that smoking was no longer allowed and that people would cease to do it is an interesting notion, but one that's unsustainable in the world of law.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

[1525]

We need to draft regulations to give force and effect to the legislation that will be passed on proclamation of this bill. We look forward to that, but I think it is a

[ Page 6632 ]

purpose of government to effectively implement what is contained within the legislation that is considered by this Legislature. The member's own government in the 1990s did precisely the same thing when they were contemplating changes to tobacco regulation at that time as well.

It is not an ideological thing. It is a matter of good public policy that one provides notice through the legal methods that are associated with giving notice, that discussion documents are prepared, that drafts are considered and that public comment is welcome. All of that is aimed at ensuring the public policy that is ultimately adopted by government is one that people understand and will support.

I think what is being proposed here is exactly the right thing to do. It would be wonderful if everyone stopped smoking today, but they're not going to. This is an opportunity, through this legislative mechanism and the regulations that will follow, to see a very substantive shift in the way that tobacco products are marketed and used in this province.

A. Dix: The minister is being too modest about the announcement process of this legislation. If we had had a fall sitting, the Premier could have done more than just announce that this policy change is coming into force. We could actually have passed the bill last fall and implemented it by now, with all due consideration of regulations.

The fact of the matter is, though, that there are actual provisions of this bill…. There is frequently legislation that's brought in by royal assent. I guess….

The Chair: Member, you're talking about

section 13 now, and we are on

section 3.

A. Dix: No, I was talking about the provisions of

section 2.3, which I'll bring back to the subject in a minute.

The Chair: Bring it back to the section.

A. Dix: My point is that there is nothing in

section 2.3. It's not the reverse of building a smoking room. The provisions of 2.3 say: you can't smoke in a smoking room. It's no longer a smoking room. It doesn't mean that they have to chop down the edifice. It just means that people no longer have to smoke.

The point I guess is this. There's been some delay in this process. The minister will be right to say that some of that delay happened prior to this government coming to office in the sense that the provisions weren't in place — right? The fact is that WCB was going to act on this. The government intervened and stopped them from acting on this. These smoking rooms were built. We all agree — the minister agreed a few moments ago — that it's a danger to the workers. I think that would require and suggest greater haste than announcing the proposal in October and implementing it in 2008.

What I'm saying is the specific provisions of

section 2.3 don't require, other than this discussion of notice, anything specific in terms of implementation of the law. I guess that's my question to the minister: is there anything that a bar owner, say, would have to do at a smoking room? Is there anything specifically in this provision that he would have to do — build, create — or is it simply the case that he would no longer be allowed to permit smoking in one of the places that's covered by this provision?

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor the staff members that are here with me were able to understand exactly where the member was going with that question.

Is the member saying that bar owners should be saying no smoking in their smoking rooms effective with the passage of this legislation, without having regulations to accompany it, or is he saying that we should ignore them and simply…? We don't understand the question.

A. Dix: There's nothing stopping the minister from preparing the regulations and having them brought in at royal assent, having them passed by the cabinet and brought in. It's not unprecedented, actually, to table regulations that are going to accompany legislation. The minister knows it's done from time to time.

[1530]

That's the question. Why are you waiting until 2008 when it's a danger to people? What would you expect a bar owner to do to bring the legislation into force? In fact, the legislation, if it were brought into force by royal assent even without the regulations, would imply that the bar owner would have to not allow smoking on the premises.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for clarification of his question. The question was: why could we not bring in regulations effective with the passage of this legislation to immediately undertake the change in respect of the use of what are termed smoking rooms in some bars in British Columbia?

The first thing we should note is that there are many bars in British Columbia that have taken the position that they're not going to have smoking rooms — period — and that the great outdoors is their smoking room, and their premises are 100-percent tobacco-free. That's a wonderful thing, particularly for some of us reformed smokers in the crowd who don't necessarily want to see other people smoking and be feeling like we're missing something.

For those bars that have smoking rooms, we need to provide notice to them that regulations are changing in respect of the use of those rooms. We need to acquaint them with how the regulations will work. We need to acquaint them with what the impact on their customers, their clients, will be. We need to have an opportunity to provide updated training to tobacco enforcement officers around how the regulation works and what the impact on smoking rooms will be.

