H0505pm 04

H0505pm 04

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, May 5, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Volume 32, Number 4 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 Monday, May 5, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11941 Statements..................................................................................................................... .......................................................... 11941 Holocaust Memorial Day Hon. G.

Campbell Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11941 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 11942 B.C. teams at National Aboriginal Hockey Championships Hon.

M. de Jong Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 11942 Statements (Standing Order 25 B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 11942 Health and safety initiatives at Victoria Chinese Public School R. Fleming Holocaust Memorial Day I. Black Child care C. Trevena University designation for Capilano College J. McIntyre Housing and homelessness D.

Chudnovsky Richmond Rotary Club gala for seniors J. Yap Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 11945 Child in the Home of a Relative program C. James Hon. T. Christensen N. Simons M. Karagianis A. Dix Government action on forest industry D. Routley Hon. R. Coleman B. Simpson N.

Macdonald Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 11950 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued) Hon. G. Abbott Health Care Costs Recovery Act (Bill 22) Hon. G. Abbott A. Dix B. Ralston Hon. G. Abbott

Election Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 42) Hon. W. Oppal L. Krog B. Ralston D. Chudnovsky C. Puchmayr Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 11977 Estimates: Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman J. Horgan D. Routley K. Conroy

11941 MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 The House met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members Hon. L. Reid: With us are today are four members of the Provincial Child Care Council: co-chair Amy Collum, Little Ferns young parent program in Nanaimo; Brenda Gottfried, Freedom Child Care Centre in Victoria; Rebecca Scott, Our Children's Centre Society of greater Victoria; and Bruce Hallsor, our parent rep from Crease Harmon and Co., Victoria.

I t w a s m y p l e a s u r e t o j o i n t h e m f o r l u n c h a n d t o share with them copies of the proclamation to proclaim May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. I would ask the House to please join me in thanking them for their valuable co ntribution to children and families in the province of British Columbia and to welcome them to the Legislature today. [1335] D. Routley: I would like the House to help me make three guests welcome. First, Jesse Winfrey. Jesse is a Duncan city councillor. He and I go back to, I think, seven years old as Cub Scout buddies.

I think our troop was expelled from the church we were in. That tells you a little about our behaviour at that point. We're much better behaved now. I would like everybody to help me make Jesse Winfrey welcome from the city of Duncan. Then if I could add two of my guests. Jenny Martin and Liz Peters are Cowichan Tribes elders, and they've come to join us and visit wi th the opposition to discuss some of their issues. Statements HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY Hon. G.

Campbell: Today we have representatives of our Jewish community here to help remember the Holocaust and Holocaust Memorial Day — in the House, as they have been here for the last few years. We remember more than six million victims lost in the Holocaust. We pay tribute to the men, women and children who were victims of racism and intolerance, and we honour those who have survived.

In the gallery today, we're honoured to be joined by survivors of the Holocaust and the families of survi- vors: Rita Akselrod, Ben Akselrod, Zev Bak, Nikki Basuk, Amalia Boe Fishman, Bob Boekbinder, Lillian Boraks Nemetz, Alex Buckman, Charles Carl, Saul Cohn, Sophie Cymbalista, Jody Dales, Dr.

Abraham Deston, Susi Deston, Mark Elster, Sara Engelberg, Arieh Engelberg, Izzi Fraeme, Diana Friedman, Matilda Gertner, Jason Gertne r, Debbie Gertner, Esfira Golger, Benji Gorodnitsky, Gregory Gorodnitsky, Myer Grinshpan, Pola Hister, Vladimir Hopner, Frances Hoyd, Jane Janson, Lisa Kafka, Rachel Katz, Katusha Khmelnitsky, Dr.

David Kirk, Vladimir Levit, Ella Levit, Maurice Lipkavitz, Sara Mendelbaum, Lola Mendelson, Goldie Miller, Joseph Polinsky, Alla Polinsky, Maya Rivkis, Yakov Rivkis, Edith Rothfels, Horst Rothfels, Jack Rozen, Doreen Rozen, Robert Rubenfeld, Gertrude Rubenfeld, Shelly Seidelman, David Shaffer, Sidi Shafer, Rita Shapiro, John Sitwell, Raya Sitwell, Gerald Stanford, Elizabeth Stern, Bente Thomsen, Michael Vainer, Leo Vogel, Jacob Wardy, Veronica Winkler, Rachel Wosk, Sally Zimmerson, Voron Zoia and Iakov Zoia.

Together today in this House and in this time in t h i s p r o v i n c e , w e h o n o u r t heir experiences, their sacri- fices and in doing so reaffirm our collective commitment to never forget and to never waver in our defence of freedom and our condemnation of hatred, violence and intolerance. We will never forget, Mr. Speaker. Introductions by Members N. Macdonald: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce members of the Council of Tourism Associa- tions. We very much apprecia te the work that they do, and we enjoyed joining them this morning. I hope members will join me in making them feel welcome. K.

Whittred: On behalf of yourself, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some special visitors who are in the gallery this afternoon. Marcus Kurschat and his wife Janis are visiting from Qualicum Beach. They are here with their three sons Marcus Jr., Jack and Michael. They have enjoyed a very special tour of the build- ing today, and I hope they will also enjoy watching our proceedings this afternoon. Would the House please join me in a very warm welcome for this family. [1340] K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce Rick and Shelley Fontaine from Fruitvale.

Rick is the financial secretary for Local 480 United Steelworkers, and he is also a carpenter at Teck Cominco. Shelly works for the school district in Trail. I know that this is their first time to Victoria, so please join me in welcoming them to the House. Hon. G. Hogg: I am delighted to introduce ten individuals who do a great deal to promote the city of White Rock.

They are Evan Palmer, White Rock ambas- sador; Katie Dolmat, White Rock ambassador; and Emily Davies, White Rock ambassador; the friendship ambas- sador, Alexa Posch; White Rock princess, Kyaelim Kwon; Miss White Rock, Courtney Crowson; and B.C. ambassa- dor Samantha Schapp; along with their coordinators and support, Debbie Ward, Donna Beaudry and Sharon Crowson. Would the House please make them most welcome. C. Trevena: I had the pleasure of having lunch with two members of the Council of Tourism Associations:

11942 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 Craig Murray, who is a dire ctor and also runs the fishing lodge Nimmo Bay, and Brian Gunn from Strathcona Park Lodge. They are in the precincts for meetings to promote the importance of tourism to our province's economy, and I hope the House will make them welcome. Hon. K. Krueger: I have the privilege of introducing Lee Morris today. Lee is the CEO of Tourism Kamloops. She grew up here on the south Island and made her fame down here and was inexorably drawn to the Thompson valleys to continue her career.

It's a place where she owns cows, horses and acreage and does a wonderful job as CEO. Would everyone please make Lee Morris welcome. C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join me in welcom- ing a constituent of mine from the Williams Lake area, Kimberley Burgoyne, who is with the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association. She has joined her colleagues today to promote this great industry of ours, tourism here in British Columbia. Please make them welcome. R. Hawes: Because seating was so difficult in the gallery, my guest is actually sitting across the hall in my office watching this on TV.

So I'm hoping we can send a good welcome to Linnea Battel, the co-director of Abo- riginal Tourism B.C. She is also the director of Xa:ytem, which is a 9,000-year-old Salish village in Mission, where I live. For those who were interested in seeing what life was like 9,000 years ago, I commend you to an SFU website, www.sfu.museum/time. There is an unbelievable website that shows the whole Salish village. Hon. S. Hagen: There are actually 50 representatives from COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, in the House and in the precincts today. They are representing all sectors of the tourism industry.

They are spending the day meeting with cabinet ministers and with MLAs. I would like to thank Jim Storie, who is the chair of the board of directors, and Stephen Regan, presi- dent and CEO, for organizing COTA's visit and for the excellent work that they do on behalf of the many tourism associations and businesses in the province of British Columbia. Would the House join me in mak- ing Jim, Stephen and all of the COTA representatives feel very welcome. J. McIntyre: Since it appears to be COTA day, I just wanted to add good wishes to Dave Clark and hope the House will make him feel welcome.

He comes from a hotel background and works at Tourism Whistler, and he is also here for the meeting. J. Yap: It's my pleasure to ask the House to ac- knowledge the presence in th e legislative precincts of a group of 202 grade 11 students from the great school R o b e r t A .

M c M a t h S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l i n m y r i d i n g o f Richmond-Steveston. [1345] They're here to visit the legislative precincts, the museum and other important parts of our capital city as part of their program on learning and being here in the Legislature to learn firsthand about our parliamen- tary traditions in their cour ses at school. They're with about 20 adults led by Ms. Monique Vonk, who is a grade 11 socials teacher. Would the House please wel- come this group of young people.

