H0506am 05

H0506am 05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Morning Sitting Volume 32, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Tuesday, May 6, 2008 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 12003 Office of the Auditor General, report No. 3, 2008-2009, Management of Aboriginal Child Protection Services Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12003 Public Health Act (Bill 23) Hon. G. Abbott A. Dix D. Chudnovsky C.

Wyse Tabling Documents.............................................................................................................. .................................................. 12017 Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2007 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12017 Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued) B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman

12003 TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 The House met at 10:02 a.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report 3, 2008-2009, Management of Aboriginal Child Protection Services. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Abbott: In

Section A, I call continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Forests and Range, followed by the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber I call second reading debate of Bill 23, intituled Public Health Act. Second Reading of Bills PUBLIC HEALTH ACT Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 23, the Public Health Act, be read a second time now. Public health has always been and will continue to be about the promotion of health and the prevention of diseases, injuries and disabili ties. This legislation, the first significant overhaul since 1893, will still address these twin challenges.

It is the nature of those challenges that has changed significantly from an era when clean drinking water was not to be taken for granted and diseases like typhoid fever, smallpox and cholera didn't just happen in some distant place but were concerns within our own province. [S. Hammell in the chair.] Today our challenges are both more complex and more common, and the tools we need must evolve. We have new names to contend with — words like Walker- ton, avian influenza, crystal meth and SARS — each highlighting a new challenge for public health.

We've already begun the process to address some of these challenges, replacing outdated sections of the Health Act with the Food Safety Act in 2002 and the Drinking Water Protection Act in 2003. It is now time to replace the rest of the Health Act with legislation that is modern, coherent, comprehensive, outcome- oriented and flexible, legislation that will provide tools to address the public health challenges of the 21st century. [1005] This new act has been in development for over four y e a r s .

I t ' s b e e n b u i l t o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f n u m e r o u s consultations and dialogues and the input of health professionals and community leaders. It also reflects the needs and interests of all British Columbians. During the recent Conversation on Health we heard strong support for more proactive measures to promote health and prevent diseases, disabilities and injuries. That is the main purpose of the new Public Health Act: to provide public health offi cials with the authority to take action and with direction to promote and protect the health and well-being of British Columbians.

These directions follow and build upon the solid, proven foundations of progra ms such as ActNow B.C. Through ActNow B.C., government has helped British Columbians to create over 150 active community plans, encouraging people to become more physically active and helping to reduce the risks from heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

In the government's recent throne speech we continued t o m o v e i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n , s e t t i n g a n u m b e r o f p u b l i c health priorities, such as the banning of trans fats in the preparation of foods in schools, restaurants and food services establishments by 2010; encouraging more healthy eating; and addressi ng the roots of chronic disease. We have also increased our efforts to improve nutrition with an expanded school fruit and vegetable snack program, enabling our children to do their best both physically and academically.

Some of the specific ways in which the new act will address the future public health of British Columbians include allowing the minister to require development of specific public health plans; updating powers of inspection and powers to issue orders to address health hazards; modernizing provisions related to examination, treatment, quarantine and isolation of people who pose a threat to public health; and improving access to mental health and addiction services in our communities, helping a vulnerable population to begin the recovery process and avoid other significant health risks such as hepatitis and HIV.

Many Conversation on Health participants also called for a stronger public health voice on environmental protection and a strong, robust system to address infectious disease outbreaks.

The new act will address these challenges by provid ing a regulatory framework to deal with activities that cause health hazards or that adversely affect the health status of the population, by increasing the ability to collect information of public health importance while protecting privacy, by enhancing public health emergency responsibilities in accordance with the best practices set out by the World Health Organization and by expa nding the reporting of communicable diseases to indicators of health hazards like lead or mercury poisoning.

We also heard calls for be tter access to immunization services and for greater public involvement in the delivery of health promotion programs. The act provides for enhancing collaboration between health authorities and local government; creating comprehensive abilities that enable the act to serve as a useful and flexible tool; and developing specific public health plans to address issues such as potential infectious disease outbreaks like West Nile virus and dealing with more chronic conditions such as diabetes, alcohol and drug problems.

The act also ensures that local public health officials will continue to have the powers necessary to investigate

12004 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 health hazards and monitor compliance with the act. In fact, these capabilities will be strengthened within this new legislation. Health officers will be able to issue orders to groups of people to take appropriate measures to control a health hazard, instead of the present need to issue specific orders to each affected individual. New provisions within the act will also allow decisions and orders of health officials to be reconsidered and reviewed, providing fairness and balance to the process.

As well, a number of older pieces of legislation — including the Health Act, Venereal Diseases Act and Public Toilet Act — will be combined and updated. The new act will also maintain the current roles of the provincial health officer and medical health officers in health promotion and protection. It provides clear authority for medical health officers to direct the public health response to local threats and the public health officer to direct a provincial-level response to a widespread threat.

The act will clearly establ ish the powers and duties of the minister and public health officials for public health monitoring and reporting, communicable disease control, environmental hazard response, chronic disease and injury prevention, and public health emergency response. [1010] This new act will make a difference to the current and future health, safety and well-being of all British Columbians. It will provide the tools we need to face present and emerging threat s from disease and natural and human-caused health hazards.

It will enable us to take strong, positive steps to support healthy lifestyles, healthy living conditions and healthy communities. A few weeks ago I asked the provincial health officer how long in coming this act was. His response was that there were requests for legislation in the 1990s and in the 1980s, but they never went forward. I think this shows the concern on this si de of the House with the modernization, improvement and enhancement of this Public Health Act.

Governments have had decades to modernize public health legislation and to put in place stronger tools to address preventative health initiatives and the growing burden of chronic disease. Previous governments made a choice and chose to let the growing burden of chronic disease continue to attack the sustainability of our public health system. We're taking action as a government to provide more tools to address the burden of chronic disease and the sustainability of our health system.

I would be remiss if I didn't address the NDP Health critic's recent comments that the ban on trans fats in the preparation of foods was actually an NDP idea. My staff checked Hansard, looked at estimates debates over recent years with the present and previous Health critic, looked at private members' bills and looked at their caucus news releases, and since I've been Minister of Health, the NDP has not stood up on any occasion in this House and advocated a ban on trans fats.

We're well aware that an NDP MP from Manitoba has been pursuing this initiative in Ottawa, but it is a little much for the NDP to take credit for an initiative undertaken by a federal Member of Parliament for Winnipeg. Nonetheless, I do hope that members on both sides of the House lend their support to this worthwhile and very necessary piece of legislation. With that, I am pleased to move second reading. A. Dix: Everyone knows that the best parts of the Minister of Health's speeches are when he diverts off what's been provided by his staff and gives us his flights of fancy.

I was going to recommend one particular website to the Minister of Health just at the start of this, which is called google.ca. As he knows, you could probably pick up Mad magazine by going to google.ca and getting access to that. Then he'd be able to see that these proposals on trans fats, of course, came from the NDP. Not that we want to claim credit, because I think those issues…. I leave the considerable job of trying to claim credit for this government's sorry health record to the Minister of Health. I think it's important that people understand what we're doing here.

This is a very extensive piece of legislation and one that, because of its very nature, we'll be spending more time dealing with at committee stage than at second reading stage. What we're talking about, for people watching the debate, is a bill that runs to approximately 126 sections, 92 pages and ten parts. A lot of that is essentially part of existing legislation. Some of it's amended; some of it's not.

The bill is a general bill to consolidate previous public health bills such as the Health Act, and it includes, as the minister suggested, changes to and the elimination of some pieces of legislation or the consolidation of some pieces of legislation, such as the Public Toilet Act. I want to talk a little bit….

We're living in a time where I think our understanding of health policy issues — the fact that health policy issues are not confined to hospitals or to doctors' offices but have a broader importance — and other issues outside of what you'd call the health care budget or the health care system have a profound difference on public health. [1015] For me, I learned this in a personal way. As I have mentioned before to members of this House, I am a type 1 diabetic. I was working in this building when I was diagnosed with juvenile-onset diabetes.

One of the great fortunes for me — because the minister mentioned chronic disease; he mentioned diabetes — i s t h a t w h e n I w a s diagnosed with that disease…. We have this discussion about ActNow and people's responsibility for their fate. When I was diagnosed with this disease, it was in November of 1992. I was working here, and I was preparing to run the Seattle Marathon. At that time, I was probably in the best athletic, the best physical shape of my life — aside from, of course, getting sicker and sicker because I was showing signs of having diabetes.