I think the short answer to the member's question is that it is good public policy — that if one wants to have laws, rules, regulations that the public understand,

[ Page 6633 ]

appreciate and are compliant to, one should undertake all of the steps which I articulated earlier in respect of bringing in those new regulations. That is good public policy.

I would note that when the former government in the 1990s — on September 11, 1998 — undertook to make some changes in this area, they put an effective date of January 1, 2000, in place for implementation of the new standards. That was a period of about a year and three and a half months. Our implementation phase is a little shorter than that. It will be probably something less than a year, so we are moving along with all appropriate due haste in respect of this.

I think that our ability, frankly, to be successful in the implementation of this public policy will be greatly enhanced by taking that time to ensure that people in fact understand what's being proposed, what's being implemented, and taking the opportunity to respond.

I would also note a piece of correspondence that I received on December 19, 2006, which I hope has been shared with the opposition Health critic. It's from the member for Nelson-Creston. Yes, it is actually a letter that was written to the Premier but shared with me.

The member for Nelson-Creston among other things argues, I think fairly and effectively: "Before proceeding with the intention to reverse the decision to permit designated smoking areas, please consider the consequences such an action would have on these and other responsible hotel owners and managers throughout the province." It is signed by the member for Nelson-Creston — a previous Minister of Health, I must say.

[1535]

I invariably find the submissions of the member for Nelson-Creston impressive and persuasive — in this case, particularly so. I think it's consistent with the way in which the government undertook to make changes in this area when he was the Minister of Health for British Columbia. Perhaps it was the Opposition House Leader who was the Minister of Health at the time.

This is just good public policy. I know the member may be trying to make a point about, "Let's get right at it," and all that, but the reality here is that if we want this to be an effective piece of public policy, we need to take the appropriate time, as the member for Nelson-Creston has suggested. And we need to take the appropriate time, as good public policy implementation which has passed through a long succession of governments, would also suggest.

A. Dix: I'm delighted that the minister's now releasing letters in full. It's a wonderful thing. It's something new. Presumably, the privacy protections of FOI don't apply anymore. I'm delighted to see it. It's a new era of openness in the last week.

I think the point isn't that we should just get going. The point is that some workers who have no choices — this is their livelihood, what they're doing — have had to work under these conditions for a number of years. The longer we take with implementing this piece of legislation, the longer they will have to work in conditions that the minister and I agree are unsafe for them. I think that argues, in fact, not to get on with it for the sake of getting on with it but to get on with it for the sake of the safety of those workers. I think that's really the issue.

I wanted to ask the minister: in terms of this provision,

section 2.3, what is his present view as to when it will come into force?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me just clarify the first point. I shouldn't take exception to it because the member was actually saluting me, and it is rare that he does that in this assembly, so I should be appreciative.

But I didn't actually release the whole letter. The letter talks about a number of things which I didn't mention. I just quoted from the last paragraph of the letter. The letter is being presented here in full compliance with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provisions. The member for Nelson-Creston, as a member of this assembly, is in a different category than, often, many of the people that we serve, so it is in compliance with the law that I uttered those words.

I'm sure the NDP caucus has had many, many caucus meetings around this and are of entirely one view on the matter, so I won't belabour that point. I should also note that in terms of the content, the approach and really what we're doing here, this bill has enjoyed a remarkable degree of support among all of the advocacy organizations which relentlessly advocate in this area of clean air and tobacco cessation. The Canadian Cancer Society is strongly supportive of what we've done. The B.C. Lung Association and the Clean Air Coalition, among others, have strongly supported the legislation.

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

I know the member is saying, "I wish it could be today," and that's fine. But what we need to remember is that our understanding and the social acceptance of tobacco are changing, shifting and evolving over time.

[1540]

Fifty years ago there was little known of the dangers of tobacco. We've been learning it in more recent decades. Delightfully, the number of adult British Columbians that smoke has fallen from well over 50 percent now down to about 15 percent. So it's going in the right direction. This legislation will keep it going in the right direction.

I don't for a moment doubt that society, as expressed through this Legislature, will ban tobacco at some point in the future. We will do that. I think it's a dangerous product, and we will get there, but I don't believe society is ready for that step at this point.

If I'm wrong, the member can advise me so, but given the objectives we have here and the importance of the effective implementation of that, I disagree with the member about trying to do it within the bounds of the time frame around consideration of the bill. I think we would end up, invariably, having flawed regulations that wouldn't have strong public support if we did that.

