H0515pm 07

H0515pm 07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 15, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Volume 33, Number 7 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 Thursday, May 15, 2008 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 12499 Tributes ....................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 12500 Ron Butlin Hon. I.

Chong Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... ............................................ 12500 Introduction and First Reading of Bills........................................................................................ ....................................... 12501 Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill M211) G. Gentner Anti SLAPP Act, 2008 (Bill M212) L.

Krog Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ........... 12501 Criminal justice system D. Hayer Homophobia N. Simons Safe graduation celebrations I. Black 100th anniversary of Britannia Secondary School J. Kwan Vancouver Opera in Schools program J. Yap World records in B.C. G.

Gentner Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ....................................................... 12504 Softwood lumber agreement B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman Government action on forest industry D. Routley Hon. R. Coleman C. Evans Government support for forest workers R. Austin Hon. C. Hansen Seismic upgrades for schools D. Cubberley Hon. S. Bond M. Farnworth Availability of beds at Royal Columbian Hospital C. Puchmayr Hon. G. Abbott A. Dix

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................. 12508 Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 26) (continued) H. Bains C. Wyse D. Cubberley J. Kwan D. Routley G. Gentner S. Simpson J. Brar N. Simons M. Farnworth Hon. G.

Abbott Speaker's Statement ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 12536 Rules for public bills in the hands of private members Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................. 12536 Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (continued) Hon. R. Neufeld Hon. K. Krueger J. Horgan N. Macdonald C. Puchmayr G.

Gentner M. Sather C. Wyse G. Robertson

12499 THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Introductions by Members Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House one of my constituents from the district of Westside, Mr. Jim Wilson. Jim is here today with the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, and I hope the House will join me in making him very welcome. M. Karagianis: I was very delighted today to look up in the gallery and see a very dear friend of mine here. I know I may have missed her most recent birthday. I'd like the House to please give a special welcome to my friend Janet Labh. Hon. O.

Ilich: We often get guests that come from Ottawa, and we always think that they're from a political party or they're representing some federal ministry. We tend to forget that there are a lot of really terrific people that live in Ottawa who are just regular folk. Today it is my pleasure to welcome a visitor from Ottawa who represents one of those regular Canadians who just happen to call Ottawa home. Please join me in welcoming the mother-in-law of my ministerial assistant, Mrs. Irene Lafrance. D.

Chudnovsky: Today it was a treat for me to have some time to visit with some wonderful young people who are friends of our daughter and are visiting in British Columbia. They spent some time on Long Beach and some time here in Victoria and in Vancouver. Please help me in welcoming Michelle Firestone and Guillermo Cruz. [1335] Hon. W. Oppal: I have a number of staff from my ministry in the House today.

They are Connie Richter, who is the executive coordinator of the Deputy Attorney General's office; Janet Labh, who is a senior executive assistant in the deputy's o ffice; Debbie Mar, who is the executive administrative assistant to the legal services branch; Sheena Heuman, exec utive coordinator at the legal services branch; Anna Andrade, executive admin- istrative assistant to the management services branch; and Jacquelyn Jacobi, who is executive administrative assistant in the multiculturalism and immigration branch. Hon.

Speaker, these people do a fantastic job, an unbelievably fantastic job, and I would like the House to make them welcome. G. Gentner: In the House today is Genevieve Gord. Genevieve is from the Université du Quebec. She's here i n B . C . l e c t u r i n g . I n m y f a m i l y w e r e f e r t o h e r a s t h e French kid. She was part of a French immersion ex- change program with my daughter. They became very good friends many years ago. In fact, Genevieve wound up standing up for my daughter during marriage.

It's an incredible relationship, and I encourage all British Columbians to welcome any exchange program with the province of Quebec. Hon. I. Chong: On Tuesday I was pleased to introduce my administrative assistant Linsey Cole, who I mentioned was getting married this weekend on Sunday. While she is busily preparing for that very special day on Sunday, a number of her family members are visiting, and they are in the gallery today. So I would like to introduce Alison Cole, her sister from Italy; her uncle from Saskatchewan, Tom He lpenny; and her father from Fort McMurray, Ian Cole.

I hope the House would please make them all very welcome. D. Cubberley: Minutes ago I had the pleasure to be part of a rally of some 100 people who have assembled here today and who are themselves either Lyme disease sufferers or relatives of those who have Lyme disease. They are here today to try and raise the awareness of legislators about the incidence of this very troubling disease and the difficulty these people have in getting a timely clinical diagnosis of their disease in British Columbia.

Lyme disease is a relatively new phenomenon in our awareness, but its incidence is far greater than we are generally aware, and there's a great deal of work to be done to sensitize doctors in the health care system to the need for treatment. A number of those who are part of the rally today are joining us in the gallery. I want to first mention professor emeritus of UBC Ernie Murakami who is now a retired Lyme disease physician in Hope.

He is British Columbia's first, foremost and, Lyme disease sufferers would tell you, probably our only Lyme-literate doctor who, unfortunately, is now retired from practice but is continuing to try to train new physicians to recognize the disease. He's also joined by Jim Wilson, who was introduced by the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, the head of the Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, who lives in Westbank.

He is also joined by Margie Johns, a Lyme sufferer and a supporter from Brentwood Bay; Eleanor Miller, who is a Lyme sufferer from Oak Bay, British Columbia; and Sue Aldous, who is a Lyme suf- ferer and activist from Sidney, British Columbia. I would ask all members of the House to recognize the green bracelets that some members are wearing to raise awareness of Lyme disease and to welcome all of those protestors, activists and hopeful people who wish to change our views on Lyme disease to the chamber today. Hon.

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to introduce to the House today Wayne Sandberg, who is my neighbour on Matsqui Prairie, a hard-working part- time blueberry farmer. I think he has his son with him. I also want to acknowledge Barbara Edwards, professional agrologist from my constituency, and also to acknowledge the Cole family that were introduced by the Minister of

12500 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 Community Services and Tom Halpenny from Saskatche- wan, because they will soon be related by marriage to my very capable executive assistant Chris Tupper. So I ask the House to make them all very welcome. [1340] S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two constituents from Port Alberni. They are part of the contingent representing the World Under-17 Hockey Challenge that I spoke of earlier this week. Ron Paulson is the chair of the World Under-17 Hockey Challenge, and Dave McCormick is the director of marketing and sales.

I'd like to thank the Minister of State for ActNow B.C., who hosted a lunch today to learn more about this exciting initiative that will showcase the best youth hockey in the world. I would ask everyone here to make Ron and Dave feel very welcome, and I would ask the minister of state to give them money. R. Lee: Joining us in the Legislature today are 76 grade 10 students and some parents from Burnaby Central Secondary School, an excellent school in Burnaby. The school also hosts an outstanding soccer program. Would the House please help me welcome the students and their teacher Miss Dana Dunne here today. J.

Horgan: I, too, want to join with my colleague for Saanich South and introduce some friends that are here today to raise awareness about Lyme disease. My good friend Alison Kirby from the interior is here. She's been suffering from the disease fo r a number of years. She's joined by her fantasti c family, the Finertys — Drew, Brad, Mary, and the matriarch, Dell. In true Irish fashion, they're here today to support Alison in her fight against Lyme disease. J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today two of my good friends and my constitu ents from the riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, soon to be called Burnaby–Deer Lake.

They are Tom and Gayle Neilsen. They are in the gallery today, and I'd ask the House to please make them feel very welcome. D. Routley: I have three constituents visiting who are Lyme sufferers or the parents of Lyme sufferers — Lee Rider, himself a Lyme sufferer; Jay McQuay, the f a t h e r o f M a r y M c Q u a y , a L y m e s u f f e r e r i n v e r y l a t e stages of the disease; and Kimberly Stepanski, the mother of a seven-year-old Lyme sufferer — all of them feeling very frustrated at what they see as a gate keeping them from the services that they need for their children or themselves.