I'd like to add, if I may, a special welcome to the pre- cincts to my favourite grade 11 student, my son Michael Yap, who is with his group of classmates on this visit. Would the House please make him welcome. Tributes B.C. TEAMS AT NATIONAL ABORIGINAL HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIPS Hon. M. de Jong: Over the weekend, the National Aboriginal Hockey Championships took place in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and British Columbia sent two teams. These were bantam- and midget-age players. We sent a men's team and a women's team. They hailed from across the province with a little bit of help from a few players from the Yukon.

I had a chance to meet them on their return to Brit- ish Columbia at YVR, Vancouver, yesterday and got a chance to see the bronze medal that the women's team won. I know that everyone in this House wants to send to the players, the coaches, the support, the parents — everyone who made the trip possible — a hearty thanks for representing us so well and congratulations for their success. Introductions by Members C. Evans: I see my friend Marcia Braundy upstairs there. Actually, the last time I introduced her, she was Marcia. Now she's Dr. Marcia Braundy.

Could everyone please welcome her with the appropriate due respect. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) HEALTH AND SAFETY INITIATIVES AT VICTORIA CHINESE PUBLIC SCHOOL R. Fleming: I'd like to inform the House about an initiative that the Capital Region Housing Corporation is undertaking as part of their activities for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. In previous years the housing corporation has worked with children living in housing complexes to promote safety at home. Last year focused on what tenants can do for emergency preparedness. This year the housing corporation decided to reach out to their corporate neighbours.

Across the street from the CRD building on Fisgard Street is the Chinese Public School, a historic building with re ligious, cultural and educa- tional significance in our community and an enduring icon of Victoria's Chinatown.

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11943 The school was delighted to have their students participate in promoting health and safety, and the housing corporation is proud to be working with the school in the year that they will be celebrating their 100th birthday in the city of Victoria. The project with the school has two main compo- nents. The first component is fire safety. The school has arranged with the city of Vi ctoria fire department for a full simulation fire drill.

The successful drill involves the use of fire trucks and gives students the opportu- nity to explore firefighting equipment, hear about fire- containment strategy and talk with real firefighters. The fire safety aspect also involved the housing corpo- ration assisting with the school's preparation of a fire safety plan that includes what to do in case of fire, and posters in both English and Cantonese. The second component of this project involves the school children themselves creating posters about any safety theme they choose that is related to fire.

The housing corporation has provided all of the art materi- als. Three weeks later, I'm proud to say that 60 posters have been returned by the students. Today David Ganong, who is chair of the Capital Region Housing Corporation, and Whyte Cheung, a prominent member of the Chinese community, are making the selection of the winning posters for the three different student age groups. The posters are going to be displayed in the main lobby of the CRD headquarters building before going back to the school for a celebration on Thursday, May 8, which will honour the winning posters with prizes for the students.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the housing corporation, who do so much for their residents and their families in my community, and to extend wishes to the Chinese school on their 100th birthday. HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY I. Black: The Holocaust — a horror the size and scope of which defies comprehens ion. Six million Jews, 1.5 million children and thousands of Jewish communities obliterated forever.

In addition, the Nazis also persecuted and murdered hundreds of thousands of others based on their physical or mental disabilities, race, religion, politics or sexual orientation. [1350] A memorial was held today in the Legislature with approximately 100 guests in attendance, including Holocaust survivors and their children. We observe and we honour Holocaust Memorial Day to remember and support those who perished, those who suffered and those who survived.

The Holocaust is a solemn and poignant reminder of how important our own individual roles are in fight- ing injustice — how we all have individual responsi- bilities towards our fellow citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality. We must take heed of the importance of remembering such atrocities. Simply put, never again can we let hatred, racism, persecution and genocide take root and harm our fellow human beings. Never again can indifference and inaction trump courage and moral righteousness.

We must actively stand against victimization and persecution, no matter how apparently benign the form or isolated the case. As time continues its steady march and the voices of the survivors become fewer, the mantle passes to us to ensure that our children and then their children are taught the individual and active obligation to oppose such hatred. Noted philosopher and Holocaust historian John Roth wrote: "Questions about the fate of Holocaust memory should concern us…because the quality of human life itself depends greatly on what we remember, how we remember and why we remember." And so we remember.

In doing so, we also incubate hope that this great reminder of past injustices will provide greater assurance, one person at a time, that we can live in a truly peaceful and just society. I would ask all present to stand and join me in a moment of silence and recognition of Holocaust Memorial Day and all those it commemorates. CHILD CARE C. Trevena: Jason was sitting on a little chair at a low table at a child care centre while his ten-month-old son tottered around, eager to explore all the possibilities as young minds and newly stumbling bodies are wont to do.

Jason's daughter goes to the centre for two days a week, and he'd love it if his infant son could also attend. It would mean that he and Melanie, his wife, could spend some time together. At the moment they work on opposite shifts at the hospital so they can look after the children. He's a manager working days. She's a maternity and pediatric nurse on nights. They are both exhausted. Jason knows it's not just his family who faces this daily problem. As a manager, he says it's hard to get nurses and almost impossible to get them on overtime, and lack of child care is one of the reasons.

The child care centre we're meeting in has 12 spaces for infant and toddlers — that's for babies from birth to 18 months — b u t o n l y f o u r o f t h o s e s p a c e s c a n b e u s e d . That's because the centre can't find the staff to work there. Like everywhere in child care, the pay, which starts at $12 an hour, is too low to live on as a single income, and there are no benefits. In this community of 4,000, there are 34 parents on the wait list at this centre. Fourteen of them are looking for infant and toddler care. But the trained early childhood educators are leaving child care for other work.

For all the mind-inspiring puzzles and activities, the bright rooms hung with kids' art, the picture is bleak across the province. Wait lists are long in cen- tres in every community, parents are frantic, and care providers are burnt out. City halls and chambers of commerce recognize the crisis, and the child care community is finding unlikely allies. But allies alone are not enough. M a y i s C h i l d C a r e M o n t h . I t ' s a t i m e t o s a l u t e the hard work and dedication of those child care

11944 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 providers. It's a time to recognize the role that child care plays in our communities and in all our society. Let's also make it a time for celebration. [1355] UNIVERSITY DESIGNATION FOR CAPILANO COLLEGE J. McIntyre: I rise today to applaud the significant dream that after tremendous community collaboration has been realized for the North Shore, Howe Sound and Sunshine Coast region.

On April 25 the North Shore MLAs were honoured to attend a historic ceremony at Capilano College, where the Premier announced to a packed house the exciting news that Capilano College would soon become Capilano University. Capilano College was established 40 years ago in a high school setting in West Vancouver and has now grown to campuses in North Vancouver, Squamish and the Sunshine Coast. Not only d o e s i t h a v e a g r o w i n g reputation across the province, but it has received sig- nificant international attent ion, boasting hundreds of international students.

Capilano College and its president, Greg Lee, are leaders in expanding 21st century post-secondary education, in meeting traini ng needs in the region and in continuing to increase their reputation in teaching excellence. Capilano College is already recognized in key areas of specialization including tourism and out- door recreation programs, not to mention that they have the biggest film program in western Canada.

I'm delighted that our province has taken the neces- sary steps in several communities across the province to recognize the important role of teaching-intensive community institutions, the calibre of their staff and the top-quality programming by raising them to univer- sity status. Thanks to a well-supported public campaign following the release of the Campus 2020 report, thousands of students will have the opportunity to gain access to degree programs closer to home. With the university designation, Capilano will be in an enhanced position to attract students, faculty and donors.

They're anticipating increasing the number of degree programs offered, an upwards spiral. In the Sea to Sky corridor Capilano has been working to build a new campus in downtown Squamish to expand offerings and to consolidate its designation as a B.C. centre for tourism, leadership and innovation. The good news will boost efforts and provide a complement to Quest Universi ty in creating a hub of educational opportunities in the area. Congratulations to all those who worked in the region to secure the designation, and a special tribute to Dr. Greg Lee and his active team. HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS D.

Chudnovsky: On Saturday in communities across the province, British Columbians met on street corners to hold more than 75 Stands for Housing. These non-partisan events were organized and supported by groups and in dividuals that reflect our province's incredible diversity — the Citywide Housing Coalition; Anglican, United, Unitarian and Lutheran churches; teachers associations; the Carnegie action project; Streams of Justice; the B.C.

Federation of Labour and the CLC; the No rth Shore Shalom Seekers; Renters Voice; Faith in Action; the Vancouver and Victoria Labour Councils; Community Advocates for Little Mountain; and many more. Perhaps most significantly, the students council at Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo sponsored and organized one of the stands. Most counts put the homeless numbers in B.C. conservatively at more than 10,000. That's about the population of Williams Lake. If tomorrow there were a flood or fire in Williams Lake and everybody lost their homes, we as a province would do something about it and quickly.