What we will be doing is taking the time over the next few to several months — and I laid the time frame

[ Page 6634 ]

out for the member — to ensure that what we do is understood by the public, embraced by the public and observed by the public. That will take us to a point, I think, early in 2008 when we will see the implementation of these measures.

A. Dix: Just specifically, the minister said: "Early in 2008." Does the ministry have a date in mind?

Hon. G. Abbott: The draft regulations will contain an implementation date. I would like that implementation date to be January 1, 2008. That's what we'll work towards, and I hope that's what we'll achieve.

A. Dix: I want to ask briefly about the provisions contained in

section 2.4 in terms of some of these same issues around implementation. In this case, clearly, unlike the smoking room question, retailers and others will have to do some work in some cases to comply with the law. So there's an argument here, actually quite a strong argument, and they are being brought in by regulation.

I wanted to ask the minister about the process here. What will happen, and when would we be likely see the provisions of

section 2.4 brought into force? Would it be around January 1, or does the minister have another time frame?

Hon. G. Abbott: The provisions with respect to display will be a part of the draft regulation package. We would aim for the same time frame for implementation of those measures as we would for other measures.

A. Dix: Specifically with respect to these provisions, does the minister see any specific need for additional staff and other things to support these measures? Does he think the resources are in place for the other provisions of the bill, some of which may well be more challenging on an individual basis to enforce? I mean, the smoking room bans and others — there may be some challenges there that we might expect to see.

What kind of training program does the minister expect to see? Who will be trained? The minister talked about other people working in other branches of the government maybe helping to enforce the law. What process does the minister see on the training side to assist with the implementation of this provision?

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't think we anticipate that there is going to be a need to staff-up in this area particularly. Tobacco enforcement officers already attend to retail premises across the province when they're undertaking their tobacco enforcement duties. They're familiar with the current state of displays.

It's becoming increasingly well known that tobacco retailers will have to remove their product from public display. I don't think there's going to be a lot of complexity around that. The power walls will be gone. There will be no overt displays of promotional materials for tobacco sales. And again — I don't want to understate it, either — we will be working with the health authorities to ensure that whatever education and enforcement resources are needed to succeed in this will be put in place. But the experience of other jurisdictions in terms of this has been that it has been a relatively straightforward piece of managing tobacco sales.

G. Robertson: I have a few questions on

section 3, as well, specific to secondhand smoke in social housing and its apparent exclusion from this piece of legislation. Was the inclusion of social housing considered for this bill?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thanks to the member for raising this intriguing area of public policy. In terms of where people can smoke and where they can't smoke, this is complex enough that the member may have to interrogate me at length to really get to the bottom of this, so we'll look forward to that. The issue is an interesting one.

[1550]

We cannot say as a government that people cannot smoke in their homes across the province. If you happen to be the landlord, though, of an apartment building, you can say as the owner of an apartment block that there will be no smoking in that apartment block. As the owner of the property, you can make it a condition of people leasing or renting that property that there will be no smoking within the bounds of that apartment. But in terms of us saying to Mrs. Smith that she can't smoke in her own home, we are not able to do that.

As a Legislature, I guess we could ban smoking in the province generally, but in terms of saying that we can extend the arm of government into people's homes and not allow…. People can make their own decision about whether their house is going to be a smoking or a non-smoking house. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians make that decision, and that's easy. But for the government to do it is a different thing.

The issue around social housing is an interesting one for this reason. Social housing is provided in some cases by the province through B.C. Housing, in some cases through the federal government, through their housing arm, and most commonly by municipalities through their social housing projects. If one of the residents of that social housing project — whether it's federal, provincial, municipal or other — is smoking, they are not only smoking within a social housing building; they're also smoking in their own home within that building. So it gets to be a rather difficult balancing of rights and obligations within that area.

I think the member's submission is that the state, through this legislation and through whatever mechanism, can say that people are not allowed to smoke within their own homes within the bounds of social housing projects. I think it is questionable whether we could do that. I would have to defer to the minister responsible for B.C. Housing around whether it was possible for them legally to enforce a no-smoking policy within their premises as a landlord might be able to enforce it within his or her premises.

I don't know the answer to that, and I think it would be a delicate and difficult point of law about

[ Page 6635 ]

whether one might be able to do that. But this bill does not attempt to do that, nor even, I think, if it were possible would I recommend that to government.