I have to say that at the time my ignorance about diabetes led, actually, to quite a delayed period of being diagnosed. It's one of the re asons it's so important and one of the reasons I want to speak out on those issues

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12005 — so people understand and know the signs so that they're able to take action. Six days before I was diagnosed — I ended up at Royal Jubilee Hospital that day — I ran 20 miles in training for a marathon that was going to take place two days after I was to end up in hospital. I, of course, didn't end up in the marath on. I was in the hospital. I got stabilized. Just to give you a sense of the work that, in that case, diabetes nurses do…. I was stabilized, I left the hospital, and I went to a public health program that was run by some outstanding nurses.

They trained me on how to be a type 1 diabetic. Part of that, of course, is balancing food on the one hand with the intake of insulin on the other hand. I've had the good fortune since then of never having to go to an emergency room, which is often a problem for people with diabetes, especial ly type 1 diabetes, and of having had relatively good health over that period, although, like all chronic di seases, diabetes has the capacity to surprise you on a regular basis.

I attribute that, I think, to really outstanding public health education at a personal level done, essentially, by public health educators — not doctors, in fact, but public health educators, di abetes nurses. It concerns me that in some places in British Columbia some of those programs that helped me so much and that probably saved the health care system a whole bunch of money are being shut down or being cut at present. That's highly problematic, bu t that's an issue that we'll be discussing with the minister in estimates. I want to say another thing about it.

What it says to me, as I said earlier, is that I think societal issues that go beyond the health care system have such a profound impact on public health. The other reason, of course, why I've done well with a chronic disease is that I've had supportive family members, supportive friends, and I had good jobs that paid well. Therefore, I've never had to go, for example, to a supermarket — I think the minister was talking about Ferraris yesterday; I don't think this is true of car dealerships — and not buy something because it was too expensive.

Of course, we know that for many people who live with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, that's not the case. In fact, the social determinants of health…. If you were someone, for example, with type 1 diabetes working in the tray line today at Royal Jubilee Hospital, the place where I was taken after I had my blood sugar reading of 43 and stabilized, earnin g much less than I earn, your opportunities to deal with diabetes — where you can live and the social determinants, if you will, of how well you'll do with that chronic disease and how well your health will be — will be less positive, I think.

You'll be more likely to die early, more likely to end up in an emergency room, more likely to lose a limb such as a foot as a result of the disease. [1020] When we talk about public health in this context, we often talk about specific measures to respond to public health concerns. But of course, we know and everyone in this House knows — including the government, because some of their initiatives in this area have been good — that those issues of public health are much broader than just the health care system as we know it.

Yesterday we learned from Statistics Canada — and this is the context for it — that British Columbia again is leading Canada in child poverty and, by extension, family poverty. We know in this Legislature the profound impact and the profound divi sions that the increasing inequality has on public health — the very issues that we want to get at with legislation such as the legislation we're bringing in today. I'm reminded of a speech. There's a man named Trevor Phillips who is quite a controversial figure in Great Britain.

He's been involved in the current Labour government, and he's been chairman of the British Commission for Racial Equality. He came here and gave a speech — it was quite controversial here — both about the social determinants of health and the increasing divisions of society that he saw in Britain. He spoke a lot about issues such as multiculturalism, which I won't get into today because they're not as relevant.

What he said is that in Britain young Britons under 30 are increasingly segregated into microcultural and uni-ethnic groups or tribes that increasingly do not speak to each other and do not understand each other and that, in fact, the divi sions which are economic, social and cultural in Britain indicate a growing lack of social integration, a two solitudes in that society, if you will. He warns — and he was warning Canadians as well — of the dangers of a divide d, unstable and vulnerable society. Those are the issues.

Those are the dangers that I would suggest to you that we talk about and that we deal with when we deal with the broad issues of public health. Divided societies — and we can have all kinds of examples across Nort h America of this — respond less well to catastrophe, but particularly to catastrophes that are beyond our ability to control when they occur. Our ability to respond to public health issues is affected by these divisions. For me, th is bill and what it treats are increasingly affected by the growing gap between rich and poor and by its ov erall impact on our health care system.

Recently, there was a survey released in British Columbia. It showed that British Columbians believe that the gap between rich and poor has grown over the last ten years despite economic growth. If you think about it…. I'm thinking about a study by the Canadian population health initiative, which is part of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. It showed that this difference is not just a difference between provinces or between countries. It can be between neighbourhoods.

In Vancouver they discovered that there's a 15 percentage point gap between neighbourhood groups in the proportion of youth and adults who rated their own health as excellent or very good. Similar gaps have been found, of course, in other cities. What they showed, in fa ct, is that neighbourhoods that jut up against each other, whether they're in Vancouver or others, have very different levels of personal health. Now, this measure is how we feel about our

12006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 own health, of course, which is subjective perhaps, but it's important. I would suggest that what it shows is that when you increase divisions between neighbourhoods, between groups in societies and socioeconomic difference, it in fact affects one's ability to use laws such as this new Public Health Act to resolve the problems you want to solve. When you are divided, when some groups have housing and some groups do not….

My colleague from Vancouver-Kensington will speak about this when he talks about the bill soon, I think. [1025] When you have some people that have housing and some that don't, some neighbourhoods that have out- standing public services and some that don't, some municipalities that can pay for the best services and some that don't, some municipalities that have community centres and lots of community services on one side of town but not on the other side of town, some municipalities that have public institutions like playgrounds on one side of town and not on the other side of town, etc….

These divisions that are growing in our society and that, I would argue, have grown in particular in the last few years, have an impact on our ability to respond to the very public health issues that many of us fear — the spread of disease, catastrophe. We've seen these things, not in some distant place in recent times but on our very own continent. We in Canada have struggled with the SARS issue. In the United States we saw the terrible consequences in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I think we're seeing a situ ation in our province that we've never seen before.

In every period of sustained economic growth in the 20th century there were overall improvements in living standards. Yes, some people may have gained more than others, but we saw a lift in the overall living standard of everybody. Today we are living in an unprecedented period where sustained economic growth has meant that some people have done very well, but a very significant per- centage of people…. I don't mean 5 percent. I'm not talking about people withou t shelter here. I'm talking about a large segment of the population that has seen its living standards go down during this period of economic growth.

In fact, that division, the gulf between some and others, has grown. You can even see this, by the way, in the health care workforce, where we have a whole group of people in the health care workforce, thousands of them, losing their jobs. We 're going to deal with this issue in another bill before the House. The consequence of that…. I talked about the tray line at Royal Jubilee Hospital. What happened at the tray line at Royal Jubilee Hospital is that people lost about 50 percent of their income in 2002, in 2003. They lost that.

What that meant for their public health, for a person on that tray line who has juvenile-onset diabetes or other chronic disease…. Imagine what that means for them — for their ability to control their blood sugar, their ability to stay out of emergency rooms, their ability to respond and sustain themselves in difficult public health times. They became more vulnerable. This happened within the health workforce, where some people have actually done well and increased their overall living standard s against inflation. Other people have become dramatically less well.

I think there's a growing sense — and we had this debate last week in the health care debate — that equality and access to health care is somehow a frill that we can no longer afford. Of course, we disagree with that. We think, in fact, that the opposite is true and that fairer societies — societies that are as fair to the designated speaker for the NDP on this bill as they are to the health care worker at Royal Jubilee Hospital, as fair to m e a s they are to them…. Those systems, in fact, are more entrepreneurial, dynamic and successful societies.

In fact, our long-term entrepreneurial success depends on fairer health outcomes between some groups in society and other groups in society. There have been many studies that have shown this. They've compared juris- dictions, and they said that those societies that invest the most in public health, the most in public education have the greatest movement in terms of social mobility. I'll just refer to one of those studies for the members opposite, from the Royal Economic Society in London. It's called Nonlinearities in Intergenerational Earnings Mobility.

I think that when we're dealing with this bill, we have to recognize that our ability to intervene in the health care system is, in many respects, dependent on our ability to resolve and to limit this growing inequality and this growing lack of soci al cohesion that inevitably flows from that. We often heard — the minister heard, everyone else heard — during the Conversation on Health and over the last decade much more public conversation, and I think this is a good thing, about what are called the social determinants of health, which in fact have an enormous impact, in particular, on public health issues.

What are they? Income inequality, social inclusion and exclusion, employment and job security, working conditions, contribution to the social economy, early childhood care, education, food security and housing — the social determinants of health. [1030] If you take that list and say to people, "What are the major problems facing society today, the individual problems?" they will look down that list in my city of Vancouver, in my community, where people used to be able to buy a house and now cannot…. Those issues of growing income inequality…. Are we seeing more, growing income inequality?