They're here to see to that issue. R. Cantelon: I'd like to join with the member for Alberni-Qualicum in welcoming guests on the U-17 committee — Ron Paulson, Colleen Sawyer, David McCormick, and, from Nanaimo, Darci Osborne, and Paula Peters from Oceanside. I want to make particular note of this tournament. These will be the finest hockey players under 17 in the world. The Attorney General should take note and stop moping about the loss of the Canucks, because the best players under 17 will be here in British Columbia for the first time in this great tournament.

To give you some of the names of the players who have graduated from this tournament: our own Joe Sakic, Sergei Fedorov, Mats Sundin…. In fact, in the last professional hockey draft, 20 of the top 32 first picks came from this tournament. So it's going to be an outstanding tournament, and I encourage you all and your constituents to take part and cheer on B.C.'s team. Let's give these hard wo rkers…. And may I add that this is a whole inter-island, mid-Island thing? Cowichan Valley, Comox, Campbell River and Nanaimo got together in a great spirit of cooperation to make this world-class tournament work. H.

Bloy: I w a n t t o w i s h s o m e b o d y v e r y s p e c i a l t o me a happy 94th birthday today — my dad. My dad worked hard all his life raising our family, and he was always there to support us and nurture us. My brother and sister and I have done quite well, but it was only because of my dad being there all those years and being with us. I know he's watching toda y. He's a regular watcher of this program. I just want to say happy birthday, Dad, and all my love. Tributes RON BUTLIN Hon. I. Chong: Today I would like to introduce a very special man, a truly incredible British Columbian, Mr. Ron Butlin.

Although Ron retired from business many years ago, for the past 16 years he has volunteered with the Greater Victoria Festival Society as the chief organizer of the Island Farms Victoria Day Parade and the Island Farms Santa Light Parade.

These two parades bring joy to tens of thousands of Victoria residents and tourists alike. [1345] This year Island Farms Victoria Day Parade will be particularly spectacular, because many of the local organizations within Victoria who will be entrants in the parade will have floats and displays celebrating their very special anniversary during our very special sesquicentennial year. Mr. Ron Butlin ran a successful management consulting firm and was director of Team Canada for the 1972 Canada-Russia hockey series. He has also organized and run a total of 18 B.C. Summer and Winter Games.

While he is physically not present in the gallery to be welcomed because of his busy

schedule for this weekend, I know he will be watching introductions. So I ask the House to join me in thanking Mr. Ron Butlin for all his years of volunteerism. Introductions by Members Hon. M. de Jong: I met my first politician when I was ten years old. He wasn't an MP, an MLA or even a mayor or a councillor. He was a school trustee. His name

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12501 was Ray Sandberg. Sadly, Ray passed away a couple of years ago, but today in the gallery his grandson Josh Sandberg is here with his father. He is a regular attendee at the monthly breakfasts that I hold in Abbotsford, and when I consider some of the things that he has said and done, I suspect that there is a seat down here on the floor waiting for Josh Sandberg. Would the House please make him and his father Wayne very welcome. Hon. P.

Bell: It's always worthy to note birthdays of members in the House, and although this particular gentleman's birthday isn't today, it is tomorrow, and I would ask that the House please wish a very happy birthday to someone who is turning 53 tomorrow and may be sitting immediately to my right. Mr. Speaker: That would be the Minister of State for Mining. Introduction and First Reading of Bills UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 G. Gentner presented a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008. G. Gentner: I move the bill Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, be read for the first time today.

Motion approved. G. Gentner: On Tuesday I received a phone call from a Delta resident not knowing what to do. B.C. Transmission Corporation had knocked on his door and, like it or not, bulldoz ers are on their way. Against the wishes of thousands of residents, high-voltage power lines are being pushed through. Two years ago this side introduced the same bill, which fell on deaf ears. I reintroduce it today.

This bill stipulates that proposed high-voltage transmission lines located within the vicinity of settled areas, parks, recreation areas, residential schools, public schools, child day care facilities and playgrounds will come under immense scrutiny under provincial law. The bill mandates the Utilities Commission to weigh adverse effects, including EMF fields and all policies concerning public health and safety. On Tuesday night the Pr emier spoke about cancer prevention. In the last year in the House we've come to recognize presumption for firefighters.

Today we must recognize the precautionary principle in all our legislative actions. This bill spells out stringent new siting criteria for overhead electrical transmission lines within residential neighbourhoods. In many jurisdictions le gislation has tightened up EMF regulations. The bill directs the Utilities Commission to consider keeping high-voltage transmission lines away from residential areas and states that any proposal to increase voltage of transmission facilities within residential areas would automatically trigger a review to see if a viable alternative can be found.

It's time to err on the side of caution. It's time to put high risks to health aside. It's time to listen to the people of British Columbia. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today. Bill M211, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. ANTI SLAPP ACT, 2008 L. Krog presented a bill intituled Anti SLAPP Act, 2008. L.

Krog: I move introduction of the Anti SLAPP Act, 2008, for first reading. [1350] Motion approved. L. Krog: For those at home who may be watching, this bill has nothing to do with corporal punishment. This bill has everything to do with public discourse and the right of people to participate in the democratic system freely and without fear of being slapped with suits designed to chill citizen participation. It is designed to prevent others' powerful interests from harassing or intimidating citizens and citizen organizations with respect to the bringing of civil suits.

The bill provides that people who believe they are the victims of such suits ca n bring motions to dismiss and allows for substantive costs and punitive damages, if necessary, to discourage the bringing of such suits. In addition, this bill will protect the rights of citizens generally. It is an important part of the democratic process, as I've said, that citizens feel free to take on powerful organizations. I therefore move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M212, Anti SLAPP Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM D. Hayer: Almost every day there's another headline of a criminal walking away from justice. In brief, it's a common perception that criminals get an unreasonable break from our courts, from our penal system, thereby outraging community sensibility. Are these feelings due

12502 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 to lack of knowledge of our law, or are they due to a criminal justice system increasingly out of touch with ordinary Canadian citizens' concerns of what is right or what is wrong with our system? Almost every week we read of murderers, rapists and other criminals whose personal rights seem to take precedence over the rights of the victims. Mr. Speaker, this has to change. This has to stop.

For every criminal who gets treated a bit lightly or who is allowed to roam free while awaiting refugee hearings, there are dozens, hundreds, even thousands of victims who cry out for justice. Victims often, in their nightmares, remember the horror that crime has brought to their lives. The way the Canadian justice system has evolved, many victims believe that their rights are considered less important than the ri ghts of the criminals who have devastated their lives. Victims and their families get a life sentence, while perpetrators of violence get a slap on the wrist.

Ordinary citizens must send a clear message to the Attorneys General across Canada that the scales of justice are seriously out of balance and that criminals must be held to a higher standard of accountability when they steal, rape and kill. Every elected member of every political party must condemn leniency toward criminal behaviour and strengthen th e rights of innocent vic- tims and their families and our law-abiding society. Lawmakers owe it to the sense of fairness and security of our law-abiding British Columbians and of all Canadians. HOMOPHOBIA N.

Simons: This Saturday, May 17, marks the International Day Against Homophobia. On Monday, The Centre in Vancouver, which provides support, health, social services and public education for the well-being of the lesbian, gay, trans and bi communities and their allies, hosted its fourth annual homophobia breakfast at the Coast Plaza at Stanley Park. Over 350 people came out to demonstrate their interest and support in making our communities more accepting. Sponsors included the Hospital Employees Union, the B.C. Cancer Agency, the B.C.