G. Robertson: Thanks to the minister for his comments. The difference here, and he alluded to the fact, is that the province of B.C. effectively is the landlord with respect to social housing. These are publicly owned spaces, just as the schools and the public spaces that are specified in this legislation are. They are public property.

As such, we are the landlords as the public, and therefore the terms that the landlord sets around creating smoke-free spaces, one would think, should apply here, given the health risks that the minister has recognized. Of course, members of the opposition have for many years brought forward in this House aggressively….

We have a specific situation, which the minister and I have exchanged correspondence on, regarding residents of social housing in my riding. There are many in other ridings, as well, that I have since heard about who have respiratory disabilities and respiratory illnesses. They are in a predicament at this point where they have no place to go other than the social housing that they live in, but their very lives are threatened by it.

[1555]

In fact, the chief medical officer for Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Dr. John Blatherwick, stated in a letter to one of my constituents that she would be in fact safer in a public space and living outdoors than she is living in her own home. Her home is in Vancouver-Fairview, close to the hospital where she has had to be rushed on a number of occasions due to her respiratory disability.

In this case these people, these residents in social housing, of which this government is technically the landlord, have no option for a smoke-free space. We are creating the option — actually the requirement — for smoke-free space within schools, within many public spaces, but here…. Obviously those children, those teachers have no option. We require them to go to school, and therefore they have no option in terms of escaping smoke.

We are making these spaces smoke-free, but in this situation here, where there is an opportunity to specifically address the need for those who have no other option right now, who have significant health disabilities, respiratory in particular…. This government is not protecting those people with the disabilities or illnesses to be able to avoid further degradation of their health because of secondhand smoke in their buildings.

There are new-found studies out this week from the States, in fact, that over 50 percent of units in multi-unit residential buildings are impacted by secondhand smoke. There is more and more and more evidence to this fact.

Here we are with a piece of legislation in front of us and some leadership being shown around secondhand smoke and preventing it from impacting people in public spaces, but there is no leadership and no specific mention of secondhand smoke in social housing. Although there are certainly policy measures that must be taken at the level of B.C. Housing and at the level of regional housing, the leadership must come from the provincial government here. In fact, the Minister of Health, as the person responsible for protecting the health of British Columbians and the person putting forward this legislation, is in an incredibly good position to show this leadership. However, that's not happening.

I'm just curious now, given the government's preponderance to legislate for choice, as well, when these residents with respiratory disabilities do not have a choice and their lives are threatened by the secondhand smoke…. What is the minister's advice to these people, given the absence of any protection within this legislation for those people in social housing with respiratory disabilities and illnesses?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising this serious issue. I do know that there will undoubtedly be instances where people with respiratory ailments may be on the same floor or next door to or in proximity to another resident of social or public housing — or private housing, for that matter — who smokes. This is a challenging societal piece, that those who have health issues sometimes have to confront the lifestyle choices of others who are taking a different path. I'm not sure it's something that we can resolve always in a law that is generated by this Legislature.

[1600]

Let me first correct the member on this very important point. The province is not the landlord of all social housing in British Columbia. There is a lot of social housing in British Columbia that is not provincial. The federal government has social housing. I think a lot of it's being transferred to the province, but the federal government has their social housing. The city of Vancouver is one of the largest holders of social housing in the province, and they're not the only city to have very ambitious social housing projects.

We're not necessarily the landlord. There are aboriginal housing projects and the aboriginal housing authority, which doesn't take direction from the province of British Columbia. And there are numerous privately owned but publicly contracted facilities in the province that may or may not take legal direction from the province. They probably do not.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We have to be careful, first of all, around whether the path the member wants to see society take is one that will be reached by public policy or through a legislative mechanism. There is nothing I'm aware of that would stop the city of Vancouver from saying that our social housing is going to be tobacco-free. They may be able to do that. I don't know whether they can or not.

It would be, as I said in my earlier answer, an interesting legal question. I'm happy to say that I'm not a lawyer and, therefore, entirely unqualified to form conclusions about whether such a thing might be possible. Fortunately, we're joined by a lawyer, who

[ Page 6636 ]

probably would not want to give advice on this important point either. But it would be a challenging one.