Yes, we are, in British Columbia. Their impact is on social inclusion and exclusion — on people's access, in fact, to those services they need to involve themselves in the community. The fact that they are working longer and harder for less money, for many of those people, is there. Th e lack and the cuts to early childhood care that we've seen, not just at the provincial level but at the federal level as well, have had an im- pact — and the growing concern about food security. This weekend my friend from Vancouver- Kensington and I were at the Food Security Institute at

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12007 Collingwood Neighbourhood House in my riding. What we did there was take part, as we do regularly — I'm a big supporter of this program — in a breakfast program. Dozens of people come to Collingwood Neighbourhood House every week, twice a week. They have no shower, so they shower. They have no breakfast, so the community got together and said…. It's an extraordinary thing, because most of the people who take

part in that program aren't from the community. The community said that we have to f e e d t h i s g r o u p o f p e o p l e b r e a k f a s t . S o w e h a v e t h i s extraordinary situation. That has enormous impact. As the growth in home- lessness that the member for Vancouver-Kensington and so many other people have dealt with, the social determinants of health….

Those nine social determinants of health are income inequality; social inclusion and exclusion; employment and job security; working con- ditions; contribution to the social economy, which means one's ability to participate in society — if you join clubs, hon. Speaker, if you have time to join clubs, if your children are able to afford to play hockey, that's an indicator of your health; overall, all of our ability to participate in those events is an indicator of public health and the health of the entire community; early childhood care; education; food security; and housing.

Think of that person when we're thinking of these public health issues that we're dealing with here and our ability to respond to serious incidents of public health, our ability to respond to the growing crisis of homeless- ness and mental health services in our streets and in our communities. Our ability is in fact affected dramatically by changes in society, and we can't band-aid those changes when something happens. We can't band-aid it. Those social determinants of health also tell us…. We have a big debate about personal responsibility, and it's one of the reasons that I tell my story.

I was in the best physical shape of my life. I had a job I loved. I had a workplace that supported me. I have a loving family, everything one could possibly imagine. I was preparing for the Seattle marathon, and I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. How does one view that in the personal responsibility debate? Equally, we know that people don't live in the same circumstances. If you are wealthier, you have more access to services, sometimes to food, than people who are less wealthy have. When we talk about people's personal responsibility for th eir health, we have to put it in that context.

When we're dealing with public health issues, as we are in this bill, we have to deal with it as well. I think that what the weight of the evidence showed — and this evidence was brought together by many people in the Conversation on Health, to the Romanow commission, to the Seaton commission — was that those social determ inants of health I talked about have a direct impact on the health of individuals and populations. They're the best predictors of indi- vidual and population health . They interact with each other, those nine social dete rminants I talked about, to produce health.

That's what the evidence shows. [1035] What the evidence also sh ows in terms of the health of populations, greater popula tions, is that the dispari- ties — the size of the gap in inequality and social and economic status — between groups within a given population greatly affect the health status of the whole. The larger the gap, the lower the health status of the overall population. All of the evidence shows that — evidence that the minister, of course, is well aware of.

What I would say on this bill — and I know the member for Vancouver-Kensington is going to speak on this as well — is that those gaps, addressing the social determinants of health , are a critical element of the equation. You can't just say in a law, "You shall provide more mental health services," and things will get better. You cannot say in a law, "We will improve coordination between agencies," when something happens but do nothing about the social determinants of health.

A continuing and growing inequality in our society will checkmate our efforts to do that from above, and we have to recognize that element of the problem as well. Surely, the lessons of our neighbours and friends in the United States during the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina and the experience of our own country in dealing with the SARS epidemic, which wasn't at the same level in terms of human dislocation, show differences in the way that we run societies on both sides of the border.

It has shown how divided societies and, I would argue, conversely, more united societies such as our own and the public health systems that we've put in place over decades either can be defeated or can overcome calamity. We cannot continue to grow inequality and respond to the public health challenges of the 21st century. I should say on SARS, because this is an issue that happened, actually, in the early years of this government's administration…. I think the systems put in place have been in there in place, and it's a legacy of not just NDP governments but past governments and of our public health system.

In terms of infectious disease surveillance, monitoring and testing, we worked together in a public framework to battle that virulent epidemic of SARS. But imagine a society whose inequality is reaching away from where we've been and towards where they are in New Orleans. Imagine such a society.

If our society and our systems in it were more divided, separated and not unified by a common access to services and social opportunity and social mobility, the experience of the public sector in New Orleans — where they also have public health acts, wher e they also have statutes that say X, Y and Z — shows us that in spite of those statutes, if you allow a disintegrating society, your ability to respond to those issues is compromised. That is a point, in terms of dealing with this bill at second reading, that we on the opposition side, of course, wanted to make.

In terms of some of the specifics of this legislation, I was interested in the minister's analysis of how legislation comes forward in this House. As you know, hon. Speaker, there are two kinds of bills we often deal with in the House. There are bills that are generated by discussion with groups and kind of through the public

12008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 service over a period of year s, and then there are what you'd call more political bills. We have some examples. We had an example last week of a political bill. The sustainability bill, as you know, was an idea of the Premier. It wouldn't have come out of the Ministry of Health or anyone else or the Conversation on Health. If the Conversation on Health had come forward for another 10,000 years, it wouldn't have come forward. It came from the Premier. So that's one kind of bill , and you call it "generated by the politicians," which is fair enough.

Politicians are representatives. They're elected to do that. If the Premier wants to bring forward such legislation and defend it in the way in which we've become accustomed to him defending such legislation, fair enough. Of course, there's a second type of legislation as well, which sort of comes from the public sector, the public service. It's the constant updating and need to update a bill. So I'll just give you a historical view of what happens. [1040] In the 35th parliament we had 22 health bills. Many of those bills, because the 35th parliament, as you will recall, was actually led…. The Premier was Mr.

Harcourt, a previous MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Those bills, of course, focused on supporting our public health system and ensuring that our public health system, in spite of federal Liberal cuts, could be maintained and supported. It made us, in fact, the number one health care system in Canada. So 22 bills in the 35th parliament. But not all of those were political bills. Not all those were bills to support the founding principles of medicare, which that government supported and this government doesn't. Many of those bills, in fact, were kind of non-partisan bills, generated by the public sector.

So 22 bills in the 35th parliament. Then, in the 36th parliament, led by a previous member for Vancouver-Kingsway, there were 14 bills. Some of those, again…. Bills such as the tobacco damages bill, which the government of the day supported and put forward and the opposition of the time spoke against but didn't vote against. This happens from time to time, I think, in this parliament. Bills such as that, but also other public health bills. So there were 14 bills in the 36th parliament. In the 37th parliament…. We all remember those days.

The government remembers those days with a fond heart, when there were only two opposition members in the whole chamber. You couldn't hear a voice of dissent. Oh, there was one, on one of these health bills from a government member, but generally you couldn't hear a voice of dissent. Halcyon days for the government — not for the people of B.C. but for the government of B.C. There were 18 bills. Some of those bills, such as Bill 29…. An Hon. Member: Turned out to be illegal. A. Dix: Well, parts of them turned out to be illegal, and we'll be dealing with th ose.

Others of those bills, such as Bill 92, which was introduced by the now Minister of Economic Development, were passed unanimously by the House. They were intended to defend public health care, and then they weren't proclaimed, because the Premier didn't want th em proclaimed. But there were 18 bills, including some mentioned by the minister in his speech. What we saw was a regular coming forward of ideas from the public service. I wasn't going to raise th is issue, but the minister inspired me with his comments about government blocking these ideas from the public service.

Until this session of the Legislature and since this Minister of Health became minister, there have only been five bills. Now, some of those bills di d a very good thing. They overturned the attack on pu blic health that happened when the government overturned WCB regulations with respect to tobacco. So they overturned those, and that was a good thing. They principally dealt with that. But there have only been five bills. So the government had, in fact, not encouraged that process, but seemed to be blocking that process.

Now we have some bills in this session which are kind of the pent-up bills that have come from that. So after the seven bills introduced — to give the minister his full due — we're now at 12 bills. Assuming there'll be a fall session and the government will bring in perhaps more public health legislation…. Assuming that's the case, he might even get up to near the kind of average. Up to now there's been a hold on those bills.

So I think the suggestion that this government has been more supportive of the public service in bringing forward good and modernizing amendments to public health care is inconsistent with the history. But I don't want to be too fact-based, because I know it bothers the minister. What did Dr. Perry Kendall, our outstanding provincial health officer…? He told the press, when he was doing this bill, that these were proposals to update the public health legislation that had been accumulating in government files for the better part of a century and "they just never got onto the legislative agenda." Now here we are.