Cancer Foundation, the Centre for Disease Control, the Nurses Union, Fondation Emergence, Gay and Lesbian Educators of B.C., the Gay and Lesbian Business Association, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Georgia Straight. As members know, homophobia is just as bad as racism. It's ugly, it's preventable, and it has no place in our communities, urban or rural. It also comes in many forms, from hate crimes to workplace discrimination to simple harassment. Homophobia is expressed by those who engage in it and also through the silence of those who see it and don't speak against it.

It reveals itself in exaggerated debates over religious doctrine as well as in the guise of debates over school curriculum. We know that these gay and lesbian youth are more likely to have experienced physical and sexual abuse. They're more likely to have run away from home, more likely to become pregnant as a teenager or to get someone else pregnant. They're more likely to have experienced emotional stress, suicidal thoughts or attempted suicide. And they're more likely to use tobacco and other drugs, less likely to participate in sports and less connected in school.

These statistics are trou bling, and they must be addressed. [1355] According to a study for the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS about to be released, the younger a person is when they come out, the greater the chance that they'll be attacked, which highlights the importance of tolerance initiatives in our schools. Mr. Speaker, let's recognize that one way we can all do our

part is to recognize th at as leaders, as teachers, as community leaders, as coaches we have to model tolerance, acceptance and, in fact, the celebration of diversity. SAFE GRADUATION CELEBRATIONS I. Black: High school graduation is the celebration of hopes, dreams, opportunities, melancholy moments, anxiety about change, teenage romance, celebration of lifelong friends and overwhelming gratitude to teachers and parents alike. For all the magic that this represents, these possibilities and a young person's hopes and dreams can vanish in an instant from just one unsafe decision at a graduation party.

As you know, teenagers under the age of 19 aren't allowed to drink in British Columbia. In theory, drinking and driving should not be an issue for graduation celebrations. But in reality, as we all know, it is. There is a long and sad history of horrible and sometimes fatal grad-related accidents around this time of year. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in Canada one out of every eight deaths and injuries in road crashes is a teenager. Road crashes remain the number one cause of death of youth aged 15 to 19, and two out of every five teens killed on the road have been drinking.

To help combat the risks and give young people choices, safe grad, or dry grad, was a concept introduced when I was in high school. A safe grad aims to equip high school students with more information, skills, peer support and community support to plan safer celebrations. I am very, very proud and enormously grateful that all four secondary schools in my riding are staging a safe grad this year — Pinetree and Gleneagle Sec- ondary Schools in Coquitlam, and Port Moody's Heritage Woods and Port Moody Secondary.

This involves just a ton of work, and I really want to thank the teachers for their extra efforts well above and beyond the call of duty, and the parents and community volun- teers who care enough to stay up all night to make it happen. Co-chairing these in my area include Judy Collin and Wendy Weiderick, Rosemary Keane and Becky Anderson, Tracy Buza and Kelly Dibley. I would like to thank all these parents and wish the young adults in my community a safe and exci ting celebration in the coming weeks.

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12503 100th ANNIVERSARY OF BRITANNIA SECONDARY SCHOOL J. Kwan: I rise in the House today to congratulate all of the students, staff, alum ni and, in fact, the entire Britannia Secondary School community for celebrating their 100th anniversary this year. Britannia is the oldest remaining secondary school in Vancouver. The first classes were held in the Admiral Seymour building in September of 1908. In September of 1955 the gymnasium and cafeteria were added to the old building, and it was also at this time that grades 8 and 9 were added to the enrolment.

During the 1966-67 school year a new wing was constructed, providing additional industrial education, home economics and business education classrooms. In 1972 Britannia became Britannia Elementary- Secondary School. The elementary school opened its doors in 1975 with 370 new students for a combined total of close to 1,800. In 1975 there was the incorpora- tion of the Britannia Community Services Centre Society, and that year Britannia became a community school. Over the years we have seen the school expand in scope.

Today it represents a model development for its multi-use complex, which includes the high school, the elementary school, an adult education program, community centre, ice rink, pool, library, child care centre, teen centre and seniors centre. Its grounds span over ten acres, and there is not one part of it that is not being used at some time during the course of the day. It is the heart of the Grandview-Woodlands community. Grads down through the decades include a B.C. Premier, a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, a Chief Justice of the B.C.

Supreme Court, an Attorney General, atomic physicists, architects, designers, professors, journalists and, of course, the MLA for Vancouver- Hastings. There will be a Britannia centennial reunion on May 16 at Britannia, and on the 17th, an open house that will feature a living memory exhibit as well as an Italian barbecue and Chinese tea. I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Britannia a wonderful 100th birthday. [1400] VANCOUVER OPERA IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM J. Yap: I recently found myself sitting in my seat, anxiously awaiting the show.

The house lights were low, and the buzz of the audience was palpable. As the orchestra music began to swell and the first pitch-perfect notes came from the actor in the spotlight, I knew I was in for a real treat. This scene could have been taking place in any of the finest opera houses around the globe, but along with the students from St. Joseph the Worker School in my riding, I was fortunate enough to be treated to some professional opera right in our very own school. This is the objective of the Vancouver Opera in Schools program.

The Vancouver Opera, founded in 1958, has always placed an emphasis on education and bringing the art of opera to the masses. It was that vision that led to the Vancouver Opera in Schools program in 1972, a touring road show of sorts that would bring the classical beauty of opera to our province's children. Each year since its inception the Vancouver Opera has put together a group of professional opera singers, along with full sets and costumes, and sent them around the province, tourin g everywhere from Metro Vancouver to northern B.C.

Adapting classical operas to the English language and making them more accessible to children has helped to bring an art form that felt out of reach into the lives of youth around British Columbia, reaching an estimated 1.6 million students to date. This year Rossini's The Barber of Seville has been adapted by Vancouver Opera's Ann Hodges to become The Barber of Barkerville in honour of B.C.'s 150th anniversary. While the location of the famed opera has changed to Barkerville, the story and rela tionships remain true to the source.

So far this season the opera has toured 136 schools, performing for an estimated 50,000 young people. I invite all members to join me in thanking the Vancouver Opera, including their education manager Patrick LeBlanc, for their award-winning program to ensure that the arts are available for all British Colum- bians. Bravo. WORLD RECORDS IN B.C. G. Gentner: British Columbia is a remarkable place, and so are its citizens. The province is a record holder in so many ways. Delta's Burns Bog is the largest dome bog in the Americas. Terrace claims the world-record 99-pound chinook.

The world-record size for a sturgeon was found 50 years ago in the Fraser River — 20 feet long and 1,800 pounds. Vancouver's Sam Kee building is consid- ered the world's narrowest building. In 1994 Squamish set the world record with an astounding 3,766 eagles coun ted in one day. Oh, those dismal '90s. I hope they co me back. In 1993 the world's first fuel cell–powered, zero-emission transit bus was introduced at Science World… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. G. Gentner: …and I did get a chance to drive it. On some days we hold North America's highest gas prices.

There's Rick Hansen an d Steve Nash, and there's that little Mundigel Meraw. In the early '30s she broke seven world marathon swimming records, including a swim from Vancouver to Bowen Island in less than seven hours. She also lost her bathing suit along the way. Harrison Hot Springs has the largest sandcastles, and Hells Gate boasts a record 232 flavours of fudge. The world record for the Grouse Grind is under 27 minutes. At the end of this month there will be a new record. Earlier this week a new title was registered in the Guinness Book of World Records .