Let's go back to another important point, which is that the attempt always in legislation is to balance the rights of people who are impacted by legislation. When the Premier laid out his vision around this legislation, he talked about ensuring that public places were going to be tobacco-free. That's what this bill does.

This bill does not go to saying in what homes smoking can be undertaken or in what homes it cannot be undertaken. Again, I know that the member is making a reasonable point around the impact of one smoker exercising their right to smoke on the rights of another, who may have a medical illness or medical disability or condition. The impact of one person exercising their rights on another is adverse. I agree to that.

Where's the way forward in the legislation to deal with what is really a societal challenge? That is the difficulty, from my perspective. We've tried to lay out those boundaries in this legislation.

The member says leadership. I guess there's nothing that prevents the member from proposing any amendments he wishes to this bill to test the will of members of the government or members of the opposition around whether they want this bill to go into the private homes of people in social housing. The member can test that proposition if he wishes, but we set out different boundaries in this legislation. Again, it's no disrespect to the member's concern, because I think the concern is an absolutely legitimate one.

G. Robertson: Just briefly, I'll remind the minister that we, of course, are not the landlords for the bars and restaurants affected by this legislation, the many spaces that are affected by this legislation.

We are, technically, landlords for some of the social housing that exists. Certainly, there are a lot of responsibilities related in accompanying the funding support that flows through this provincial government for social housing. Therefore, yes, there are public policy mechanisms to address this.

My concern here is that there is a very specific need to protect the health of certain British Columbians with respiratory disabilities and illnesses, just as there is a certain need to protect children in our schools. We're not talking about every home and every multi-unit residential building here. We're talking about a specific case of people who don't have a choice and whose lives are threatened, and the minister has a responsibility for acting on behalf of those citizens.

Given that it isn't specified in this legislation, the minister raises the possibility that the Minister Responsible for Housing should be taking some action on this or could be taking some action. Is this minister directing his attention, in the absence of it in this legislation, to working out a solution with that minister going forward?

[1605]

Hon. G. Abbott: First, let me emphasize this point. I would have thought it was clear, but perhaps I have to re-emphasize it. The reason why this legislation encapsulates pubs and restaurants is that the public goes to pubs and restaurants, and people work in those pubs and restaurants.

People, at least as far as I know, don't go into Mrs. Smith's living room on a regular basis. The public is not allowed there. That is a private place. There is not typically…. There may be a home support worker who goes into Mrs. Smith's place, and they may refuse to go in there if she's a smoker. There is an important distinction here. The bill aims at public places and those places that are frequented by the public.

If the member has a different view, and if he has shared that view with those in his caucus, and if he wants to test the will of this Legislature in respect of that matter, then the mechanism to do that would be in the form of an amendment to this legislation. I can't stop the member from doing that. He is completely free to test the will of the Legislature by proposing an amendment.

I've tried to lay out as clearly as I could the reasons why the bill has set out the boundaries that it has. I'm not asking the Minister for Housing to undertake anything. What I suggested to the member was that if he wished to get clarification around what, for example, the view and the opportunities of B.C. Housing were in the area of restricting or banning smoking in social housing, he should raise that matter with the minister. I'm not asking or directing the minister. That is an area of public policy for which others have responsibility.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

A. Dix: Wow, that happened quickly, I say to the minister. That was impressive.

I want to move the amendment to

section 13 standing in my name on the order paper.

SECTION 13 is amended by deleting the struck through text and adding the underlined text:

The provisions of this Act referred to in column 1 of the following table come into force as set out in column 2 of the table:

Item

Column 1

Provisions

of Act

Column 2

Commencement

Anything not elsewhere covered by this table,

and

section 3 (2.2),

section 3 (2.3)

The date of Royal Assent

Sections 1 to 7 ,

Section 3 (2.1),

Section 3 (2.4) and

Section 4 to 7

By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council

Sections 9 to 11

By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council ]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Just to say to the minister: we've had a little bit of discussion of this. It's just a provision around

[ Page 6637 ]

bringing some of

the provisions of this bill into force more quickly than envisioned by the

minister.

The minister will know that workers in B.C. could have had these protections on September 1, 2001. He'll know that those provisions were delayed and indeed have been delayed until today when this bill was brought in. He'll know that the Premier announced this legislation or the intent to bring in this legislation in October.