Because we are decent and caring, British Columbians would make sure that those people had somewhere to live. That's what we face. We have a population in our province equal to or greater than the population of Wil- liams Lake with nowhere to live. We as legislators have a special responsibility when it comes to homelessness. British Columbians expect that we will do everything in our power to resolve the crisis and quickly. I ask everyone on both sides of the House, all 79 of us, to commit ourselves to ending homelessness in our province. I thank all of those who took

part in the Stands for Housing, who called our attention to the crisis and reminded us of our responsibility to find solutions. RICHMOND ROTARY CLUB GALA FOR SENIORS J. Yap: Charity and volunteerism abound in our province and in my community. Today I would like to recognize the charitable work of a group of Richmond individuals. On April 20, I had the honour of attending the Rotary Club of Richmond inaugural Tribute to Seniors Gala, which was the brainchild of Peter Raju, the club's president.

When visiting his 85-year -old mother in a seniors care facility some time ago, Peter came to realize that many seniors are lonely and do not have friends or family to visit them. He deci ded to make it his priority to better the lives of seniors in the community. So the Tribute to Seniors Gala was born. The exquisite black- tie evening well surpassed the fundraising goal of $100,000 as funds pledged totalled $350,000. The funds will help to enhance the various care facilities in Rich- mond, including Lions Manor, Rosewood Manor and the Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House.

The money will help with renovations and pay for new equipment for the facilities. [1400] The soirée not only raised money for seniors pro- jects but showed appreciation for the contributions that seniors make in the community — seniors who helped

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11945 build our province and served our country in peace- time and in war, seniors who sacrificed and worked hard to provide us with what we enjoy today. I would like to extend a big thank-you especially to Richmond philanthropists Milan and Maureen Ilich as well as Eugene Greczmiel, who each donated $100,000 to this cause. I ask the House to join me in thanking the Rotary Club of Richmond, Peter Raju and all the Rotarians, sponsors, volunteers and donors who helped to make this gala a tremendous success. Oral Questions CHILD IN THE HOME OF A RELATIVE PROGRAM C.

James: Mr. Speaker, today British Columbians were once again shocked an d saddened to learn about another child whom this government failed. She was four years old when the government took her out of a foster home and placed her with her grandmother. This little girl was then beaten and neglected. She never should have been placed in that home, but the gov- ernment moved ahead without a home study. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Can he confirm that this Prince George child was placed under his ministry's Child in t h e H o m e o f a R e l a t i v e p r o g r a m ?

A n d c a n h e f u r t h e r confirm that once placed under this program, children receive no protection services or monitoring? Hon. T. Christensen: Clearly, the circumstances of this case as reported by the media are unacceptable. This is a horrendous situation of neglect and abuse, and it deserves society's strongest condemnation. We do condemn it. As members opposite will know, privacy considera- tions under the Child, Family and Community Service Act do limit the information that we're allowed to make public, but I can advise members that this was not a child that was in care of the mini stry.

When the ministry was advised that there might be a child in need of protection, the ministry acted immediately. The child was removed. The RCMP investigated. Charges were laid. The ministry's involvement in this case has been the subject of a director's review within the ministry that resulted in five recommendations, and I am pleased to advise the House that all of those recommendations have now been completed. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plemental. C. James: It's critical that lessons be learned from every one of these tragic cases.

It's critical that we take a look at all government programs, whether it's the Ministry of Income Assistance or the Ministry of Chil- dren and Families, to look at where there are gaps. There are gaps in the Child in the Home of a Relative program, whether with this specific case or other cases in British Columbia. This is a case that is being done to save money. Kith-and-kin programs, Child in the Home of a Rela- tive and other out-of-care options are being done be- cause they're cheaper.

Under this government, the number of vulnerable children who've been placed into these kinds of out-of-care options has increased 14 per- cent. That's hundreds of chil dren, not just this specific case but hundreds of children. My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Can he please explain to us why more children are going into programs without child protection services, without monitoring, without accountability and without home studies? How does that protect the vulnerable children that the minister said he wants to protect? Hon. T.

Christensen: It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition completely mischaracterizes out-of- care options. All research su ggests that we need to be looking for ways to keep children safe with their families, with extended family, rather than taking them into the care of strangers. Cert ainly, there will always be circumstances where children must come into care to ensure their safety. But the ministry will continue to work with extended family, with relatives and with others in the community to try and place children safely in homes that are familiar to them, because that is what best practices require.

That is not an excuse to not be vigilant in ensuring a child's safety, and the ministry will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that safety. [1405] Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. C. James: Looking after children means making sure that checks and balanc es are in place. Looking after children — whether they're placed with a relative or in a foster home, but they're placed by government — means making sure that those home studies are in place. It means making sure that those children are being checked on. That's not happening right now. There aren't enough checks and balances.

If we take a look at this specific case, in fact, the government made the decision to put this child into her grandmother's home. The government made the decision to cut the Ministry of Children and Families budget, and the consequences in this province have b e e n t r a g i c . T h i s g o v e r n m e n t l o o k e d a t c u t t i n g c o s t s rather than looking at protecting the most vulnerable. So my question is to the minister.

Will he stand up in this House today and take a look at out-of-care op- tions, whether it's Child in the Home of a Relative or kith and kin, and insist th at those programs put in place the supports that the most vulnerable children need in this province? Hon. T. Christensen: The ministry is continually reviewing the different care op tions to ensure that they work for children and ensu re children's safety. The

11946 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 Leader of the Opposition wish es to characterize cuts in budgets. The reality is that today the budget for child and family services within the Ministry of Children and Family Development is 30 percent higher than it was in 2000-2001. We have over 300 additional FTEs dedicated to child and family services within the ministry than we did two and a half years ago. We have a full staffing complement in the north, which is a dramatic im- provement over where we were — at under 60 percent — a decade ago. Improvements are being made.

We will continue to be vigilant so that in any circumstance where things do not go the way that anyone in this House would like, w e l e a r n f r o m t h o s e , a n d w e c a n e n s u r e t h a t w e c o n - tinually improve services to ensure that children in our province are safe. N. Simons: This government has had seven years to learn from its own mistakes. They've had opportu- nity after opportunity to close the gaps. The opposition has been demanding it, the people of the province have been demanding it, the media is getting on the case of the minister, and he still refuses to act.

In the case of the Child in the Home of a Relative or out-of-care options, we know that it's cheaper and it's faster, and it makes the workload lighter. But we know of the damages and the dangers involved. When will this minister do what he said he would do and allow the Representative for Children and Youth to have oversight over this program for the 4,000 or so children who are placed under this program? Hon. T. Christensen: The Child in the Home of a Relative program is a program that assists people who require financial suppor t when they have a child relative living with them.

We have implemented a screening process that the ministry undertakes for those who are applying to get benefits from the Child in the Home of a Relative program through Employ- ment and Income Assistance. That screening is a significant improvement. It was undertaken in direct response to the child and youth officer's report of some time ago. It is a dramatic improvement on that program since the members oppo- site were in government, and it's the type of example of how we will continue to improve programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs of children and families across the province. Mr.

Speaker: Member has a supplemental. N. Simons: That doesn't really answer the question. British Columbians want to know if the system is get- ting better or getting worse, and all evidence suggests that things are in chaos in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The social workers are telling us that, and it's clear from the evidence we have before us. Never before have social workers been asked to put children under Child in the Home of a Relative. This is a new policy direction change, and it's one that requires some oversight.

This ministry's refusal to provide that is a shame on this province. [1410] Will the minister acknowledge that all out-of-care placements, options for children, options for social workers and options for families are safe and secure and have the proper oversigh t to ensure that our most vulnerable children are safe? Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, we reviewed the Child in the Home of a Relative program together with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

We indicated to social workers in the ministry and across the province that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not to be used as a child welfare program. It is an income assistance program. Where there is a child that is found to be in need of protection and we're looking for a placement with a relative, we can look to the kith-and-kin program as an option to pursue, placing them with family — again, ensuring that proper reviews of the home are done to ensure that children are safe in that home. M. Karagianis: What a complete and abject failure of this government on this file.

The Child in the Home of a Relative program. A child is placed without a review, without a home study, and MCFD simply closes the file. The Minister of Income Assistance opens the file but does nothing in the way of child protection. It is simply a financial arrangement, as the minister has just admitted. This government is placing more and more children into this program, and it is an absolute failure. Here we have the latest tragedy, which is a child who went from a foster home into the home of a relative, and subsequently a tragedy occurred.

I know that when he was questioned abou t this in estimates by the current critic, he said here that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is actually an income assistance program. It's not a child protection program — washed his hands of it completely. The Minister of Children and Families has a respon- sibility. I would like to ask him today: when w ill this program be transferred into the appropriate hands? To the Minister of Children and Family Development: do the right thing today and transfer this program into your own department, where these children can be protected. Hon. T.