The claim reads: "The highest amount of responses for a government of a

12504 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 parliamentary democracy in one term of office that uses the excuse that because the issue was before the courts, or similar inferences, it refused to answer the question posed by the official opposition during question period." The count today is 125 and counting. The count will continue until the end of the session. It's a dreadful record, a record no other government will want to beat. This matter is no longer just before the courts. It is now before the Guinness Book of World Records. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Oral Questions SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT B. Simpson: In the Premier's lukewarm defence of the Minister of Forests yesterday, he claimed that one of the minister's successes was the softwood lumber deal. While the Premier was making that questionable c l a i m , t h e U . S . C o n g r e s s p a s s e d a b i l l t h a t w i l l a d d punitive trade barriers to our softwood lumber shipments across the United States. That bill passed through the Senate today. This is a direct political interference on the part of the U.S. [1405] The Premier claimed that the softwood deal would bring certainty.

That's now a questionable claim. What is the Minister of Forests going to do to ensure that the forest sector is not saddled with more costs and to ensure that our lumber shipments can cross the U.S. border freely? Hon. R. Coleman: We have a softwood lumber agreement with the United States — between two countries, Canada and the United States. We expect it to be honoured. What the Congress has done and what the Senate has done is not a cceptable to us, nor is it acceptable to Canada. We intend to defend our position under a trade agreement that 's been signed by both countries. Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental. B. Simpson: Well, so much for certainty, which is the only way that this government legitimized this deal — with certainty. During the softwood lumber negotiations, this minister said that we were the big dog at the negotiating table. He said that we were driving the bus of negotiations. Well, we're now in a political dogfight. U.S. politicians are interfering with what we consider to be a bad deal in the first place.

What is the big dog going to do to drive a bus down to Washington to secure our interests and make sure that our lumber industry has free access to the U.S. market? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know whether I'm getting heckled more on this side of the House or that side of the House. It's stunning, actually, that the member opposite now, all of a sudden, somehow thinks that we should have a softwood lumber deal, when he says: "We should abrogate it. It's no good for British Columbians; it's no good for Canada. We didn't want the $2 billion back." We have a trade agreement.

We have arbitration available to us. What the Congress has done and sent to the Senate still has a lot of process to go through. We have our lawyers working on it, Canada has their people working on it, and we will work through this. One thing is for sure, and maybe this should be instructed to members opposite. It's a fact. It's a very good example of why we need a softwood lumber deal with the United States. The lumber lobby in the United States is incessant in trying to damage the industry in the province of British Columbia and the r e s t o f C a n a d a .

T h a t ' s w h y w e n e e d a s o f t w o o d d e a l , and that's why we expect both countries to live up to it. Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental. B. Simpson: We sacrificed a lot in British Columbia for this bad deal. We left a billion dollars on the table… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. B. Simpson: …for the U.S. lumber lobby to do exactly what they're doing just now with the U.S. Congress and Senate. The industry was saddled with a 15 percent border tax and the worst market conditions we have ever experienced.

The province had to give up sovereignty over forest policy, despite this minister's claim at the time that that wouldn't happen, and the government lost its ability to support communities and forest workers in their time of crisis. That's what we gave up to get a bad deal — a bad deal that now the U.S. Congress and the Senate are now further undermining with punitive trade barriers through legislation, the first time ever that they've used legislation in the softwood lumber dispute. When we need political leadership, once again, what do we see?

A minister who will relegate himself to the sidelines, who will be a spectator, who will send lawyers. This is a political dogfight. It requires a political response. What will the minister do today to commit to this House that he will show the political leadership necessary on this issue? Interjections.

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12505 Mr. Speaker: Members. [1410] Hon. R. Coleman: Well, first of all, let's be clear. You want to abrogate the softwood lumber deal. You've said that publicly. You have no interest in working with the United States to try and solve the deal. You would rather have a 30 percent duty or higher at the border today, with the protectionist country south of you just taking the heart out of the rest of the industry in the province of British Columbia. That's what you'd rather have.

You would rather have a 30 percent duty on any high-value projects going across the border than a 15 percent high-value cap at only $500, because you would rather take the heart out of that piece of the industry on some principle that you think you can't have a deal. You know what? The fact of the matter is that for the first time in many years, there's been some stability in the trade of softwood lu mber on both sides of the border in North America.

We intend — with the government of Canada and with the Ambassador of the United States, who we are in contact with — to defend the rights of Canada with regards to that. One other thing. Let's be clear. This isn't done yet. There's an opportunity for a veto. It would have to go back to Congress for another two-thirds vote. All that work will continue on, and we will defend the rights of us under the softwood lumber deal. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON FOREST INDUSTRY D.

Routley: The minister obviously isn't prepared to take his responsibility for the failings of the softwood lumber agreement, but softwood is not the only failed forest policy of this government. For weeks we've pointed to situations where mills are closing. All they need is fibre, but this minister's policies won't allow that. In a review of TimberWest by Citadel Securities, they say the following: "The company does not log but contracts out its harvesting. It does not mill, having closed both its sawmills. What it is doing is preparing to become a full-time real estate seller and developer.

To its credit, it has deceived no one as to its intentions, but one wonders how long the Minister of Forests can accord the rights and privileges of a forest company to one that does so little forestry." So what's it going to be — continued log exports? Mills starved of fibre, not able to address markets that they have? Or will the minister step up today and re- verse these policies? Provide fibre to the mills. Keep the jobs in B.C. Hon. R. Coleman: We have tenure in British Co- lumbia. We actually do get fibre to our mills, and we'll continue to do so. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. D.

Routley: It's unfortunate that, again, we have complete denial from the mi nister. We are losing jobs that we don't need to lose. Mills that have markets are closing because they don't have fibre, and yet that's the answer from the minister. Well, you can use a hammer to build a house, or you can use a hammer to tear it down. That minister has used the tool, the hammer of forest policy in this province, to tear down our industry. He tears it down with fibre monopoly. He tears it down with raw log exports. He tears it down with a broken social contract.

The report goes on to say: "As mills close, logs could be exported, and there began a chicken-and-egg debate. Had the mills closed because of a shortage of logs, or were logs being exported because there was a shortage of mills?" Well, we know the answer to that. We know it was the broken social contract. We know it was the failed forest policies. The minister should admit it, and he should resign if he cannot promise this House that he will stand up and use policy to guarantee the jobs of British Columbia forest workers. [1415] Hon. R. Coleman: You know, hon.

Member, the largest capital investment that's taken place in the province of British Columbia in the modernization of our sector took place between the years of 2004 and 2007 — billions of dollars of investment in modernization. The member opposite refuses to understand the mar- kets. I get that.

The member opposite refuses to understand the investment we've made in forest innovations to actually find markets for hemlock in China and Korea and Japan — the $25 million we've invested in that, the $642 million we put into mountain pine beetle to find markets and take care of the land base in the province of British Columbia. This government continues to make investments and continues to work with forest companies to make sure the fibre flows in the province of British Columbia. C. Evans: The minister's defence is that we don't understand. Hon.

Speaker, for 14 years before I got here, I was an independent logging contractor. Killing trees and talking here is all I know. I think I understand. The market goes up, and the market goes down all the way across the world. It always has. In 1982 the market was in the basement. We had to hide our cat in the bush to keep the repo man from taking it away. But we came back. The job of the minister is to see to it that the people are there when it comes back. We get it that the market bottoms out.

This is the first minister whose public policies appear designed to wipe out the independents before the market comes back. There are — I'm so proud of this — seven independent sawmills in my constituency today. My question to the

12506 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 minister is: will they be gone or you be gone? Who's going to last? Hon. R. Coleman: The opposing statement puts the first part of the statement to false, because there are seven guys running over there and still there. The presumption that the member makes at the beginning…. He actually makes his own argument at the end. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental. C. Evans: Hon.