The government needs to show that it has an agenda on health care other than weakening the Medicare Protection Act and support for the Canada Health Act in B.C. So we see this legislation come forward, and we're glad to see it, people on this side of the House, at second reading. We'll be debating the details of this at length at committee stage. But people on this side of the House will be supporting this bill at second reading. [1045] We believe that the support for the institutions that maintain public health is critical and that we have to do it. But we will be raising some issues, as you would expect.

Not just me as the designated speaker for the opposition but other members of the opposition caucus. In particular, we'll be raising — and I know my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast will be raising — a concern that, in fact, has been raised by others, including the West Coast Environmental Law group and others, about provisions in the former Health Act that have been deleted from the new act.

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12009 I'll just go through it in a short sentence, because I know we'll be discussing this at length, and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast will be developing this issue at length at committee stage. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast ha s raised this issue, and people in his community have raised this issue. Sections 57 and 58 of the Health Act allowed for individual citizens to trigger an investigation into health hazards. That authority has been removed. This was relevant.

You'll all recall this, people who've been paying attention to issues of watersheds in British Columbia. This was relevant during th e controversy over logging in the Chapman Creek waters hed. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast will, I think, in his second reading speech and in committee stage, be developing this issue at some length. For years citizens in that area had been complaining about the potential impacts of logging on their drinking water.

A report by the local medical health officers confirmed their concerns that it was a health hazard, but the regional district was unable to act because they couldn't develop bylaws to regulate forestry operations. What local citizens were able to do…. This option has been removed. Fair enough. It's a modernizing of the act, so fair enough. We're going to have a discussion at length at committee stage as to why that might be. Local citizens were able to use the Health Act to trigger an investigation by the district, which ultimately resulted in an order to halt logging in the watershed.

They were able, in fact, to do that. Ultimately, they didn't win in the courts, in terms of halting that. But they were able to use the Health Act to raise an issue that their local medical health officer said was a health hazard and raise it as a public concern, as they should. Under the new law the local medical health officer would be required to report the health hazard, not to the public, in that sense, but to a designated person. That designated person, of course, will be determined by regulation, but it's not clear what is required of them once they are in receipt of that information.

So there's a local issue. I think this gives people, when they're looking at this very long bill, which takes up other acts and which has, as I say, 126 sections — just to give people a sense of the debate that we're going to expect at committee stage… . Even though it seems, when you look at big bills that have been produced over a period of consultation and time, it's hard to see the individual…. It's hard to see, shall we say, the trees for the forest, to turn that around. I wanted to say to my friend from Cowichan- Ladysmith, whose community is struggling from lack of access to forests….

I just wanted to remind him of better times. The fact of the matter is that in this legislation there are going to be lots of issues like that.

I think it's our responsibility in this Legislature to go through in detail and as k the Minister of Health, who presumably will have the provincial medical officer of health with him in the House, the sort of detailed questions over a period of days that are required to ensure that the legislation does what it wants — and also to develop and increase public understanding, not just at the public level but at the local government level, as to what the legislation does and what it does not do. [1050] Now, what are the key elements of the legislation?

The minister has gone through them, so I won't go through them at length. But I just wanted to sort of lay out what the minister has said the key points of the legislation are and what the government is arguing that the key points to the legislation are. I n a g e n e r a l s e n s e , a s I ' v e s a i d , w e s u p p o r t t h e s e changes. I think it's important to acknowledge that. But one of our major concerns is that….

It is one thing to say that the cabinet, for example, may develop regulations to facilitate the implementati on of the plan, such as requiring people who are making legislative decisions to consider the plan or restricting or placing conditions on licences or permits or restricting exercise of power. It's one thing to say that local governments have to come forward with plans and acts and so on. It's another thing to say that they have the resources to meet the test of the law. That's why it's important to continue to emphasize the fact.

We can say, for example, that a city should have a mental health plan, but if responsibilities without resources are downloaded, then that's a concern. Of course you would agree that a city should have a mental health plan, but a mental health pl an without resources is, to use a historical expression, a scrap of paper. What we need….

I know the member for Vancouver- Kensington will discuss this as he takes on what he's learned about public health, in particular over his extraordinary tour of British Columbia, meeting with the growing number of people who don't have shelter in our province, whose vision of what it means to have public health would probably be quite different from those of us in this Legislature who not only have access to health care but who have things that are really important to public health, like a fixed address.

Their perception, I think, when the member for Vancouver-Kensington and I talked to them about access to health care and what would happen in terms of a public health calamity, is very different from ours — from the lack of a family do ctor, to a lack of proper access to food, to all the things that they raised with us. The impact of sleeping outside on a regular basis and the physical worries of being in fact without the things we think are common….

To be able to shut our doors, lock our doors and feel safe inside those doors while we sleep and while our loved ones sleep — that's something that they don't f eel and that has a profound impact on public health. The minister talked about this as well. And I'm delighted to again…. Happily , the minister's ongoing desire to debate the patent of a trans fat ban aside…. We, of course, on the opposition side support that. It was — I'll be very delicate for the minister — an NDP idea that appeared on national TV in 2004.

If you google "trans fat ban in Canada…." If you use the website www.google.ca, which I believe exists

12010 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 even in a minister's computer, you'll see that in fact it was Pat Martin…. We had public meetings. He came and promoted the bill in Vanc ouver. I've spoken to Pat many times. He's done an outstanding job of changing the way we perceive that i ssue. He's a trail-blazer on that issue. You know what? I know it's shocking to the Minister of Health. He's a member of the NDP, and this idea came from him.

He drove it at a federal level, and he's had real impact on the debate across our country about the dangers to public health of tr ans fats, just as a previous NDP MP, Lynn McDonald, had a profound effect on our perception of the dangers of tobacco in the 1980s, which drove many public health initiatives, including control of advertising, and other issues and initiatives that have been taken up in British Columbia proudly in the 1990s under an NDP government, that profoundly improved public health and that limited and led, I think in part — including the involvement of the public, of course — in the reduction of tobacco use in British Columbia to the lowest level in Canada in 2001.

It hit a bump in the road in 2002 when the govern- ment overrode the WCB in terms of protecting workers from secondhand tobacco smoke. Now they are going on, as the government has re versed its position and is supporting those measures. So yes, I believe I'm going to continue my speech. I believe my colleague wants to rise in his place and seek l e a v e t o m a k e a n i n t r o d u c t i o n . S o i f h e w i l l r i s e — because I don't want to give up my place — and raise that, then I will await his doing that. [1055] R.

Fleming: I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver just to give me a moment to seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Fleming: With us in the precinct today in the gallery is Ms. Dianne Boyce, a teac her at Oaklands Elementary School. With her is a group of 28 grade 5 students, boys and girls, with parent volunteers accompanying them today. Oaklands is one of the best elementary schools in my constituency, and I want to make them all welcome. They've had a thorough to ur this morning and are enjoying themselves in the buildings. Debate Continued A.

Dix: I know that other members of the House will want to take

part in this very important debate on the Public Health Act, but I wanted to just say in a general sense what the act does and why we support it before I conclude.

What the act is intended to do is enable medical health officers and environmental health officers to investigate health hazard complaints, and I'm quoting from the government here: It "supports preparations and responses for public health emergencies and ensures that government and health officials have th e authority they need to mobilize resources and take action to protect public health." Of course, the modernizing of that act is something that we would support, with the caveat that we will be going through — over, I'm sure, a period of days in committee stage — the details of this very long and important bill.

I think that when the government tables such a bill more than halfway through a session, they would expect nothing less. In fact, I think that if we spent the time on this bill, because I think it's very important that this bill become law after we've gone through the details of it…. It's very important, clearly, what that means. The government, I think, would agree with me that this is extremely important, and that committee stage debate on this bill should have priority over the other bills during the days that follow.

It means, of course, that other legislation that's perhaps less important than the modernization of the Public Health Act will be dealt with in a fall session. We've said that we won't stand in the way of that, that we'll have a very lengthy but serious debate about the Public Health Act at committee stage. The minister, I know, will be delighted and interested in that — in fact eager, I suspect, to have that debate. That may mean, of course, that other bills, as our parliamentary calendar suggests, will be put off till the fall session. One of the most important issues about that….