Christensen: Well, it's always helpful if members opposite can listen to the answers before they go on to the next question. The Child in the Home of a Relative program is an income assistance program; it is not a child welfare program. If a child is found to be in need of protection, placing them in the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not the avenue that the ministry is to pursue. They are to look at kith-and-kin options. I know that the members opposite don't like us to consider kith-and-kin, but the reality and all best practices from around the wo rld tell us that we should

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11947 do our best to try and ensure that children can stay safe with their family, with th eir extended family, with their community before we take them into the care of strangers. That's exactly what the ministry is doing. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. M. Karagianis: Well, clearly the protections are not in place, and that is the problem here. Protections are not in place. Once these ch ildren get moved into the home of a relative, there are no protections and over- sight in place.

The Children and Youth Representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, asked the government back in April of 2007 — over a year ago — for jurisdiction over these children. There are some 4,000 children — perhaps as high as 4,700 — in the home of a relative, and they are not under her jurisdiction. We have canvassed this repeatedly. I canvassed this with the minister in estimates last year. The question now is whether or not this jurisdiction is going to be extended.

Will the Minister of Children and Families stop dragging his feet on this file, this pa rt of the file, and extend the jurisdiction of the Children and Youth Representative to cover children in the home of a relative? [1415] Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, in each cir- cumstance we will look at the option that is best to ensure a child's safety. In some cases, that means a child will be taken into care in one of the very capable foster homes across our province, with foster parents who provide an exceptional service to children across our province.

But we will always look to extended fam- ily to see if we can look fo r a foster placement there or a kith-and-kin agreement, be cause we know that those are in the best interests of the child. We have reviewed the Child in the Home of a Relative program with the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to ensure that there is a screening compo- nent before somebody is eligible for income assistance. We have in place the prop er precautions to ensure child safety across the province today. A.

Dix: Well, the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance is responsible in this House for Child in the Home of a Relative. He's responsible in this House. The number of children in the homes of relatives has increased by a very significant margin — more, actually, than the tota l number of children who are involved in the kith-a nd-kin program. There are 600 more children in that program today than there were five years ago. My question to the minister is this. Why is it that more children are being placed in this program? The number of children in foster care is going down.

The number of children in this program is going dramati- cally up. What are the results of the review? This case happened in 2006. Since then the government has been stonewalling — from the Attorney General to the Min- ister of Income Assistance to the Minister of Children and Families — from allowing the child representative to take over responsibility. If it's the case that we've had an increase of 600 children, why is that the case? Is the minister assuring this House today that every single one of those 600 incremental cases has received the proper review? Hon. T.

Christensen: Well, the member seems to be suggesting that if any fa mily in this province — for what could be a host of reasons — decides to place one of their children with an uncl e, with an aunt or with a grandparent, somehow the Ministry of Children and Family Development should swoop in and investigate that situation. Families make arrangements all the time for their children to be cared for without the involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We get involved when there is a child protection concern.

We respond to over 30,000 reports of a child who may be in need of protection each and every year. In each circumstance we determine…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Hon. T. Christensen: In each circumstance where there's a report, we follow up to determine whether or not a child is in need of prot ection. If they're in need of protection, we look to kith -and-kin arrangements with a relative or to a foster placement to ensure the safety of that child. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. A. Dix: It's very simple.

The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance right now is responsible for these children. He is responsible. There's been a dramatic increase in the number of children in this program. If what the minister says is true, that shouldn't be happen- ing — 600 new children incremental, an increase in this program. My question is very simple to the Minister of Employment and Income A ssistance. What is the reason? If they aren't diverting — to save money — children into this program, what is the reason for the dramatic increase in Child in the Home of a Relative in his ministry? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, families will make a number of arrangements for the care of their children. The Child in the Home of a Relative program was re- viewed between the two ministries. It was determined

11948 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 that it is an income assistance program. It is not a child welfare program. It is not a program where the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to be placing children. We will continue, where there is a child in need of protection, to look to kith-and-kin arrangements and look to foster placements where that best meets the needs of children. [1420] GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST INDUSTRY D.

Routley: I think I'm rising for the weekly job loss report from the forest-dependent communities of Vancouver Island, and it's just intended to bring the minister up to speed on his own file. Last week 1,000 more jobs disappeared overnight; this week, 800. Add the 272 in Fort St. James, and you've got another thousand. Those jobs fell through not because of markets, but because of that minister's failed policies. They have failed to ensure log supplies for mills. What will it take to bring this minister down from the bleachers? He could ensu r e t h a t f i b r e . H e c o u l d save those jobs. Will he do it?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working with stakeholders on the community development trust, which will be launched shortly, for the tr ansition of workers and for the ability of people to go get further education. We've canvassed in this House before that none of us are happy about the job losses and the situation that faces us in the forest sector today. That's why we continue to work with communities and companies, and we continue to try and move the fibre supply in an economical way. That's why we're doing the regulatory review — to create even more efficiencies within the system.

As we do that, we're always going to keep in mind the families. That's why the community development trust and the other things that we're doing are going to be very important for the future of the province. Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. D. Routley: Well, at least we've made progress. The minister acknowledges that nobody likes it. That's some- thing. But 535 families in Harmac, the third-poorest riding in this province, found out that they are losing their jobs because the Pope and Talbot deal fell through. This is not bad markets; this is bad policy. The min- ister determines log policy .

My constituents are not mere chips in some Monopoly game for this minister. This is important. These are families. These are the volunteers of my community. Will the minister do his job? Will he use the policy tools he has to guarantee chip logs, to guarantee fibre supply and to do what he needs to do? Save those jobs. Hon. R. Coleman: Well, surely the member oppo- site isn't saying that we're responsible for one company deciding not to buy another company through the courts. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Member. Hon. R.

Coleman: I mean, I don't know whether the member is asking us to go buy the pulp mill at Harmac and spend half a billion dollars like they did on Skeena Cellulose, or whether we let these people continue to negotiate like they are right now to see if they can find a future for that mill. B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests historically and currently by legislation has one primary focus — maximize the return to British Columbians from the utilization of our forest resources. That's all we're asking him to do. We're asking him to do his job.

Now, when this minister has been awake and has acted on the coast, he crea ted a monopoly on the coast by allowing a Pac-Man game to occur, allowing com- panies to buy each other up so that logs are not free to move around on Vancouver Island. He released pri- vate lands from tree farm licences and took whole thousands of other hectares out of the mill profile on Vancouver Island.

Then he changed the stumpage system and the rules for logging waste so that the reality just now is that wood that is needed for the Harmac deal to be sweetened and for Catalyst Paper to run is lying on the forest floor because of this minister's forest policy. My question to this minister is this. It's a very simple, straightforward question. Will the minister examine the forest policy that he's done, look at the implications and get a guaranteed source of fibre to Harmac to sweeten that deal for a potential buyer? Will he do that? [1425] Hon. R.

Coleman: So, if I get this straight, the critic would like me to subsidize one company over another in the province of British Columbia. Maybe the Celgar mill should have a little less advantage within the market- place than one other, because he'd like us to go change the marketplace and pricing for the fibre for British Columbians. As we're going through this regulatory review that we're doing right now, we're looking at what the member describes with regards to cutblock blending and those sort of things, but…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister. Hon. R.

Coleman: Quite frankly, we're working with the proponents and the people that are interested in Harmac to see if we can actually find a way for that deal to get together. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. B. Simpson: We're not asking the minister to subsi- dize anything. We're not asking the minister to step in

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11949 and do anything untoward. We're asking the minister to do one thing. His forest policy means that the waste on the forest land base has doubled over the last three years. The pulp logs are lying on the ground because of his forest policy. We're asking him to change that policy and get those pulp logs in so that Catalyst can keep their people employed, so that the 525 jobs at Harmac can be maintained and that deal could be sweetened for a potential buyer. That's one of the critical factors at risk here — the fact that there's no fibre with that mill.

Will the minister just simply do his job and make sure that fibre is secured for these mills? Hon. R. Coleman: I've actually met with some of the people in the pulp and paper industry in the last week, who tell me that they're looking for different types of fibre and that they'r e trying to get on the land base. They're looking at th eir costs and all of those things, and they have some concerns about the deliv- ered wood costs even if they were able to go get some of the waste.

We also have the issue with regards to waste, and everybody in this House knows I've said I don't like the waste situation in this Legislature. The critic knows that as well. That's why we 're also aggressively pursu- ing bioenergy to try and get some integration so that we can move the fibre to these places to get success. I understand, Member, that you're disappointed in the Harmac situation, and so am I. I thought we had a buyer. We thought we had a buyer. They backed out. They didn't complete the sale at the end of April. Now somebody else is looking at the particular operation.

We hope that we can work with whoever it is to try to find solutions for that mill. N. Macdonald: Paragon Wood Products in the Okanagan has a strong market for its products. It has employees; it has operations . What it needs is logs. There is no fibre available, and that is a direct result of a deliberate public policy put in place by this minister and this government. The minister responsible for forestry in this prov- ince can do something. He has promised Paragon he will do something. They're still waiting. When will the minister do his job?