Speaker, we have an industry on its knees, and I get a specious, shallow comment — playing games with words instead of taking responsibility for the survival of the oldest industry in British Columbia. I've met the ministers all the way back to Williston. It didn't matter what political party they were in. They thought their job was to make the industry survive. I think this minister has cut a deal with the majors to wipe out the independent sector. My question to the minister is: were you instructed to kill this industry, or are you doing it on your own? Hon. R.

Coleman: What we've been doing is fixing ten years of a mess they left behind in forestry in the province of British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Hon. R. Coleman: By their own admission, when they were in government, they added a billion dollars in cost to the forest industry in British Columbia with- out one benefit. That was a quote from one of their own members when they were in government in the 1990s, with the Forest Practices Code. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Continue. [1420] Hon. R. Coleman: We have continued to build on forest policies for the province of British Columbia.

We have attracted investment. We have the most competitive industry, and frankly, we are going to be there with the industry that we continue to work with. We have the most aggressive regulatory review going on right now, and the work will continue. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR FOREST WORKERS R. Austin: Last week at the North Central Municipal Association meetings in Pr ince George, the Premier announced $2 million each for the communities of Mackenzie and Fort St. James. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your…. Members. Listen to the question; listen to the answer. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Skeena continues. R. Austin: A mere ten days prior to this, the Premier was visiting Terrace, whose last mill was closed down by West Fraser before Christmas — one of over 50 mills to have closed in the last couple of years. No claps? This federal aid package was announced in January. So why was there no announcement of help for Terrace? Is this becoming just a slush fund for the B.C. Liberals to pick and choose which communities they want to help? Hon. C.

Hansen: I had the pleasure of visiting Terrace just recently, and I was impressed with the dynamism in the community and the excitement about future opportunities that are there. It is clear in the way we have rolled out the community development trust that forest families around British Columbia are eligible to benefit from it. But I think the member has to recognize that if you look at the statistics, Fort St. James and Mackenzie are hit to a much greater degree than any other community in British Columbia.

That's why we said that we're going to be there for forest- dependent communities around British Columbia with the job creation program, the tuition program and the assistance for older workers. I can tell you that the Premier made that announce- ment in Kamloops last Friday, and on Tuesday of this week, exactly — Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday — four days later, there were staff from the Ministry of Economic Development, staff from the Ministry of Forests and staff from the Ministry of Community Services who were in those two communities to make sure those dollars flow as fast as possible.

SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR SCHOOLS D. Cubberley: Yesterday the Minister of Education was asked point-blank whether B.C. Liberals were breaking their promise to fast-track the seismic upgrading of 80 high-risk schools by 2008. In the midst of an experience in China that shows just how vulnerable school children are in a severe earth- quake, this minister's response is to claim that B.C. Liberals hadn't promised any such thing. She said: "I don't think it said that. I think it said 'in the process' or whatever the definition is.

I mean, our commitment has always been that they would be in the process and moving through that and ready to go, and that's where they will be." So we've moved from 80 fixed by 2008 to no fixed time lines whatsoever, and that sounds just like what it is, which is a broken promise. Interjections.

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12507 Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Member. D. Cubberley: My question is: will the minister apolo- gize for B.C. Liberals' broken promise? Will she commit the resources to complete the 80 schools by 2008, or will she continue to deny they ever made such a promise? Hon. S. Bond: I can say this for sure.

This is the first government in the history of British Columbia that put together a $1.5 billion commitment to seismically upgrade schools, and we're committed to that. [1425] What's most embarrassing about the member op- posite asking the question is that when that opposition was in government, they chose a liquor warehouse over schools. We will not do that. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Sit down, Member. Members. Member continues. D. Cubberley: You know, a commitment without the resources to implement it is a broken promise. This government gave its word. They said it mattered. They said seismic safety mattered.

They said it was urgent. They said they were going to fix it, and then they turned around and broke their word. They never funded the promise they made to British Columbians. Their response to getting caught, to being asked directly, is to claim they never gave their word at all. Here it is in black and white from the news release, "The first 80 schools to be upgraded over the next three years as part of the province's $1.5 billion plan…. No other government has ever done this. We're fast- tracking seismic projects at 80 high-priority schools" — 80 schools, three years, in black and white. Nothing.

Here's my question to the minister: is the message to British Columbians that they just can't trust the B.C. Liberals to keep their word, to keep their promises, even when it concerns the safety of kids at school? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Just take your seat, Minister. We're not continuing. Members. Hon. S. Bond: Let's look at what the NDP Education Minister said in 1997, and you know what…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Continue, Minister. Hon. S.

Bond: Paul Ramsey in The Vancouver Sun said — and let's listen to the reaction when you hear the quote: "The fact is we are not going to unroll a huge budget to fix old schools." What is that? That was then, and this is now? We made a commitment. We made a commitment to $1.5 billion. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: No, we're not…. The minister hasn't finished yet, Members. Continue, Minister. Hon. S. Bond: We made a commitment — $1.5 billion. In addition to that, this government, by the end of 2008, will have spent $3.1 billion on capital. That's a commitment. M.

Farnworth: In 2001 they cut the capital budget by 50 percent. That didn't build or refurbish many schools. In 2005 — March 7, 2005 — the minister's own release said: "We're fast-tracking seismic projects at 80 high-priority schools so that students will be protected as soon as possible." Was this press release right then, or is the minister wrong now? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat. Members. Hon. S. Bond: We made a commitment to $1.5 billion, to a 15-year program to se ismically upgrade schools, and we will continue to honour that commitment. We are working with boards of education.

We are moving projects forward. [1430] In fact, we will have by the end of the year almost a hundred projects either under construction, completed or ready to go to construction. That's our commitment. AVAILABILITY OF BEDS AT ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL C. Puchmayr: On Tuesday there was another code orange at Royal Columbian Hospital. On Tuesday there were 60 patients in the emergency room waiting to be decanted into other departments, 60 patients clogging the emergency room in a code orange. Those beds that they needed to be decanted to were not available, a g a i n .

A c o d e o r a n g e i s a n a l e r t t h a t i s u s e d i n t h e event of an emergency such as a plane crash or a natural disaster. When will the Health Minister take seriously the crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital, and when will he deal with the crisis that continues almost on a daily basis at Royal Columbian today? Hon. G. Abbott: I noted in the media this morning that the Leader of the Opposition was claiming that there had been a code orange at Royal Columbian Hospital. This member of the House has just got up and repeated the same entirely specious claim.

12508 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 Neither Royal Columbian Hospital nor Fraser Health Authority has any record of a code orange. That is definitively…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assertion, Mr. Speaker…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assertion is definitively false. I call on that member to get up right now, withdraw his entirely false claim and apologize to the people of British Columbia and apologize to the caregivers at Royal Columbian Hospital for his entirely false claim. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. [Mr.

Speaker rose.] Mr. Speaker: Members, now! That is really embarrassing. [Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.] Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. A. Dix: On Monday the minist er said: "One of the things I won't be doing is submitting the political judgment of the member for the medical judgment of the professionals." The people who say there was a code orange are the doctors and the nurses who were there. If it comes to believing the doctors at RCH who were there or the minister, I'll take the doctors. If it comes to believing the nurses at Royal Columbian Hospital who were there or the minister, I'll take the nurses.

Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Minister. A. Dix: It's been deny, deny, deny for four years about Royal Columbian Hospital from this minister and his predecessor. When will he stop it with the deny, deny, deny and do something about the real crisis facing patients at Royal Columbian Hospital? Why doesn't…? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister. Hon. G. Abbott: Sounds a lot like code red-in-the- face to me from the part of this official opposition. Code red-in-the-face. There was no code orange. He can ask Royal Columbian Hospital. He can ask the emergency department officials at Royal Columbian Hospital.