This is normal because, as the minister says, it's not like public health laws haven't been changed since the 1890s. The minister made no critical comments about the 1890s, but I think we know that laws…. Interjection. A. Dix: The minister likes the 1890s. He prefers a time before public health care an d before public education. He seems to prefer that. He seems to prefer that time. It just goes to show, I guess, that the term antediluvian may well apply over there. In any event, this bill, na turally, because this is an area where regulations were required, leaves a lot to the regulation.

I think that's another reason why it's very important. If you go through the bill, you'll see a lot of the provisions, in fact — those provisions dealing with health planning and reporting; those decisions dealing with inspection powers and emergency powers; health officials' inquiry in other matters; the administrative penalty provisions…. Many of them will be dealt with and brought into force and affected by regulation. I think this is typical of many bills. It's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what the provisions are.

For example, if you were to put in by regulation that your access of information depends on the Minister of Health, then that might not be a good thing. That might be contradictory, in fact, with the whole idea. But in a general sense, of course, it's normal, especially in an area of public health, that one would need regulatory power. [1100]

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12011 But it's another argument…. The extent, I'd argue, of the regulation-making powers here in the act are a really compelling argument as to why we need to have a very long and very fulsome debate on this legislation at committee stage — that we be allowed to do that. I know the government, by bringing in the bill in April and calling it today, understands that that is required and, in fact, wants that debate to take place and will make the changes to the legislative calendar required to allow that debate to happen. [K.

Whittred in the chair.] Many of the groups who have been involved in this have also indicated their support in a general sense for the legislation. Those groups include the Canadian Mental Health Association, which indicated its support but, again, with the caveat of the need for resources because of the requirement for planning to address mental health and addiction facilities. If that's the caveat, if that's what we need to do, then surely what will flow from that are the resources to do so.

It seems to me that the critical issue of resources, of access, was highlighted most dramatically recently by a report by the Vancouver police department. Just i n d i c a t i n g f r o m w h a t t h e Canadian Mental Health Association said and taking a look at the Lost in Transition report, what that report shows and what it attempted to quantify was the prevalence in Vancouver policing calls of people suffering from mental health issues.

It took a two-week period, and it was quite an extraordinary report that I think had a real impact on the public understanding of mental health issues in Vancouver and their consequences to the broader public debate beyond the actual application of mental health services — that it is not neutral. It's not just the people not receiving those services that are affected, but it's every police officer that's affected. There's public safety that's affected. The whole community is affected, just as they're affected when ou r brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens, don't have access to the care that they need.

What the report discussed was the consequences for the mentally ill who come into contact with police and the gaps in the mental health system leading to the overwhelming number of calls related to mental health. The report was actually a su rvey. They reported over a period of 16 days in September 2007. Of the 1,154 calls in that period, 31 percent involved at least one mentally ill person, a number which in creased significantly in some areas of the city such as the downtown east side where 49 percent of calls involved mental health issues.

For the police department, not for anyone else, the e s t i m a t e d c o s t s o f t h i s o v e r a y e a r a r e $ 9 m i l l i o n . Consider this: 90 full-time police positions. And this is without counting the tens of millions of dollars of indirect costs that come out of this lack of services. Just to quote from this report: "The key finding of this research is that there is a profound lack of capacity in mental health resources in Vancouver. The result is an alarmingly high number of calls for police services to incidents that involve mentally ill people in crisis.

VPD officers" — that's Vancouver police department officers — "along with the citizens with whom they come in contact are bearing the burden of a mental health system that lacks resources and efficient in- formation-sharing practices often with tragic consequences.

"There were 209 beds slated to be transferred to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to replace those lost in the downsizing of Riverview, and 200 of the 209 transfers have yet to take place." What this says to me — and it's something that I think will characterize this debate — is a concern not just with the legislative framework that we're talking about here but, more than that, about the effects on real people of the lack of real services th at flow from the plans that are set out in the system. We, of course, need services directly to help people.

It's great that people are concerned in Victoria about the problems of people suffering from mental illness in Ladysmith or in Vancouver, but what the people who suffer from mental illness need are places to live and supports to help them get well or to cope with their mental illness. That's what they need. You can't have one without the other. [1105] The report goes on to say — I think this is important — that current options for the interaction between the police and the mentally ill…. Well, one of those is jail.

If anyone thinks that the number of people in jail is not a determinant of the health in society, they're wrong. Recent reports indicate that the mentally ill form 40 percent of the prison population. The impact of that is enormous. There was a series of re commendations made. I know my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington will go through this in detail.

This disconnect between legislative action and practical reality is a key part of our view of public health that I think will form a key part of our alternatives under this legislative basis that we are passing today in this Legislature at second reading and then dealing with in detail at committee stage. The reasonable plan to address public health has to include a plan to ensure equality of access to services and equality of access to opportunity. It matters to public health that they have a giant play ground in St. George's but not one at Graham Bruce.

It matters to public health — this growing inequality, this divide between the access to health care services and to other se rvices in some of our com- munities and the lack of it in others, the growing inequality in terms of income levels. They matter to public health. I think we were all horrified and fixated by what happened in New Orleans. What it said is that when the kinds of catastrophes happen that would need to invoke provisions of this public health care act….

If you haven't dealt with those matters of inequality now, if they don't become part of the non-legislative basis for a public health act now, if you don't respond by raising the minimum wage now, if you don't respond by ensuring that farmworkers have employment standards which are vital to their social de terminants of health now, then your ability to use legislation and your ability to use the legislative provisions of this act to deal with those issues will in fact be undermined.

12012 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 What we need as we pass this legislation, which we s u p p o r t o n t h i s s i d e o f t h e H o u s e , i s a r e n e w e d c o m - mitment to address the problem of inequality that has been highlighted as recently as yesterday when we again were found to be leading Canada in child and f a m i l y p o v e r t y . I f w e d o n 't do that, then our systems may be great, but our results will not be. We need a renewed focus. I think it's fair to say that many of the people, some from groups that the minister has criticized — B.C.

Health Coalition, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, othe r groups and the hundreds of people from those groups who took up the challenge to participate in the Conversation on Health — said that the social determinants of health are critical. I just leave by reading them: income inequality, social inclusion and exclusion, employment and job security, working conditions, contribution of the social economy, early childhood care, education, food security and housing. The way to implement and ensu re that this legislation has the effect that we all desire is to address those determinants. That's the lesson.

The Public Health Act has been generated by years of discussion. It surely didn't come out of the Conversation on Health. No one could possibly make that argument. What did come from the Conversation on Health was the determination of citizens to say to their government that growing inequality is affecting the quality of access to care and, more important than that, affecting the health outcomes of real people.

Those nine social determinants and others that flow from them and the interaction of those social determinants will have a profound impact on the success of this legislation — as I say, legislation we support. [1110] We will continue to focus in this second reading debate on the profound disconnect between the lofty goals of the act and the growing inequality that we're seeing in British Columbia society. D. Chudnovsky: I'm pleased to speak today about Bill 23, the Public Health Act. I need to begin by saying, in very general terms, I'm ve ry pleased indeed that the government has brought before us

an act which draws attention to, makes improvements to and points a way forward in the issue of publ ic health in the province. I'm pleased for two reasons. Two reasons push me to be pleased about the introduction of this bill. The first reason that I'm supportive of an initiative with respect to public health is that the whole concept of public health, the whole set of principles on which public health policy is based, is good policy. Preventative, community-based, broad-based, front-end-loaded public health or health policies are the most effective.

We a r e m a k i n g g o o d p o l i c y w h e n w e f r o n t - e n d - l o a d t h e resources available for public health, for health, and when we provide those resources at a community level and set ourselves the task of developing policy that meets those principles and those visions. The first reason for being supportive of the govern- ment's initiative in this area is that, in very general terms, public health as a concept is good policy — better to expend the resources of the community on public health initiatives than acute care initiatives at the other end. That's rear-end-loaded expenditures.

We know, from all the work that's been done in the area of health out- comes, that front-end-loaded resources are more effective and efficient. So that's the first reason I'm supportive. The second reason that I'm supportive of initiatives in public health at this pa rticular moment is because we have, in the area that I'm particularly concerned about — mental health services, addictions services and homelessness — a crisis of public health. We have a public health crisis in this province.

We have a public health emergency in this province when it comes to mental health services, addictions services and homelessness. So when a government, any government, even this government, comes forward and says that they will draw attention to and provide initiatives in the area of public health at the same time as we have a public health emergency when it comes to mental health services, addictions services and homelessness, everybody has to be pleased. Everybody has to be pleased about that.