When will he provide logs to this company so that they can keep the jobs in rural B.C. that this province has been built on? Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: just so he knows, my ministry is actually working with that organization on the issues with the logs in the Interior of British Columbia. But you know, Mr. Speaker, for that member…. I think he should know one other thing. The biggest single threat to the future of the rest of the forest sector in British Columbia is if you took a policy and abro- gated your position under the softwood lumber deal in the province of British Columbia.

You have taken that position. Today, if that was the case, the cost for the Downey Street mill in Revelstoke would be such that the mill wouldn't be able to be competing and operat- ing in your community today. The reality is…. Interjection. Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely true, hon. Member. Absolutely functionally true . I've sat down with the mill operator and heard that. Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister. Hon. R.

Coleman: We are doing everything we can, every time we can, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, meeting with people and trying to find solutions to log supply in those issues in B.C. in a very difficult market. I'll continue to do that in spite of how many name- callings those people on the other side of the House want to use against me. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [1430] N. Macdonald: Does this minister think he is the first forestry minister to face tough markets? He is not. But he is the first minister to give up on the most important…. [Applause.] It is public policy we are talking about. B.C.

Liberal public policy in forestry has deliberately starved the value-added and remanufacturing sector since 2002. Operations have shut down. They continue to shut down. The government's attitude is best expressed by…. This is from Paragon Wood Products, Andrew Powell. This is how he expresses it, an exact quote: "This gov- ernment has decided it has no need of independent forest companies in the forest industry." Well, that's not the attitude of the rest of British Columbians, but it's this government's attitude. Here's something else fr om Paragon.

"This govern- ment gives us nothing but excuses, broken promises and policy decisions that can most charitably be described as idiotic." That's something that we see each and every question period when we ask a forest question. The question is: when is the minister going to do his job? When is he going to get logs to Paragon so that company can continue to operate in B.C.? Hon. R. Coleman: There is no way that we're giving up or that I've given up on the forest sector in the province of British Columbia. It does face some challenges, Mr. Speaker. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R.

Coleman: In one of my round tables re- cently, a first nation member said to me…. Interjections.

11950 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 Hon. R. Coleman: You don't like the first nations opinion either? You know what they said to me? They said this: "If the government had gone into Tweedsmuir Park, we wouldn't have a beetle kill in the province of British Columbia." They said that. They live there. They live on the land. It's their community — right? What have we done? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Take your seat. Members. Members. Continue, Minister. Hon. R.

Coleman: So $642 million invested by the province of British Columbia in the interior of B.C. on mountain pine beetle, $300 million invested by the fed- eral government and $19 million in upgrading highways in the Interior to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, by the Ministry of Transportation. Hundreds of millions of dollars invested in projects overseas to build new markets — that's what it is. We actually are doing our job. They may not like it, but we're doing a job to build a future for forests in the province of British Columbia. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 21. In

Section A, Com- mittee of Supply, for the information of members, it's the beginning of estimates, I believe, for the Ministry of Forests. Second Reading of Bills MEDICARE PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health closes debate. [1435] Hon. G. Abbott: Last Thursday, late in the afternoon just prior to the Lieutenant-Governor's arrival, I'd just risen for a moment to begin closure of second reading debate in respect of Bill 21.

For those who have been sitting on pins and needles awaiting the completion of that, I remind members that I had mentioned, in response to the member's question — asked frequently over the course of four days, "Why add sustainability to the Medicare Protection Act…?" I was pleased to advise that, in fact, the term "sustainability" had been there since 1995 when then Health Minister Paul Ramsey had added it to the bill. Apparently, judging by the member's comments, the term "sustainability" has taken on a nefarious con- spiratorial cast since 1995.

Ho wever, I also pointed out to the members that if they wanted to understand what we meant by sustainability, they might actually go to this bill of two pages and read that quote. This is

section 5.7: "The plan is administered in a manner that is sustainable over the long term, providing for the health needs of the residents of British Columbia and assuring that annual health expenditures are within taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the abil- ity of the government to meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations." It's hardly the kind of nefarious conspiracy which we heard outlined so often, if not so effectively, over the four days that we had second reading discussion of this. I thought, in some ways, the best kind of

summary that might come of those four days of opposition submis- sions in respect of Bill 21 comes from the

article which I referenced in my second re ading comments by Janice MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in Sas- katchewan during the Roy Romanow years. She's quite an academic now with the University of Saskatchewan and had done this quite thoughtful article, "The Arithmetic of Health Care," which I quoted from last time. This is a different quote, but in a way I think this kind of characterizes what we spent so much time on last week: "There is a simple arithmet ic to the rising costs of health care, just as there was to the growing deficits and debt of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Health care costs are increasing at a faster rate than the revenue of any government, and other critical priorities are being under funded in the scramble to cover those costs…. Yet attempts to change the system are constrained by an ideological debate in which new ideas are often branded as taking Canada down the road to Ameri- canization, privatization or two-tiered health care." I thought that was probably as good a

summary as one might hope for from the debate of last week. I know that on numerous occasions one heard a variety of fallacies, urban myths, falsehoods and mis- constructions related to health care in this province in members' comments. For example, there were a num- ber of suggestions about British Columbia not meeting the terms of the Canada He alth Act and pointing, for example, to the fine in the most recent fiscal year of $29,019 to Health Canada — penalties for infractions of the Canada Health Act.

As it turns out, the largest-ever penalty in British Columbia — I think because we honestly report when we understand an infraction has occurred — came back in 1995 when this government was led by the NDP. Interjections. Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. In fact, in that year, 1995, the penalty levied against British Columbia was $1.982 million — the penalty imposed on the NDP govern- ment of the day. [1440] I also heard on a number of occasions suggestions that somehow the agenda of our government had been closing hospitals. Of course, I can tell the members opposite that, in fact, it was the NDP government

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11951 in British Columbia that had an agenda for closing hospitals. One needs only lo ok at the CIHI report, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, to under- stand just how extensive that NDP agenda was. I know this from personal experience with closures in Armstrong and Enderby of hospitals in my constituency, but when the NDP took office in 1990-91, there were 131 operating hospitals in British Columbia. By the time they had concluded their decade of decline in 2000-2001, they were down to 98 hospitals — 131 operating hospitals to 98 operating hospitals.

And, of course, those are facts…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides. The Minister of Health has the floor, please. Hon. G. Abbott: Those are facts, I guess, that some- how get forgotten over the course of a decade, along with the fact that some 3,300 hospital beds were closed by the NDP during their dark decade as well. I also heard, among other things during the debate, that there were problems with our six health authorities in British Columbia. Well, those can't hold a candle to the problems that existed in the 52 — count 'em — health authorities that existed back in the 1990s.

In fact, back in the 1990s health authorities used to receive their budgets r o u t i n e l y i n J u l y o r A u g u s t . T h e y d i d n ' t h a v e a h o p e o f managing effectively because of the government. I think, most importantly, what I frequently heard — and I think objectionably so — was a lot of hysterical and hypocritical nonsense about private clinics in this province. In fact — and this is hard to believe given some of the rhetoric I heard — some 26 new private clinics were created in the province of British Columbia in the 1990s.

Where, I might ask, was the NDP when False Creek clinic was created in 1998? Where was the NDP when Cambie clinic was created? Apparently they were hid- ing in the Premier's office somewhere, because they clearly didn't do anything about those 26. I heard this from the opposition Health critic just on Voice of B.C. or Voice of the Province the other night — that perhaps the NDP, when they get into power, will have to nationalize those private clinics.

That's amazing how over the period of time they've moved from the prag- matic NDP of the 1990s, which allowed 26 private clinics to be created in this province, to now moving to nation- alize — I'm sure at some considerable expense — those 26 private clinics. That's a statement, I guess in a way, in terms of where the NDP are going. The new NDP apparently resembles something more akin to 19th century social- ism as opposed to 21st century liberalism. There was a lot said in the debate about sustainability and the rela- tionship between the gross domestic product versus the percentage of annual budgets that were….

Which one was the better way of understanding the issue of sustainability? It was a fascinating debate. I heard references to Star Trek. I heard references to Seinfeld. I heard references to Star Wars . Weren't some of those from you perhaps, Member? But what really caught my attention, in terms of what it reminded me of, was a magazine that I used to read in my adolescent year s. Perhaps you did as well, Mr. Speaker, given that you're of approximately the same vintage as I am. That was a magazine probably best confined to adolescents called Mad magazine. The protagonist in Mad magazine was, Mr.

Speaker, as you will recall…. [1445] Interjection. Hon. G. Abbott: A l f r e d E . N e u m a n — right. And his slogan was: "What, me worry?" To me, there would be no better way of summarizing what the NDP had to say in that fascinating debate than "What, me worry?" because that was very much the theme of it. There was a fascinating debate between whether we should view health care costs as a percentage of total gross domestic product or view it, as I would suggest, as a percentage of the provincial budget. This is a fascinating debate.