He can ask the Fraser Health Authority. There was no code orange, and this member can spin as fast as he wants. [1435] If he can come up with a memo that asserts there was a code orange on Tuesday, I welcome him to do it. I'll bet there's no memo that says code orange. But Mr. Speaker.… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Can the minister finish up. Hon. G. Abbott: When I was at Royal Columbian Hospital and met with all the medical leaders at Royal C olu m bian, they shared with m e this do cu m ent.

It's a site development plan proposed for Royal Columbian Hospital, approved by the board of trustees of the then health authority. Among the things this has is this beautiful tower that they were…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Minister. Hon. G. Abbott: The only problem was that they couldn't get a Minister of Health from the NDP to listen to them. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 26 in this chamber and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of mem- bers, the continued estimates debate of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Second Reading of Bills HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 (continued) H. Bains: I'm going to speak about Bill 26. I am in fact honoured to stand here to talk in this House about how the government can bungle up the democratic rights of its citizens and how they can try to fix it. That's what the intent of this bill is. This bill will repeal parts of 2001 and 2002's Bill 29, after the Supreme Court rejected many aspects of that bill. [S. Hammell in the chair.]

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12509 Let me say this. One of the reasons that I am here, one of the reasons why I made a decision to seek elec- tion and seek a seat in this House, is a result of Bill 29 that which this government brought on in this prov- ince, which affected many thousands of workers who had democratic, constitutional rights to bargain freely through freedom of association under the constitution. For years they bargained with the employer, and they were able to negotiate some of the very basic, fundamental rights that workers need in order to do their job at their workplaces.

This government came in, after making a promise with the same workers and their representatives that they would not tear down the legally bargained collective agreements that were in plac e. Once they got elected, they did exactly the opposite . They came in. The first act of this government was to tear up the decades-old, legally negotiated collective agreements by the Hospital Employees Union on behalf of their workers. [1440] In my view, in a democratic society, Bill 29 was the worst attack on the democratic rights of its citizens anywhere in this world.

It was and will remain one of the darkest spots in the history of this province in removing the constitutional right of freedom of association. At a time when we have seen, in this House and many other legislatures all across this country and the parliament of this country, legislators and parliamentarians working hard, trying to recognize and redress the wrongs of the past, this government came in and did one more wrong. It was the benefit of the union that the workers had…. On behalf of their workers, on behalf of their members, they challenged Bill 29's legality in the Supreme Court. Guess what.

Exactly what th ey were told when they were bringing in Bill 29…. The Supreme Court of Canada said that they were wrong. Had it not been the benefit of the union that those workers enjoyed, those workers would have been left without any redress. So I want to thank the HEU, BCGEU, B.C. Federation of Labour and many other health care unions and the workers who are members of those unions, who took the unjust law that was pass ed in this House by the Liberal government and challenged it in the Supreme Court and were able to reverse it.

I must say that many aspects of the bill were struck down by the Supreme Court, but it will not reverse the negative effect it has left on many thousands of work- ers that were affected by this bill. These were women in most cases. Many of them were immigrants, if not most. These were new Canadians. Many of them spend their lifetime serving our province, serving the patients' needs in our hospitals and in care homes. With the stroke of a pen, this government took all of their rights — decades-old, legally negotiated bargaining rights that they once held. They were gone, and it was shocking.

The sound waves of th at unjust action of this government were felt all across this world. No wonder the ILO, International Labour Organization, made a comment about this. No wonder the Supreme Court of Canada made a comment about this and told this gov- ernment that they were wrong. Who were these workers? These are not just numbers. When we talk about it, 10, 000 sounds like a number. It is a number, but behind those numbers are families — the real people, people who went to work day in, day out so that they could provide the services in our hospitals to our patients. These are real families.

These are our neighbours. These are the people that we take our kids with to the hockey games, to the soccer games. These are the people we meet at our shopping malls. These are the people we have a chat with over the fence. [1445] These are real people, and they have children. There are about 10,000 of them, like I said — m o s t o f t h e m women, and most of them immigrant women.

This is something that is going to stay with us because of the negative effect it has left on the lives of those workers, those women, those children whom the mothers had to come and face, to say: "Johnny, that game that I was promising you, I can no longer afford. The trip that I was going to take you on, I can no longer afford to take." That was the result of this government's action on those workers. At that time, the arguments were made that the health care system is too expensive and that we need to bring the cost down. Guess who they targeted.

It was the lowest-paid workers in the health care system, the people who were making $17 or $18 an hour, and we're talking about seven years ago. Even today you cannot live on $17 or $18 an hour. You cannot make a living today, never mind seven years ago. Seven years ago they th ought that was too much. With the stroke of a pen, lik e I said, those salaries were gone; their jobs were gone. You know what was worse? I sat across from a company that wanted to come in and take the contract for clea ning services in some of the hospitals.

They told us across the table: "We will not h i r e t h o s e p e o p l e t h a t h a v e b e e n l e t g o u n d e r B i l l 2 9 , because they will bring the union back. They will ask for their rights again." That's how bad it can be in this day and age, in this country, in this province. It 's unheard of. This was and will remain, like I said, one of the darkest spots in the history of this province, and we have many. We have many. Whether you talk about taking the rights of its citizens to vote, whether it's to take the right of its citizens to practise in their profession….

We have all of those legislations, and many of them were debated in this House. People sat on these chairs and made those laws. You know what? Decades have gone by. The same thing happened seven years ago in this House. They created another dark spot in our history pages. That will stay with us. This Bill 26 goes…. They'r e forced by the Supreme Court ruling that they must redress the wrongs of that legislation, but it will not change the lives of those people who were affected by it. Permanent scars are left on those families and those children. Why? Why did they do that? It wasn't because of the cost.

It wasn't because of the efficiency that they were seeking in the health care system. But that was the reason, the front

12510 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 they used so that they could get away with their spin- doctoring of this very, very bad bill — bad law. I must say that I was ashamed to be a British Columbian that day. You know what? I decided on that day that I was going to do something. Like I said before, that is one of the reasons why I sought election — to be here so that never again, while I'm sitting in one of these chairs, will this Liberal government bring in a law like that, will never be allowed to do that.

Like I said, these were the lowest-paid workers in the health care system, and th ey picked on those. They threw them on the street, an d many of them ended up taking 15 or 20 percent pay cuts. I would say that at least they had a job, but what a way of keeping your job. The government comes in, and that decades-old, legally negotiated collective agreement and the rights that you have negotiated in those collective agreements are gone. No other reason except that the government brought in the legislation. No other reason, because that's their ideology.

They couldn't see workers prosper in this province. [1450] The real reason, I tell you, is and was so that their multinational friends could come in and make a profit on the backs of the lowest-paid workers in the health care system, at the cost of our health care services in this province. That was the real reason, because it did not change an iota. Actually, the services got worse. Cleaning — the laundry services were not what they used to be.

No w o n d e r w e h a v e s e e n p o s t - s u r g e r y i n f e c t i o n s o n t h e rise ever since they made this law, ever since they kicked those workers out of their jobs. Those were the professionals. They knew exactly what was needed to be done in those hospitals to keep those hospitals clean, and they were let go. Their multinational friends came in and decided that they will be the ones who are making the money, not the workers. You know, that is a shamef u l h i s t o r y t h a t i s b e i n g built and was built by this government. You know what, Madam Speaker?

This bill goes part of the way to correcting that. Thanks to the labour unions, thanks to HEU and thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada and the judges who saw through it — that this government was wrong and that this government has to correct their wrongs. And so that we don't have to wait 70 or 100 or 90 years for people who would come after us, they would talk about apologies — apologies for the actions of this government. I applaud the effort of those labour unions who took this bad and unjust la w and challenged it.