These two reasons — good public policy; we're facing a crisis — pu sh m e to be su pportive in g eneral terms of the legislation that's before us. Now I want to look at a number of the specifics of the legislation and put forward some caveats, put forward some concerns, put forward some worries that I and we on this side of the House have about the legislation. [1115] I want to do that by looking at some of the changes that are included in the legislation.

For instance, this legislation says that the minister may require that a public health plan be made to monitor the health status of the public and factors influencing public health to prevent communicable diseases or health hazards or to protect or promote public health or for other necessary reasons. That public health plan — it doesn't say so in the quotation that I've just put before the House — that the legislation refers to and that that quotation referred to is a municipal public health plan. So the minister may require that a municipal pu blic health plan be put into place.

Now, that might be a very good idea. I think that with the proper unde rstandings and the proper c o n s t r a i n t s , i t c o u l d e a s i l y b e a g o o d i d e a t h a t t h e minister may require that a municipal public health plan be put in place. But the worry I have is that without resources, municipalities aren't able to make that public health plan mean anything very much, except words on paper. It's important that if government, senior government, require of municipalities that they take action, that those senior governments provide the resources necessary to take those actions.

It doesn't make sense. This government, as we know, has a history of doing this, has a history of downloading responsibilities to municipalities, to school boards, of downloadin g responsibilities without at the same time providing the resources necessary. So while on the face of it we can support in a very general sense the notion that the minister can require of a municipality to have a public health plan — yeah, not

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12013 a bad idea — it's just words on paper if the resources are not available to the municipalities to do what's in- cluded in the plan that the minister could require. A second element. The minister will set the terms of reference for the plan, including who prepares the plan, the purpose, the issues to be addressed, the geographic area of the plan, those who must be consulted, how the plan is to be coordinated with other plans, the outcome of the plan and anything else necessary.

The minister can require public bodies to develop plans, including regional health authorities and local governments. N o w , t h a t o n e s u r e s o u n d s l i k e t h i s g o v e r n m e n t . That one sure sounds like this government. It is a government that is intent and has been intent on micro- managing the actions of municipalities and school boards while at the same time not providing the resources necessary for those bodies to do the work that needs to be done. So in a general sense, is it a good idea for a Minister of Health to be able to require municipalities to have a public health plan?

Yeah, in a general sense, that's a good idea. Should the minister at the same time or contemporaneous with his or her ability to require a plan provide the resources ne cessary? Yes. Should that minister intervene in the de tailed requirements of that plan? I'm not so sure. General guidelines, resources and accountability? I'm okay with that. That sounds a lot like the Canada Health Act, actually. General principles, resources and accountability — isn't that the model? But not micromanaging without resources, which it sounds like this government….

Cabinet may develop regulations to facilitate the implementation of the plan, such as requiring people who are making legislative decisions to consider the plan or restricting or placing conditions on licences or permits or restricting exercises of powers.

A g a i n , m a y b e t h a t ' s a n o k a y i d e a , b u t i f w e ' r e requiring of boards, municipalities and other bodies in the province that they take specific kinds of actions, then it seems to me that the government has the responsibility to provide the resources necessary to, in fact, take those actions, or else it's just words on paper. [1120] I wanted to take a few minutes to speak to this issue of public health with some specificity.

I said a minute ago that initiatives with resp ect to public health are a g o o d i d e a b e c a u s e w e f a c e r i g h t n o w , t o d a y , i n t h e areas of mental health, addictions and homelessness, a public health emergency in British Columbia. So it is fitting that government would bring forward initiatives with respect to public health , would create a structure, a superstructure, within which public health policy would be promulgated — fair enough. But we've got to get down to brass tacks. We've got some problems in the province in these areas, and I want to spend a few minutes talking about those.

The Vancouver police department recently…. This is the Vancouver police department. It's not the opposition. It's not the health coalition. It's not the health care unions. It's not the opposition Health critic. It's not the opposition. It's the Vancou ver police department that recently put forward a study about this very question of the crisis, the emergency in public health when it comes to addictions and mental health and homeless- ness in the city of Vancouver. They said the key finding of this research is that: "…there is a profound lack of capacity in mental health resources in Vancouver.

The result is an alarm- ingly high number of calls for police service to incidents that involve mentally ill people in crisis. VPD officers" — Vancouver police department officers — "along with the citizens with whom they come in contact are bearing the burden of a mental health system that lacks resources and efficient information-sharing practices, often with tragic consequences." Now, that's an indictment of the mental health system as it exists in this province. It comes from the Vancouver police department.

So while we welcome initiatives put forward by government to modernize the Public Health Act, we request of government, we implore of government, that we have initiatives that modernize public health. The act is one thing. We've got a crisis, an emergency, with respect to public health happening right now. The Vancouver police department tells us that.

This minister and this government are responsible for public health, and we say that, together with init iatives in modernizing and streamlining the act, there have to be policies that deal with the current crisis emergency of public health when it comes to mental health and addictions. The Vancouver police department report — not the opposition, not the health coalition, not the advocacy groups — says that up to 49 percent of all calls they attend in one of the sectors of Vancouver in which contact with an individual is made involves a mentally ill person. So we've got a situation.

We've got a situa- tion in which the police department tells us that there is a crisis in the availability of resources for people who are mentally ill and addicted and homeless in Vancouver and that in one of the regions of Vancouver, 49 percent of the calls that the police are making involve somebody who is mentally ill. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to send law enforcement officers to deal with health care. That's inefficient, inappropriate. [1125] The VPD report goes on to say….

I want to focus on this quotation from the police — not the opposition, not the Health critic, not the health coalition, not the unions. The Vancouver police department says: "The downtown east side is a predictable example of what happens when people who need various levels of community support are left to fend for themselves." That's what the police have said to us. While we welcome the government and the minister bringing forward legislation which modernizes and streamlines the act, we demand of this same minister that he bring forward policies that deal with mental health. The act — words on paper.

People's lives, people's health are at risk. We have a crisis. We have an emergency. In general, the Vancouve r police department says this to us. This fact, the fa ct that the police are dealing

12014 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 with mental health issues, is supported in current lit- erature, where it's widely accepted that the police are, by default, becoming the in formal first responders of our mental health systems. The problem with that is that the police aren't part of the mental health system. We've got a situation in which police officers, by default…. They're doing the best they can. I live in Vancouver. I see the police officers every day doing the best they can to deal with a situation which isn't a police situation. It's not a policing situation.

It's not a law enforcement situation. It is, in fact, a public health situation. It's a health crisis, and the police department has pointed that out very clearly to us. So we say to government, to this minister, that the VPD report does several things at once. First of all, it's an indictment of the current state of public health, of mental health, addiction services and homelessness in the city. Secondly, it points to the reminder that this opposition is providing to the minister that it is not possible to deal with this crisis, with this emergency, without the appropriate resources.

And thirdly, it reminds us, or it should remind the minister, that downloading those responsibilities without providing the appropriate resources is inappropriate and won't solve the problem. Finally, if I may, I would like to quote a final time from the VPD report where they say: "Lack of resources. The final and perhaps most significant issue affecting the enforcement of current legislation is the lack of resources for people who are mentally ill." Madam Speaker, we need to listen to that report. The Vancouver police have told us that there is a lack of resources for those who are mentally ill.

I want to broaden the discussion a little bit, because I think that while the Vancouver police report is tremendously significant, it doesn't speak to the rest of the province. Unfortunately, the problem is worse in the rest of the province, and I have had personal experience in recent weeks with that. I was at the Lookout emergency shelter on the downtown east side of Vancouver.

I recommend highly to every member of this Legislature that you take a little bit of time and find, in your own community or in Vancouver or in Victoria, the time to visit an emergency shelter — and not just whisk yourself in and out of the emergency shelter, those places that are there as a temporary refuge for some of the homeless people in our community, for some of the 10,000 to 15,000 homeless people in British Columbia. Of course, there aren't nearly enough homeless shelter beds, temporary emergency shelters for all of the people who are homeless.

But for some of that enormous number of homeless people in our province, we have emergency shelter beds. [1130] I recommend to every member that she or he visit an emergency shelter and spend some time speaking to our neighbours, our neighbours who find it necessary to seek shelter in these emer gency shelters. I was at the Lookout shelter in the downtown east side of Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, an d I spoke to two people — one of them from Surrey an d one of them from the Kootenays.

I asked them what they were doing in the shelter, where they'd lived before and what happened that resulted in them taki ng refuge in the emergency shelter. They both said that they had mental health challenges for which there were no appropriate services, none, in their own communities. So they were forced to come to Vancouver and stay in emergency shelters in Vancouver, when the appropriate and the most healthy thing for them to do would have been to find those services in their own communities, where they had family and friends who could provide the support necessary for them to be more successful.