The Premier at that time was very clear about the impact on

workers continuing to be subjected to secondhand smoke and the dangers. The

minister has confirmed that today. I think all of the medical experts agree on that. I think that had we had a session last fall, we might well have passed this legislation rather than having a speech from the Premier. We didn't have a session, so it's been delayed until now.

It's our view, anyway, that those provisions, particularly for those workers who work in bars, should be brought in more quickly than envisioned by the Minister of Health. We've had the debate, I think, a little bit on

section 3, so I don't want to belabour the point. I wanted to move the amendment to reinforce our view that it's been too long. It's been too long not just because of the actions of this government; it's been too long — period.

There's a need to act to protect workers. From the time the Premier announced his change to the time this bill will be brought into force, workers will have been subjected to serious health risks. I think we all agree on that. There's some debate sometimes about the extent of those risks, but I think most of the medical evidence will tell us it's pretty serious. The intent of the amendment is to bring these provisions into force more quickly. I ask the minister to support the amendment.

[1610]

Hon. G. Abbott: I cannot support the amendment that's been put forward by the opposition Health critic — again, I think for all of the reasons which I set out earlier.

I think if one attempted to bring this bill and all of the regulations pursuant to this bill into effect on proclamation of the bill, we would have a remarkably hurried process that might well be challenged from a legal perspective because of the absence of appropriate notice to parties affected by the bill. So that's important.

Even more important than that, I think it's the opportunity for us to circulate ideas around this — ensuring that there is full and ample consultation by all those affected by the bill, ensuring that the draft regulations get the consideration they should and ensuring that there is sufficient education and public information around this and that there is broad compliance with this bill and its pursuant regulations when they are brought into effect very early in 2008. For those reasons I again submit that it would not be wise public policy to try to force this ahead more quickly.

I cited the example earlier of the NDP government in 1998 putting in place something that was announced in a press release on September 11, 1998 — another tobacco control initiative. The effective date for that was January 1, 2000, so I think there is just an example of how we undertake public policy measures in a sustainable, wise, judicious way in this province. I think that's welcome.

I noted it earlier, but I know every member appreciated the wise counsel of a former Health minister and the current member for Nelson-Creston on this when he said on December 19, 2006, in a letter to the Premier: "Before proceeding with the intention to reverse the decision to permit designated smoking areas, please consider the consequences such an action would have on these and other responsible hotel owners and managers throughout the province." What we are doing here is precisely that.

I know with the continuing evolution of policies around tobacco…. I guess if we'd all known 50 years ago the things we do today about the relationship between tobacco and chronic disease, government probably would have done some different things 50 years ago. But policy in this area constantly evolves.

I'm proud of what's contained in this bill because it is a bold step forward towards better tobacco control, better protection of health for everyone, and it's the right thing to do. We want to ensure that it's put in place in an appropriate, timely, sustainable and judicious way. That is why I do not support this amendment put forward by the opposition Health critic.

A. Dix: To close the debate on the amendment, just to say that I think that this hasn't been, over a period of time, a process that has seen the best principles of public policy come forward.

The evidence was brought forward to the government in 2001. It was 2006 when the Premier announced, finally, having reversed a public policy process that would have led to the implementation of just these provisions…. The Premier intervened, backbenchers intervened in a political way against that science and against that evolution, and held it back a number of years. That's part of the story as well. It's part of the story that this was announced last October and could have been brought into force, I believe, quicker than January 1, 2008.

I ask members to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

section 13.

[1615]

A. Dix: Just a question to the minister on

section 13. If he can take us through all of the major provisions of the legislation in terms of when his expectation is…. Those provisions that have been brought in by regulation — when he expects them to be brought into force. I know some will come into force in the school year, and so on. Could he take us through that?

Hon. G. Abbott: Ask a simple question; get a complex answer. There are three general areas here. The one for schools we're talking the commencement of the school year September 2007.

[ Page 6638 ]

For

section 2 (b) (2), which reads, "A person must not sell, offer for sale, provide or distribute tobacco to an individual who has not reached the age specified by regulation under

section 11 (2) (g)," that particular provision is pursuant to Bill 12, which this Legislature passed in 2006. That will clarify that anyone 19 years or younger is unable to purchase tobacco. That will come into force with the completion of this legislation.

For the balance of the legislative and regulatory provisions pursuant to the legislation, the aim is early 2008. Our aim is January 1,

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND

SMOKING