I said the real reason was so that their multinational friends could come in, so that they can boast to their friends, those multi-millionaires and those multinational companies: "We are open for business." That was their motto. They're open for business on the ba cks of the working people of this province and their wages and on the backs of the health care system of this province. That was wrong. It was wrong. It was a shameful act.

I had hoped that we don't have to wait 70 or 80 years to apologize for the sins and the mistakes of this government — t h a t s o m e b o d y f r o m t h a t s i d e o f t h e House, the Liberal side, the Minister of Labour or the Premier would stand up and apologize to those workers. They don't have the audacity to stand up and apologize and say that we were wrong to those workers. They still haven't admitted…. The reason we have Bill 26 before us is because the Supreme Court orders it so, not because one day they woke up and felt that they were wrong.

It's not that one day they felt guilty and that they want to do some atoning of their past mistakes. No. If they wanted to do it, they could have stood up and said sorry to those workers. They would have made them whole. They didn't. They didn't say sorry. They didn't make them whole. They didn't apologize at all. So to me, this government cannot be trusted. They will do only what they are forced to do, as is the case in this case. Who were some of the folks who came in and took over our cleaning services and laundry services and provided our health care serv ices? Here is a list.

I have a long list, but I'll read a couple. Retirement Concepts donated $12,000 to the B.C. Liberals between 2001 and 2006. In fact, it was $11,855 between 2001 and 2006 — close to $12,000. They billed the B.C. health authorities $45 million in 2006 and 2007. [1455] So yes, their friends are making money on the backs of our health care system, on the backs of those workers who were let go. What about those workers? I met many of them. Many of them, every time I went door to door during any campaign…. Every few houses I go to, they will tell me: "You know what? You don't have to worry about us.

We're not voting B.C. Liberals at all." When I talked to them, wh at were the issues? This was one of the issues. They would tell us that either the person herself or hi mself was affected by this bill, Bill 29, or someone that they knew was affected and was let go. It was all done to please their multinational friends. When you look at what kinds of services were left behind and whether we received efficiency, whether it was less costly…. No. There was no efficiency gained. There wasn't any cost that was saved. The minister will stand up today and continue to say that our health care is unaffordable.

That's what the minister said. It wasn't this minister; it was the minister before him — that it is unaffordable, unsustainable. That's why they brought those actions. This minister, seven years later, is saying the same thing. So where is the efficien cy? Nowhere. Where is the cost reduction? Nowhere. All you've seen here as the result of Bill 29 was to fill the pockets of their friends and multinationals. That was the effect, and that's what they achieved. What did we see in the ho spitals?

Since 2002 hospital cleaners and cooks' wages have roller-coastered from $18 an hour, on average, to a low in 2004 between $8 and $10. That's the effect on those workers. Madam Speaker, I want to talk to you about what kind of service we received as a result of these changes. The opposition learned, working with the Hospital Employees Union, that the Vancouver Coastal Health

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12511 Authority reduced cleaning hours by 153,500 hours every year when they privatized hospital cleaning in 2003. So we got less. The workers were let go, and we got less service, but it's costing us more. That's the mantra of that government. The working people, the middle class, pay more but get less. They work hard longer, but fall behind. That's the result of that government. Those are not my words. Statistics Canada came down and gave us those numbers.

Those folks who were paid at the lower part of the salary spectrum — since 2003 their salaries have gone down by 3.5 percent. I believe it is 3.5 percent. The top 20 percent of the salary spectrum gained 20 percent. No wonder. That's the result of this government's action and this government's attack on the middle class and the working people. Coming back to the hospitals again, we have 153,000 reduced hours for cleaning services every year in Vancouver Coastal Health Authority alone, and it g o e s o n i n t h e r e s t o f t he province.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis, ordered the information on service levels to be made public after the union was initially denied access based on the protection of commercial interest. Those are the kinds of excuses we have come to see from this government. You try to get any information under freedom of information. They find excuses after excuses. I don't know if Wite-Out is in the open stock. Are they trading on the open market right now?

If they are, I think their shares are probably way up there today because of the amount of Wite-Out that is being used by the government side when it comes to giving us freedom of information. [1500] Despite all of that stuff — despite the complaints that the patients had, despite the claims that the unions had, despite the facts that the independent bodies of this province had to say abou t the lack of services and the poor services in the hospital — Dean Waisman, president of Westech Systems, a company that was hired to perform external and independent annual housekeeping audits on all B.C. health authorities since 2005, has made public comments in defence of privat- ized cleaning services.

Guess what. "We are going to tell the public how bad we are or how good we are, and we will hire somebody who will come in and tell the public — do some spin-doctoring and put some numbers together — so that hopefully, the public will never know the truth behind it." This is what he said: "I think the hospitals are cleaner now than they have ever been." Well, if anybody has seen the hospitals lately or in the last six years…. I have, because some of my close family members were in there. I have seen blood on the floors and the walls. I have seen dirty laundry stuck in the corners.

I have seen it with my own eyes, and I was told by many patients that that's the way it is. It's widespread. But here we are getting information from their agents, who will come in and say that everything is fine, just like the Minister of Health will stand up every day in question period and sa y that everything is fine in the health care system ou t there, that there is no waiting out there, that there is no code orange and that we are fearmongering. Well, I want the Minister of Health to come with me….

I have challenged the minister many times to come to Surrey Memorial Hospital and spend a few hours with me in the emergency ward. He hasn't taken up that challenge yet — not yet. I put that challenge again to the Minister of Health, who missed this point, it seems to me. I challenged twice, actually, in my speeches that the minister should come with me. We would sit in the emergency ward of Surrey Memorial Hospital. Let's spend about a day in there, Minister. Let's see how the real patients go through. Interjection. H. Bains: No, no. Don't go to some nice corporate offices and sit there and do some photo ops.

Come with me to where the blood is. Come with me to where the pain is being suffered by the pati ents. It's in the emergency ward. Come sit with me for a day. I'll sit with you one day in that emergency ward. Let's see and talk to those patients about what they think. Never mind your spin doctors. Never mind your agents, who are making money on the backs of the health care workers, who are making money on the back of our health care system. Don't listen to them. Come listen to real people. Then you'll find out what the system is like.

You will find out why people in Surrey are saying that if my beloved one ever gets hurt or injured or is ill, I will not go to Surrey Memorial Hospital. That's how bad they believe it is. That is not to say anything about the health care professionals that we have in the hospital. They have nothing but praise for the doctors, for the nurses and for other health care prov iders in Surrey Memorial Hospital, because they ar e working hard. They are working with what they ar e given. They are working with the limited resources they're given, but they're doing the best they can.

But this minister, this government, is not helping them, not giving them the resources that they need to provide the service th at they think is needed to our patients. That's what's happening in the health care system as a result of this government. You know what? It wasn't that they didn't know what was going on. When they brought this bill in, th ey were warned. They were warned by many, including the two members of the opposition. One of them is sitting right here in the H o u s e , w h o i s w i t h u s o n t h i s s i d e o f t h e H o u s e .

I ' m p r o u d t o b e p a r t o f t h e c a u c u s t h a t w a s h e r e a t t h a t time, that defended the patients and that stood up hour after hour, night after day to defend the rights of the working people, and this government wouldn't listen. [1505] T h i s i s w h a t t h e y s a i d w h e n t h e y w e r e t r y i n g t o defend the actions of this go vernment. I'll read this for the record. "It is a patent untruth that somebody gets 56 weeks of job security after working one day. It is

12512 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 going to come back to haunt this government, perhaps in court." And it did, and it came true. The absolute untruth of the repetition of that kind of statement, the absolute untruth of this government somehow taking office on May 17 and being shocked about the wages and working conditions of our health and social services community is just going to have to be revealed at length. Why is the government bringing in this bill? Why do we have this bill before us?