About seven people, in addition to David Schreck, find this a fascinating debate across the province of British Columbia. The reality, though, is that government doesn't cre- ate…. They don't manage, and they don't control the gross domestic product of the province. We manage, create and control the provincial budget, but we don't do all of those things with respect to the overall GDP. Government can influence GDP through their policies, no question, but they don't create, manage and control GDP. So if the NDP wants to tie health spending to GDP….

What would happen — for example, in a sustainable health care world — if, because of the consequences of their inevitable high-tax policies, the GDP actually declines in this province? Would we then be obliged to reduce the health care budget in the province? Good question, but that would be, I think, one of the risks of undertaking that form of linkage between health care budgets and GDP. I am sure — because this is something I've always wanted, and I'm sure some New Democrats would also agree to this — that what we'd all like, really, if we had the opportunity is a brand-new cherry-red Ferrari.

I'm sure the member from Juan de Fuca…. Perhaps he has a cherry-red Ferrari in his garage, but if he doesn't, I'm sure he would, just like me, covet the opportunity to have such a thing — a beautiful new dream car, a cherry-red Ferrari in the driveway. So my friend from Juan de Fuca and I could go into the Ferrari dealership — I don't know if there's one in Victoria or Vancouver — and check out the price tags on cherry-red Ferraris. I suspect that what we'd be ad- vised as we worked through with the sales manager the payment scheme for this….

We would probably discover, he and I, that that would work out to about 97.5 percent of our available budget for the year. We'd say: "Well, it's going to be tough to manage food, mort- gage payments, gas for the Ferrari and all the rest of the things on 2.5 percent of our annual budget."

11952 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 But wait. If we lived in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the NDP, we could say: "We can have that cherry-red Ferrari, even thou gh it's 97.5 percent of our budget. We can have it because it's only a very small proportion of the provincial gross domestic product. Of course we can have that." That, in a nutshell, is the NDP's thinking of the 1990s. As I've said, that ma y be enlightened thinking compared to what we're going to see if we have an NDP government in the 21st century.

But it is, in a nut- shell, a great example of how that NDP thinking took British Columbia from first in Canada in terms of eco- nomic growth to worst in Canada in economic growth by the end of the 1990s. What, me worry? That would be pretty much how one would undertake that. Looking at what was said during the four days last week, one would conclude th at the NDP believes there are no sustainability challenges for the health care system in British Columbia and Canada — no sustainability challenges at all. They dismiss Janice MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in Saskatchewan and her thoughtful work.

They dismi ss all of the very obvious, overt facts regarding the demographic shift that is occurring in our society and will continue to shift in our society as we age over the next 30 or 40 years. [1450] They dismiss all of the ve ry troubling increases in the incidence of chronic disease in our society. They dismiss the spiralling costs of medical technology, medical inflation and all of those things. Again, "What, me worry?" is the NDP response to any sustainability challenge that emerges in our society.

The fact is — and I'll conclude on this point because I know there are many more things that the NDP would be looking forward to debating in this Legisla- ture — yes, there is a sustainability challenge. In fact, there are many challenges to the sustainability of our health care system in British Columbia. One, at their peril, mounts what I would term the NDP ostrich defence, which is to place one's head firmly in the sand and refuse to believe that anything is going on in the world around them. That's unfortunate, but that's what I heard continuously in here for four days — the ostrich defence against all.

If you don't see it, it's not there — not a problem. That is a problem, and if anything, in my mind it confirmed even more the necessity for that sustainabil- ity challenge to be very mu ch rooted in the Medicare Protection Act. As the NDP moves forward in the future, they need to think about things like whether they want to nationalize the private clinics that they themselves created or whether they want to eliminate all of the provisions of Bill 29 and return again to a completely inflexible health care administration in this province. They want to think again about whether….

If they're going to add $2 billion to the health care budget in British Columbia, is that going to come from taxes, or is that going to come from other areas of public enterprise? These are very important is sues. On this side of the House, we recognize that there are challenges to sustainability in British Columbia. Not only in this bill but in the bills to follow, we are going to equip this government, this province, wi th all of the tools that we need to try to meet that very grave sustainability challenge.

We will meet that challenge, because on this side of the House we strongly believe in sustainability, and we're going to follow through with this principle. I move second reading. [1455] Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division: YEAS — 41 Falcon Reid Coell Ilich Chong Christensen Les Richmond Bell Krueger van Dongen Roddick Hayer Lee Jarvis Nuraney Whittred Cantelon Thorpe Hagen Oppal de Jong Taylor Bond Hansen Abbott Penner Neufeld Coleman Hogg Sultan Lekstrom Mayencourt Polak Hawes Yap Bloy MacKay Black McIntyre Rustad NAYS — 29 Brar S. Simpson Fleming Farnworth James Ralston B.

Simpson Cubberley Hammell Coons Thorne Simons Puchmayr Routley Fraser Horgan Dix Trevena Bains Robertson Karagianis Evans Austin Chudnovsky Chouhan Wyse Sather Macdonald Conroy Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 21, Medicare Protec tion Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [1500] Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate on Bill 22.

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11953 HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be read now a second time. During the first reading of Bill 22, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act, I explained that B.C. is the only province not to have legislation that would allow gov- ernment to recover health ca re costs associated with personal injuries that stem from the negligence or wrongdoing of a third party. [K. Whittred in the chair.] Under the common law as it exists in British Co- lumbia, government has no legal right to recover these costs.

This is unlike other provinces with health care costs recovery legislation. In Manitoba, legislation took effect in 1992 under their Health Services Insurance Act. Saskatchewan brought in similar provisions in 1995 under the Department of Health Act. The Health Care Costs Recovery Act will provide government with the ability to recover a broad range of health care costs, including past and future medical care, hospital, ambulance, continuing care and poten- tially other costs.

I'd like to give the House an example of where the lack of this type of legislation has impacted British Columbia's ability to involve itself in these types of court actions. In the case Medtronic v. Hoy, the province asserted its rights for reimbursement of medical and hospital costs expended to remove or replace defective pacemaker leads, which are now subject to a Health Canada advi- sory. Based on information from the third-party liability branch of the Ministry of Health and the number of claimants in the action, an estimate of the province's potential claim could have been approximately $4 mil- lion.

The recoveries will be limited to expenditures currently paid by the province. This act will strengthen government's ability to effectively participate in a number of class action suits where multi-million-dollar settlements or judgments are at stake. Over and above po ssible class actions, the act will provide government with the ability to recover an additional $3 million to $5 million annually for individual personal injury claims through these changes. Recovered costs collected by government from third parties can be reinvested into government programs and services that include health care.

Overall, the act will allo w government to, first of all, recover health care costs once a lawsuit has been settled or adjudicated; secondly, request and obtain information required to quantify past and future health care costs associated with th e personal injury; thirdly, approve settlements involving claims for health care costs; fourthly, ensure it will be able to participate in class action settlements; fifthly, ensure health care costs associated with wrongdoing and negligence are paid by wrongdoers or their insu rance, rather than expect- ing B.C. taxpayers to absorb the costs; and finally, maintain a sustainable health care system for all British Columbians.

Government will be able to make recoveries using a claim in which it is subrogated to the rights of the beneficiary making a claim or by bringing its own in- dependent cause of action against a third-party wrongdoer. The legislation will not apply to injuries stemming from the operation of a motor vehicle where the vehicle is insured in British Columbia, but will ap- ply to vehicles insured out of province. The legislation will not apply to health care costs associated with smoking tobacco or to the health care costs which are part of the Workers Compensation Board scheme.

In conclusion, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act supports the ministry's goal of continued excellence in service, innovation and sustainable care delivery in a public health system for all British Columbians. In closing, British Columbians want access to the best health services available from a sustainable health system, and the Health Care Costs Recovery Act supports this goal. With that, I am pleased to move second reading, and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues in the chamber. [1505] A.

Dix: As I think the minister will agree, this is the k i n d o f b i l l t h a t w e ' l l d e a l with at greatest length in committee stage. There are going to be some detailed questions we'd like to raise at that stage, so I think I'm going to keep my comments as brief as the minister's. The opposition, speaking on behalf of the opposition, supports Bill 22. It seems to us to be a good idea, an idea — i t s o u n d s l i k e f r o m w h a t t h e m i n i s t e r s u g g e s t s — perhaps generated by the government's participation or non-participation in the Medtronic case.

As the minister has noted, the bill has a number of purposes. It allows — outside of Motor Vehicle Act cases and outside of Workers Compensation Act cases, as I un- derstand it — the government to attempt to join such cases. In fact, as I understand it — and the minister will go over this, as well, at committee stage — the gov- ernment may, under these provisions of the act, be allowed to initiate its own ca se in such cases that indi- viduals don't take the cases forward.