So it is not just a Vancouver problem. I want to draw our attention to another report, a significant report that came out a couple months ago. The report comes from the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction in the faculty of health sciences at Simon Fraser University. It's called Housing and Support for Adults with Severe Addictions and/or Mental Illness in British Columbia.

It has to be mentioned that in this report the authors, who are respected researchers and academics, estimate that between 8,000 and 15,500 people in British Columbia with severe addictions and/or mental illness are homeless. Think about that. Between 8,000 and 15,500 people who have severe addictions problems or mental illness or both are homeless. What's happened is that the researchers have begun to use the figure 11,750, which is halfway between 8,000 and 15,500, as their estimate for the number of homeless people who have mental health problems, addiction problems or both.

Now, we know there are thousands of people in the province who have neither mental health problems nor addiction problems, who are homeless. So that begins t o g i v e u s a s e n s e o f h o w m a n y i n t h e p r o v i n c e a r e homeless. But they tell us that there are 11,750 homeless people in the province who have mental health problems, addiction problems or both — a staggering figure. The week before last, the Fraser Valley homelessness count was announced. I think it's worthwhile mentioning just a couple of the results of that count.

First of all, there was a significant increase in homelessness reported in the Fraser Valley count. Th at shouldn't be surprising to us, because that's the case in every community in the province — significant increases in the number of homeless people. It's a 364 percent increase in the number of street homeless in Vancouver since 2002 — increases everywhere. Two other factors were announced as a result of that count.

Some 35 percent of the homeless people in the upper Fraser Valley work at least part time, and 75 percent of the homeless people in the upper Fraser Valley call the Fraser Valley home, which gives the lie to this kind of urban myth that somehow the homeless people in our communities are from somewhere else. "They're not us. They come from somewhere else, and they travel to our communities to be homeless." No, they're us. They're us — the homeless people in our communities. What did the SAMI report, Housing and Support for Adults with Severe Addictions and/or Mental Illness in British Columbia, have to say? [1135]

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12015 I quote from that report. "According to housing and support providers across B.C., affordable housing is vanishing, evictions are on the rise, and waiting lists for social and supported housing continue to grow. As a consequence, homelessness and SAMI" — severe addictions or mental illness; that's SAMI — "are placing greater pressu re on the social service, health care and criminal justice system. In contrast to the cost of implementing solutions , w h a t i s t h e c o s t o f t h e status quo?" That's a question, Madam Speaker.

In contrast to implementing solutions, what is the cost of the status quo? That's a question we asked directly through you to the minister. What the researchers are saying to us — and I'm sure the minister has seen the report; if not, I recommend it to him highly — is that the cost of doing what we're doing is way more expensive than providing the necessary housing and supports for people who are mentally ill, people who have addictions problems and people who are homeless. Why? Why is it that it's cheaper to provide homes and supports than to do what we're doing? Well, the police department report told us.

Think of the costs of policing, of the courts, of the jails, of the ambulances, of the emergency rooms, of the acute care beds. A report today in the media tells us that a quarter, 25 percent, of the beds at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver are filled with people with mental health problems or addiction problems who are homeless. It's way cheaper to deal with the problem and provide housing and the supports necessary for those people who are hou sed to be su cces sfu l than it is to do what we're doing.

We recommend that to this minister and to this government, if they are concerned about the nuts and bolts of public health and not just the structure as defined by the legislation. The same Simon Fraser report reported a list of challenges. I would argue that these are the challenges that are faced by government if they are serious about providing solutions to the mental health, addictions and homelessness crisis that we face today, right now, in the province. First of all, the report ar gued for increased planning and communication. I would argue that that's very important.

I want to say, based on the work I've been doing over the last couple of months and the travelling I've been doing across the province and speaking with service providers who deal with people with mental health problems and addictions challenges and home- lessness, that there is an increased integration of planning and communication. But at the end of the day you can increase coordination all you want. If you don't have homes and services, it doesn't make a difference. Income assistance. This report says income assistance is necessary. At $8 an ho ur or $375 a month for the shelter allowance, it's impossible.

We need increases in both of those things. Supply of low-cost rental housing. There's a crisis. All the talk in the world, a ll of the coordination in the world, all of the outreach workers in the world can't find people places to live unless those places to live exist. "There needs to be a cris is orientation," said the report from Simon Fraser. There's an emergency right now, a crisis right now. Government has to set its mind to it. Insufficient community programs and supports for people with addictions and mental health problems — that's what the Simon Fraser report said.

To conclude, while we support in general an updating and streamlining of the public health legislation, we say that what's more important to government is public health. We've got a crisis. We've got an emergency when it comes to mental health services, addictions services and homelessness in this province.

While we support this improved legislation, we say to government: your responsi- bility, much more important than changing the legislation, way more important than words on paper, much more important than updating old legislation from the 1890s…. [1140] The real responsibility, the real task, the real test is what government does to help people who are involved, who need public health help, our neighbours who have mental health challenges or addiction challenges and are homeless. So we ask of the government, we suggest to the government and we implore the government to take important steps in those areas. C.

Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure once more to be up in the House to speak on a bill — Bill 23, the Public Health Act — that is important. It is a bill that in broad generalities, I believe, is supportable. But as I share my thoughts here with the House, I have some cautions that I would like to share with you, Madam Speaker, and with the people here in British Columbia watching this important discussion taking place here. There is no question in my mind on the importance of public health.

There is, to me, a self-evident fact that when we have legislation that goes back to the '90s — in this particular case it is the 1890s since an overall comprehensive review has been done — i t s a y s t h a t this legislation needs to have a review. However, and I will return to this point later, one of the cautions I do have is that once more we have legis- lation here that is enabling legislation. What it does is allow the cabinet to take on the responsibility for developing the regulations, for actually putting the meat and bones upon this legislation.

As we know from previous discussions we've had in here, the cabinet is an arm of government that meets in secret. It does not make the rationale on how the decisions were made available to the population at large. It is done in a fashion that it is very difficult, if not impossible, for the people of British Columbia to have direct input to this particular arm of government. It's a very powerful portion of our Legislature's setup.

Once more we are taking aspects that are important to British Columbians and removing where the decisions are made from a venue in which input is provided — and an ability to see what is happening. That raises t h r e e o r f o u r c a u t i o n s t h a t I f i n d h e r e i n t h e b i l l a n d that I would like to share with you. I've had a tendency to look upon the effect of this particular bill from my area of responsibility, from a

12016 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 local government and community services overview. When you look at the bill, it contains within it the ability to override local government zoning bylaws that prohibit types of health services. In discussion that has taken place leading up to the development of the bill, it has been mentioned as examples that we'd be looking at types of health services such as needle exchanges or methadone clinics. That's one aspect of it.

The cabinet then ends up in a situation — presumably, the regulations that they develop — that in overriding the zoning bylaw that exists within a community, they have taken on the responsibility amongst themselves to determine where such a health service would be provided. [1145] It raises this question, and it's a hypothetical situation. In the past we have seen situations in which the popu- lation have raised their concerns about this type of health service being in thei r neighbourhood.

By having this responsibility now being passed on to cabinet, it does potentially raise the situation of an overall fairness. When the cabinet looks upon where any opposition may be coming for such a service area, does a commu- nity have the assurance that the entire community will have the oversight, the protec tion assigned to it by the cabinet?

I beg to draw this conclusion — that you do not have that assurance anymore because in the cabinet there is absolutely no gu arantee that the community where the decisions are being challenged will have a cabinet minister sitting at the table to bring forward those community interests. At the same time cabinet mi nisters, when they sit as members of cabinet, are sitt ing there with the responsi- bility to the cabinet, and they have left at the front door their responsibility for their ridings and the communities that in actual fact have elec ted them.

It also raises the question: what about all of th ose ridings that belong to the opposition, whichever party that may be? This is a caution that I bring forward. When you have enabling legislation that removes oversight and puts it into secrecy, then the aspect of fairness also comes into play. A second point that I would also like to bring up at this time and share with yo u is the responsibility for government at the senior level. Sometimes it's provincial, and sometimes it's federal, but most often the respon- sibility for the services being provided in health care belongs at the provincial ta ble.

When the provincial government doesn't provide for those services for mental health, for addictions and for homelessness, the results of that lack of services being provided are felt at the local government level. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Mr. Speaker, it's good to see that you're back. I'd like to acknowledge that you have joined me to hear my points that I'm making, and I wish to acknowledge Madam Speaker for having listened so attentively as you change the guard. The point I'm raising here is that those services not being provided to the community leave the local government suffering the consequences.