The government will actually have to develop — part of this will be an interesting discussion for us — the ability to review circumstances in order to itself initiate cases. Presumably the governme nt or officials in the Ministry of Attorney General or officials in the Ministry of Health will have to develop the capacity if they want to do that. I presume that if they want to initiate cases as opposed to joining cases that are already brought forward, they will have to actually develop the capacity to do that as well. Some of that discussion, I think, we'll have at com- mittee stage because we'd have to assess….

I know they've had a little bit of an issue with that in Alberta — not with the specifics of this case, but with motor vehicle cases — in terms of the cost of reviewing the cases perhaps exceeding the potential gain that the government might get from bringing the cases forward.

11954 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 I note that this case in some respects is similar, at least in principle, to the idea brought forward in the 1990s with the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in the sense that it seeks to allow government to go to court and legitimately, I think, obtain for the public purse the costs imposed on the public by wrongful behaviour elsewhere.

I'm delighted that the government members, who at the time were in opposition — I think we called this speaking against a bill and voting in favour — raised many critical comments about that legislation at the time. The government was only interested in money and so on. One of the key points raised in that debate at the time by several members of the opposition — not the current Minister of Health, I should say, who I think was the opposition critic for municipal affairs or some- thing at the time, but other members — was to ensure that any moneys gained from such a case go to the health care system.

Several members of the govern- ment, when the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought in, suggested at the time that the bill was being brought in to deal with problems in the government's fiscal position and not a legitimate effort to recover costs from the health care system.

They were asking the question, and I think it's a legitimate question: can't we do something with the legislation to ensure that all costs that are obtained, that are recovered by the government in this kind of case — whether it would be a case like the Medtronic case or others — be returned to the health care system? This isn't unusual. In fact, under a British law that was passed a number of years ago, I think they had it down that this specific hospital….

If a specific hospital was the one that in fact incu rred the cost, the costs re- covered by the NHS in that system would be given over to that specific hospital. One of the things we're going to be looking at in committee stage of this bill is to ensure that the costs recovered that the minister has talked about in the press release — $5 million to $10 million a year, I think…. I'm sure the reason that it is so wide is that some years, if major cases come forward, I would expect it may be possible to obtain a big amount of money. Some years, in fact, very little money will be recovered.

So I assume that's why the minister is arguing that such a wide cost disparity in terms of this legislation…. [1510] I think it's fair to say — and I think the minister would probably agree with this — t h a t i f i n f a c t t h e reason we are seeking these costs is to legitimately re- imburse the taxpayer in case of wrongful behaviours out there, the place that those recovered moneys should go is not to general revenue. It might be useful to read into the record the eloquent comments of the Minister of State for Mining, in the tobacco cost recov- ery case, and others who made the same argument.

Once we reach the point wher e either a settlement or a judgment is made and the moneys come into the Crown, given that it was health care costs that were p a i d o u t , i t s h o u l d b e t h e h e a l t h c a r e b u d g e t t h a t i s reinstated or that receives the money.

I think one of the things I was going to suggest to the minister that we might be bringing forward — we'll put the amendment down for his perusal in advance — and one of the things he might consider at committee stage is just such an idea — to specifically state in the legislation that if money is in fact recovered, it go to the health care budget and maybe the appropriate health care budget from which the money was paid out. I think that kind of idea would strengthen the legis- lation.

It strengthens the intent of the government in bringing such legislation forward and would be a use- ful thing, consistent with what MLAs on both sides have said about other legislation in the past. With that, hon. Speaker, I'd say that the opposition will be supporting what seems to be a good idea that seems to have come from the bureaucracy in this case, based on what's happened, to bring British Columbia law up to where other jurisdictions are in terms of recovering. I saw an interesting note — the minister didn't comment on this in his speech — that in fact previous to this, there had been….

This was in some ways, maybe, the case dating back to the 1950s. It has been suggested that the ministry does sometimes get paid in these cases but that that case takes place under a gentle- man's agreement between some insurance companies and the Ministry of Health. I think this is something we can discuss — in the past how much revenue actually has come in under such gentleman's agreements. My colleague from Surrey- Whalley was telling me about just such a case in the past.

In fact, in the past we had a situation where the Ministry of Health had sought in many cases to get such compensation and had in some cases received it. I think the issue is whether the Ministry of Health had any legal basis to make such or whether it was simply a request that had happened over time — that that's what had happened when costs came forward — and that it wasn't much of a club to use in cases where insurance companies or other companies might be re- luctant to in fact compensate the Ministry of Health for costs that had been incurred. I think that had been the pattern in the past.

It may well have been why in the past the govern- ments hadn't gone this route, because that practice had been in place. I'd be interested to hear — perhaps at committee stage we can cover it off — what the Min- ister of Health would have to say about that. I think I would agree that times have changed since the 1950s, since this practice had apparently been in effect, and that the need for the legislation appears to be real, especially if the amount of revenue that the Minister of Health has suggested we may be able to get from such cases is real as well.

Of course, in the case of Medtronic and other cases, as I understand it, those cases are still before the courts. So we would have a claim, but we may not have the money. At least it would give us an opportunity to automatically join such cases, and that strikes me as a good idea.

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11955 Whether in fact the province will be initiating such cases, as the legislation gives it the right to do, is an open question. That, it s eems to me, would require resources, but I think the idea is a good one. It's consis- tent with what this Legislature has done in the past, at least in the tobacco damages act. I think it probably extends it a little further, in terms of the costs that can be recovered, than that act.

It probably extends it fur- ther, as I understand it, than other jurisdictions, which in some cases have limited to the costs of hospitaliza- tion the costs that the Crown can recover. [1515] These are some of the issues that we'll get at more appropriately at committee stage. The opposition is generally supportive of this legislation. It seems to us to be a good idea to recover moneys that appropriately should come back to the Mi nistry of Health, with the caveats that we think that that money should in fact come back to the health care institutions that have in- curred the costs in their budgets.

Contingent on some of the answers we may receive at committee stage, I'd like to express our support for this and our support for a relatively speedy passage of Bill 22. B. Ralston: Just to add briefly to what the opposition critic for Health has said, in particular, on the recovery by insurers. There was a practice in the past, according to a prominent Vancouver law firm in their insurance note, that insurers agreed to repay the Ministry of Health for hospital costs incurred by claimants injured as a result of the negligence of their insureds.

In theory, it worked that they were supposed to notify the Ministry of Health and find out whether hospital costs were incurred in respect of the claim. They were to be repaid by the tortfeasor's insurer — that is, the person who caused the injury. In practice, apparently this only occurs occasionally. While the Ministry of Health regularly writes to insurers or their counsel to demand repayment of hospital costs, this agreement is not always honoured. In particular, in cases involving out-of-provi nce insurers, there's no legal basis for the hospital's claim at all.

So this would put some legal strength to what was previously regarded as — I think they call it a gentleman's agreement — an unenforceable practice. However, this note does re mark that this legislation is similar to legislation in other Canadian provinces.

"Most Canadian provinces have legislated subrogation rights by the provincial Ministry of Health for hospi- talization costs arising from personal injury accidents." This writer goes on to say: "However, Bill 22 goes far beyond the norm to allo w for the recovery of all health care costs including but not limited to those re- sulting from hospitalization." I think that's something, given that some revisions of the Insurance Act are also before the Legislature. I under- stand that the process to revise the Insurance Act took some five years.

There were many consultations that I'd be interested to hear at commit tee stage, should we get to that stage of debate of this bill and not be subject to closure, given that there are only 12 legislative sitting days left in the legislative calendar, including today. The writer does go on to comment: "If Bill 22 is passed, insu rers handling claims in British Columbia will have to contend with an added layer of damages in every claim, and in particular, will have to ensure that the relevant notice provisions are complied with in order to close their files.

U.S.-based insurers will see their B.C. claims fall into line with their experience south of the border, while Canadian insurers will see their exposure increase on virtually every claim." The comment is: "It's not known when or if Bill 22 will be brought into force or whether it will be substantially revised.

H o w e v e r , i t w i l l b e i m p o r t a n t t o k e e p t r a c k o f i t s progress through the legislative process, as it has the potential to increase exposures dramatically, particularly on larger claims or claims involving the need for future care that would previously have been covered by the Medical Services Plan and therefore not have been claimed by the plaintiffs." When the minister speaks of the potential claim or recovery in the Medtronic case — it's not a case that I'm familiar with in detail — I think that's the reference being made here by counsel.

I think they largely act on behalf of insurance companies, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that further recovery would be made from insurance companies. But one wonders, given the very lengthy process that took place for the proposed revisions to the Insurance Act to come before the Legislature, what efforts have been made to at least get the point of view of the insurers. Of course, this is not necessarily consistent with some of the trumpeted values of deregulation that we heard about in the first term. Maybe it's a good thing that those are laid to rest.

What this requires is further paperwork and compliance with an elaborate series of notice provisions that anyone who commences an action in this area in law will have to comply with. [1520] The other comment I want to make is simply to add my voice briefly to that of the opposition Health critic, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in terms of directing the recovery to the health system or — one might argue perhaps — to the health region from which the claim originated, thereby at least fulfilling the purported and stated objective of the bill, which is to gather funds to finance health care.

Generally speaking, Ministers of Finance and treasury boards are always reluctant to have funds earmarked specifically for expenditure in one area because that limits the flexibility in the long run in creating budgets. But given the likely recoveries un- der this act and given the present Health budget, it seems unlikely that these recoveries will pose a huge problem in that respect. I would, like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, offer broad support, and there will be further questions at committee stage, should we ever get there.

If this bill does not proceed by way of closure, I would be anxious to participate in that debate when we get there. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Minis- ter of Health to conclude debate.

11956 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and close debate at second reading. I do thank the opposition Health critic and the member for Surrey-Whalley for their comments. I'll just very briefly respond, given that we will have an opportunity in the committee stage debate, I hope, to canvass these matters further. As the opposition Health critic pointed out, it is challenging to know exactly what range one should anticipate in terms of legal recoveries in a typical year ahead.

I think the issue might be somewhat more pre- dictable than predicting the net return from investment in lottery tickets, but it's still going to vary from year to year depending on the size, number and magnitude of the cases involved. So it will range. But again, pre- dictably, if we are not equipped with these legal tools to enjoy recoveries from these cases, we won't get them. That's fairly predictable. I am appreciative that the opposition is going to be, or appears to be, supportive of this bill. I appreciate that.

In terms of the point around recoveries being devoted to health care, I'm gl ad to hear the submission of the opposition at committee stage around this point. I'm not the Finance Minister, and I don't know all of the rules that may govern how one must manage re- coveries from legal cases, but we'll look forward to hearing the opposition proposal with interest. One thing we can be certai n of is that in British Columbia about 45 percent, or 45 cents, of every dollar that is raised from every source in British Columbia today goes to health care delivery in the province. [Mr.

Speaker in the chair.] We know that by 2013, that will be rising to some- thing akin to about 50 cents of every dollar from every source in the province that will be going to health care. So in either event, we can be confident that that's where many of these dollars will be directed. A final point.

The member for Surrey-Whalley noted that someone who had provided them with a letter on issues pursuant to Bill 22 had indicated some- thing along the lines — and I hope I'm not taking too great liberties with what was said — that where legal recoveries have not been secured in the past, costs have been covered by MSP. [1525] I'm sure that in a formal sense that is true, but when we are talking about MSP, we are talking about the people of British Columbia, not about some anonymous, distant medical services plan.

The Medical Services Plan i s f u n d e d i n p a r t t h r o u g h a n n u a l p r e m i u m s f r o m t h e people of British Columbia and also from additional funds that are annually allocated to Medical Services Plan from the province of British Columbia. So it is important that to the extent we can, we do get legal recoveries that, in response to wrongdoing, help to offset in some cases the horrendous and long- term costs associated with that wrongdoing. With that, I move seco nd reading of Bill 22. Motion approved. Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. B. Penner: I call second reading of Bill 42, Election Amendment Act, 2008. ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 Hon. W. Oppal: I m o v e t h a t B i l l 4 2 , t h e E l e c t i o n Amendment Act, 2008, now be read a second time. This bill is a significant updating of the province's Election Act.

It modernizes the act by implementing recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it goes further by making some timely and necessary changes in a number of areas, such as election financing, advertising, voter registration and enforcement of the act generally. Together these changes will make the act more fair, more transparent, more democratic and more enforceable. [K. Whittred in the chair.] In March 2006 the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, issued a report with 60 recommendations to update the Election Act.

As members may know, the last time the act was significantly modernized was in 1995, when it was basically rewritten entirely, and the CEO was made an independent officer of the Legislature with significant duties and powers within the act.

In his 2006 report the CEO noted that: "Electoral law, like democracy, must adapt and change to reflect the needs of the society it serves." This bill will do just that by covering such areas as the appointment of election officials, changing the nomination periods of candidates, creating grounds for re-counts in electoral districts, creating a substantive definition of election advertising, requiring more clarity in reporting and disclosure rules for parties and candidates, and clarifying the right of rent ers to display election ad- vertising on their premises.

The bill also enacts a number of other changes for regularly scheduled elections. Political parties and candidates would now be required to observe election expense limits during a 120-day pre-campaign period as well as the 28 days of the campaign period itself. Currently, there are no limit s on spending before the campaign period. Under this bill, political parties would have a maximum of $4.4 million to spend during a campaign and half that amount, $2.2 million, during the pre- campaign period. Candidates would have the maxi- mum of $70,000 for the pre-campaign period and $70,000 for the campaign period.

These amounts would be adjusted over time by the CEO according to the changes in the consumer price index.

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 11957 These are clear dollar figures rather than the calcu- lations currently in the act that are based on amount per voter. These limits do not represent an across-the- board increase for either parties or candidates. [1530] Under the current calculation, parties today would have the spending limits of $4.397 million, so we are essentially leaving that un changed. The average candi- date expense limit in 2005 was around $65,000. Overall, that average is being increased slightly, but some can- didates will in fact see their expense limits reduced slightly.

Standardizing candidate spending limits will reduce confusion and increase fairness by ensuring that the same limits apply to all candidates in all regions. These changes to spending limits — in particular the creation of the 120-day pre-campaign period — are a response to the effects of the set-date elections. For those elections, everyone knows when the campaign will begin, and it is important to ensure that the pre- campaign period does not become a spending spree, a free-for-all, to the detriment of parties and candidates that lack significant financial resources. [S.

Hammell in the chair.] For by-elections and general elections that occur because of a non-confidence matter in the House, of course, it is not possible to create a pre-campaign pe- riod, because the election is not planned. We are also applying the same principle of spending limits to third parties who wish to advertise during elec- tions. The bill would make them subject to spending limits during the 120-day pre-campaign period and the campaign period itself. These limits are patterned on those put in place by the previous government.

How- ever, the limits under this bill are higher — $150,000 overall and $3,000 in any single electoral district. These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act. We believe these limits are fair and rea- sonable and will allow third parties to participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence over election outcomes. Again, an important reason for reintroducing spending limits is the effect that the set election dates have on the nature of politi- cal campaigns in British Columbia. As well, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Mr.

Justice Michel Bastarache, in upholding third-party campaign spending, wrote: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues." We agree with that, and that is why we are setting reasonable limits on what third parties can spend. Another thing this bill does is make the act clearer and more enforceable. Voter identification requirements are being strengthened to ensure that only those who are enti- tled to vote may do so.

These requirements are modelled on recent changes to the federal law and help to prevent voter fraud while still ensuring voter accessibility. The bill also doubles all the fines for offences under the act. That includes clear directions to the Chief Elec- toral Officer regarding enforcement of the act gener- ally. The message is that contravening the act is serious, and this should be understood by all political parties, candidates and voters alike. The bill also brings back the requirement of the Chief Electoral Officer following the 2009 election to conduct door-to-door enumerat ions prior to each elec- tion.

Changes were made in 2003 to give the CEO the discretion to determine the method of conducting an enumeration. At that time, measures were also taken to provide for sharing voters lis ts between Elections B.C. and Elections Canada. The goal was to create the most complete and accurate voters list possible. However, it appears now that these measures are not a sufficient substitute for door-to-door enumera- tions. We recognize that enumerations take time and cost money, and we want to afford voters every oppor- tunity to be registered and eligible to vote.

Another important change in this bill is the prohibi- tion on publishing new opinion polls on voting day. A similar provision exists federally, and we believe it is there for a very good reason. Political advertising is already banned on voting day, and we want to make sure that an election adve rtisement disguised as an opinion poll is not used to influence voters' behaviour. If such a poll is published on voting day, those affected by it do not have an opportunity to respond or to chal- lenge it.

I should note that this prohibition does not apply to publishing opinion polls on voting day that have been previously published. [1535] There are a number of other changes in this bill that will help streamline the administration of the act. To give just one example, we've accepted the CEO's recom- mendations regarding providing copies of voters lists to candidates in an election. Currently, the candidates are entitled to two paper copies of that list as well as an electronic copy. That results in thousands of pieces of paper being unnecessarily printed, since nearly all the candidates use the electronic copy.

This bill will reduce a substantial waste of paper during each election and help to reduce the carbon footprint of conducting elections. This bill also prohibits financial contributions from federal parties and riding associations to provincial parties. This will ensure that federal tax dollars are not used to fund provincial campaigns. One thing we've heard clearly is that Britis h Columbians want their tax dollars to fund services like health care and education and not political parties.

Finally, I should note that there are a few conse- quential amendments being made to the Recall and Initiative Act as a result of these changes to the Election Act. One such amendment is in regard to spending limits for initiative vote proponents and opponents. These li

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0505pm 04
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0505pm 04
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	325b20df75e2c0d7e7ddeb57ed4b4e32854c16c8

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