Last weekend I happened to be at a local government meeting of the Southern Interior Local Government Association. I had one of the local elected officials, a director of the TNRD, approach me about homelessness that has turned up in her area. Now, this isn't a community. This is a rural unin- corporated area, and the issue of homelessness has turned up in her area of responsibility. She was asking me, as the provincial elected person, what I could do to help support her in that area.

I will get back to her, but the point I'm making here is that it's the local government that experiences the effect of public health services not being provided in their area . They are the ones that have to live with the consequences. [1150] Remember that this legislation provides the cabinet with the ability to override the zonings of the local government. But I do not see in the legislation the pro- vincial government taking on the responsibility for ensuring that the funding responsibilities for providing these health services also tu rn up and arrive there.

So that is one of the cautions that I bring forward about this particular bill in front of us. Secondly, the bill itself has removed the explicit power of local governments to sit as local boards of health to make orders to remediate a health hazard. I'm sure there is an argument that can be developed for this particular rationale, but by doing such, this has removed the ability of individual citizens to actually call in for the investigation of a health hazard.

Now you have, in the legislation, removed that potential ability from individual citizens and incorporated it at the most distant decision-making aspect of government, of legislatures — at the cabinet level. That is something that I believe is worth mentioning here. We have had an example at Chapman Creek where there was a health concern. The health officer was in actual fact in agreement that there was a health concern. But now, as I read the legislation, the ability for local government to move upon that health hazard directly is removed, and this is what we now have for the plan.

We have an individual who goes to a health officer, who goes to a designated person, and we now wait for the development of the regulations. We then determine at that point what will happen with the health concern. At one point in time the only filter that was in place was the individual approaching the local level of gove r n m e n t a n d t h e n m o vi n g o n t h a t i t em , s h o u l d the local level of government feel that it was necessary and prudent for it to move on it. So I have those concerns. The concerns also go into other aspects of public health that have an effect on local government.

We do know that public health is the best method of dealing with health situations if we're dealing with the preventative aspect of it, if it remains community based and if the resources are provided at the community level. I think there is unanimity on both sides of the House with those particular principles. As I've pointed out, the community-based aspect of it has now been moved further away from the community

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12017 in the process of implementation. The question of funding for the services likewise remains there. In the area of public health, the province has responsi- bilities — for example, in looking after septic field regula- tions. There's an aspect that the regulations that have been introduced by this government in 2005 have caused quite a wide range of issues and problems across the entire province. In doing such, the UBCM wishes to work with the government to have a large number of changes made to those regulations.

This particular bill, when we look at the regulations that are developed, may provide the same set of encumbrances to looking after public health. [1155] Noting the time, Mr. Speaker, I am going to very quickly wrap up at this moment in time, and I will be turning it over to my colleague. I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present my points of view, and I will reserve my place for after lunch. C. Wyse moved adjournment of debate. Motion approved. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Tabling Documents Hon. R.

Thorpe: I have the privilege to table the annual report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board for the year 2007. Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m. PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS AND RANGE AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:07 a.m. On Vote 34: ministry operations, $534,097,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. Committee A is meeting for the estimates of Forests and Range. Before I start, I would like to remind all members of the House to keep their comments and their side com- ments to themselves. There is to be no interaction with the gallery at all. The same rules apply in the small House as they do in the big House. Any member of the gallery that makes a noise or in any way interrupts the proceedings will be asked to be removed from the gallery.

I would like to point out to the member for Nelson- Creston to keep his comments to himself and allow the individuals on both sides of the House that have the floor to be able to make comment. N. Macdonald: Who is Nelson-Creston? Where is he? The Chair: Member. Member, all comments are through the Chair. You know, we're just going through this process now, and it's respect for the House and the way the House runs. So is it clear to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke? N. Macdonald: Absolutely clear. B.

Simpson: Again, my thanks to the staff that are all coming in here, and we'll try and get through the remainder of the day. My understanding, for the Chair's edification and for the minister, is that we have until close of session today on these estimates. I guess we're still aiming for about 11:45 so that we can take it into the House. The Chair: Yes. Member, the rules for the House are 15 minutes before the close of the day for the small House. B. Simpson: Thank you, Chair. I ' d l i k e j u s t t o w r a p u p s o m e o f t h e w o r k t h a t w e were doing yesterday on Pope and Talbot.

Then I'd like to move on to tenures in general, and through that we'll canvass forest and range agreements and canvass B.C. Timber Sales issues. Hopefully, we can get on to some general issues of the coast today before we break. [1010] With respect to Pope and Talbot, overnight I had asked whether or not we could get clarification if the court had ever been informed that the private lands in tree farm licence 23 were encumbered. Was the minister able to get that clarification? Hon. R.

Coleman: Yesterday — and I'll give this to the member, actually — the hon. member asked when the government had notified the court that the sale of the private land was encumbered. Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry of At- torney General staff have had discussions with a court- appointed monitor and made it clear that the private lands were subject to the TFL. They h a v e a l s o m a d e i t c l e a r that the minister's approval is needed for the lands to be deleted from the TFL. It is clear that the monitor and the court understood that th e lands are subject to the

12018 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, MAY 6, 2008 TFL and that the approval fr om the minister must be obtained for the lands to be removed from the TFL. For example, in the third monitor's report to the court dated November 28, 2007, page 14, paragraph 6.5.2: "In October 2007 the company submitted to the Minister of Forests and Range a formal request to remove the private lands from the TFL.

Under the Forest Act, the approval from MOFR must be obtained for the disposition of the private lands if the private land is subject to a TFL." It goes on to say: "The listings of properties in appendix C denotes which properties are included in the TFL and the requirement to have it removed prior to sale." The hon. member should be aware that there is a notation in the land title that indicates the land in question is also subject to the TFL. B. Simpson: Thank you. That's a helpful clarification.

Again, just for the public re cord, a lot of the questions that we ask in estimates are on behalf of other people that are seeking that clarification. It's good to have the clarification on the public record. We can then ship it out to them, which is what we do. We take Hansard and give it to the various stakeh olders that ask us to bring those things forward. With respect to the timing of the approval, when can we expect the minister's decision on the removal of these private lands from TFL 23? Hon. R. Coleman: At this point in time, there's been work done with communities, fi rst nations, etc.

It's on the deputy's desk. It hasn't come to mine. My folks have been advised, even subject to yesterday's debates, that prior to it coming to me it has to go out for some public meetings within the communities. So there is no time line for that. It's not going to happen this week, next week, or whatever the case may be, because we're obviously here until the end of the month. I would anticipate that th e request for the decision, which doesn't necessarily mean the decision gets made one way or the other, is some time away, but it's not imminent today or tomorrow, sort of thing. B.

Simpson: Yesterday, there were some questions about which first nations…. I assume the Okanagan Nation Alliance is part of the consultation process. That's who we have had correspondence from as recently as February of this year. So they're part of the first nations consultations? [1015] Hon. R.

Coleman: To the member opposite, and I may have some trouble with some of the pronouncing of some of these names because I don't have the phonetic ones, the Adams Lake Indian Band, the Ktunaxa Indian Nation Council, Little Shuswap Indian band, Lower Similkameen, Neskonlith Indian band, Okanagan Indian band, the Penticton Indian band, Shuswap, Splats'in, Westbank, Okanagan Nation Alliance and the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council have all received communication with regards to this from the ministry. B. Simpson: Again, I want to be clear.

The minister has indicated that, in this ca se, public meetings will be held in advance of the release of the private lands? Hon. R. Coleman: We will go into a couple of the affected communities, and people can come to those meetings. But yeah, we'll go into one or two communi- ties and have a public meeting with regards to the lands in the TFL. B. Simpson: I guess for the sake of the people on Vancouver Island: Why? Why is this happening now? I mean, it's great that people are going to be consulted with, but why didn't this happen on Vancouver Island? That's what we've been saying all along.

The people of Jordan River have had to take to the streets because this didn't happen. I would like an explanation on the public record. Why the change of heart? Why, when you've got a small amount of private land in the Interior — the last bit of private land, really, of any substance or value — that's left in tree farm licences, are we now going to turn around and consult with the public, from the per- spective of the minister anyway? We're happy that he's going to do that, but it should have been done on Van- couver Island. Why the change of heart? Hon. R.

Coleman: Well, I'm not going to get into the debate about what happened with the other TFL, quite frankly. The member read into the record yester- day the report that came that the

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0506am 05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0506am 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	20b473b0474d398e42d43b5052d11b4322d53a2a

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