Well, even though there's nothing new here — even though this government knew absolutely everything in detail about the wages and working conditions from the public record, from private meetings with individual unions, private meetings with individual constituents, even from newspaper ads and articles describing the wages and working conditions — somehow they say: "Oh my gosh. We woke up one morning, and we discovered the truth, and the truth was horrible." This was Joy MacPhail. This is from Hansard of January 26, 2002.

She went on to say: "Here's what your non-clinical service is defined as, and the media, of course, missed this completely. They're radiological and lab technologists, they're radiation therapists, they are pharmacists, they're occupational therapists and physiotherapists, they are dieticians, they are nurses, they're infant development consultants, they are alcohol and drug counsellors, and they are social workers. Those are the non-clinical services that you are going to contract out, as well as laundry services and housekeeping services. "Come clean.

Come clean, Minister of Health, and tell us that these are the services you are now contracting out. It is unprecedented across Canada how you are bringing destruction to our health care — unprecedented." Joy MacPhail, again, from January 26, 2002, in Hansard. They were warned. Time after time they were warned by the members of this House in the opposition. But did the government listen? Did the minister listen at that time? No. Here the very respected member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant stood up and said…. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. H. Bains: My time's up. It went so quickly. C.

Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to get up and speak in favour of Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act. [Applause.] I am absolutely certain that the minister will be equally applauding my rationale for supporting Bill 26 and the need for it to be here. Bill 26, in actual fact, in

part is required to amend Bill 29. Let me read for the House for the record the title of Bill 29 that has caused Bill 26 to be here. The title is the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. That's the actual title that was so misleading. The improvement that was put on the plate was taken to the courts, and the courts made some rulings. It made some rulings on the arrogance of Bill 29. It's because of the rulings of the courts th at we are here and that I have the privilege to be speaking in favour of Bill 26 and certain portions of it.

Bill 29, to put it into context, is the bill that removed existing collective agreemen t provisions dealing with contracting-out and consultation about contracting- out and stripped unions of their rights to negotiate contracting-out and consultation as part of the collective bargaining process. [1510] The bill also eliminated successor rights for health and social services union members whose jobs are privatized or transferred, rolled back deals reached to move to wage parity between genders and also between workers in the community and those in hospital facilities.

It also banned the unions from suing over the bills. One thing that the government should be recog- nized for is the result ruled by the Supreme Court. It established that collective bargaining is a right protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is the outcome of Bill 29, leading us into Bill 26 and why I am here speaking in favour of it. It is not just because of the ruling dealing with the rights of the unions and th eir workers, though I am proud to be here recognizing that aspect of it.

I also want to recognize the absolute, utter chaos that was put into the delivery system for care in the health system, particularly for our seniors. As a result of that, we have got seniors being affected. We had communities being affected. We had workers, as I have mentioned, being affected. It would be great, in my judgment, if we were here because the government, after having seen the effect of this particular bill, had said: "Yes, we need to have Bill 26 in front of us. We have seen the error of our ways. We have seen the effect that it's had upon the care given to seniors.

We have se en the effect that it's had upon our communities. We have seen the effect that it's had across British Columbia. Therefore, we have simply recognized our error. We're sorry for that, and we've introduced the bill." That, for me, would be quite an astonishment. However, I have to form the conclusion that we're here dealing with the bill I am speaking in favour of because the courts said: "Do it.

You've got one year to try and unscramble the omelette that you put together — t h a t m e s s t h a t l e d t o h u g e r e d u c t i o n s i n t h e l e v e l given to our more vulnerable people here within the province." More than 9,000 health care workers were laid off, most of them women. Widespread chaos did develop, particularly in the seniors care area, right across the province. I've shared with this House that one of the reasons, quite likely, why I'm sitting in this chair in this House is a direct result of what came out of Bill 29 — the effect that did develop in communities throughout the Cariboo.

I've been up in front of this House on numerous occasions raising issues around levels of care for seniors that have been provided right across the entire riding I have the privilege of representing. The community of Williams Lake, in actual fact, made its own case around the need for this particular

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12513 bill. The community of Williams Lake sent its own delegations to meet with the minister on this item of seniors care. They met in Kamloops. They sent representatives down here. They sent a 12,000-signature petition from a greater community of Williams Lake of about 25,000 people. [1515] They met with the minister. They extended invitations to the minister to come to their community and see for himself what the effect had been of the bill that we're h e r e i n s u p p o r t o f . T o m y k n o w l e d g e , t h a t o f f e r h a s never been taken up.

We have seen what has unfolded in my community. Right through to 2008 concerns have been raised about the effect of what rolled out of Bill 29. It contributed to the closure of facilities for seniors care in Williams Lake — of Deni House, Heritage House and Cariboo Lodge. It led to protests. It led to a huge reduction of service to the seniors in our area. There were health care workers that were forced to leave. They were left unemployed. They didn't have jobs, necessarily, to go to. I had indi- vidual members approach me as their MLA and look for whatever assistance my office might be able to provide.

Before I was elected, I was approached by individuals as a community member to see what advocacy work I might be able to do on their behalf to find places for their loved one to be in, in some cases, or to find improved levels of service to be provided to them as the transition was made from those three facilities to other care facilities. The answers that were received by representatives here in Victoria, both ministeria l staff representatives and others, really were not satisf actory in the judgment of those individuals or of the community at large.

The chaos that developed in the provision of this health care service for seniors in Williams Lake also overflowed into the hospital in the acute care area, be- cause there was no place for them to go. Therefore, the service needs were provided for in the limited acute care beds in the hospital — a level of service not deemed to be that type of service to be there. But that was the only place left for them to go, for them to be. Also, those members in the community were left in care facilities that were not at all able to provide the services. The community saw what was happening as a result.

My community will be celebrating the bill that I'm here to be supporting, but there's a hollow victory to it. Because of the arrogance that took place over this period of time, there was a level of service delivered that was inadequate. That did not need to happen, but it did. There will be people in my riding that will be pleased that I'm standing up , telling this story.

They will be pleased that I'm speaking in favour of this bill, but it's a hollow, hollow victory to them. [1520] They would have preferred that the minister and the government had actually taken their concerns seriously and moved on them simply because, as people of British Columbia, they brought fo rward their concerns, not being required to be clubbed to do it by the Supreme Court. That is what they would like to have happened. It's not what did happen.

So we have had a situation that leaves me somewhat satisfied to be standing here, but I feel very much like an individual that's been involved in a fight that I won, but it really was not a victory that was worth winning at the price that was paid, a price that was paid by all British Columbians — a fight that was on the back of people that could not defend themselves, a fight that was on the back of the communities here right across all of British Columbia, a fight with a government that believed that they knew what was right and best and moved accordingly.

It's a hollow victory for me to be standing here speaking in favour of this particular bill, but I am pleased to be here to do that, because it is as a result of another segment of our society that stood up and said: "We're going to fight this." It was the unions that went ahead and forced this to take place. It was a fight that was not won here in the Legislature, but it is a fight that will be taken out of this chamber again and will be dealt with by the public when they do an examination of this bill. The courts have ruled that the government overstepped their bounds.

There are other bills that are in front of this House that have, equally, warnings from legal areas wondering about where they are going with their legalities. The courts will deal with them. As we have seen, five years ago when this government decided that they were going to go down the road that led us to the need for this particular bill, we had one or two individuals stand up and say: "Whoa. Step back. Have a look." Unless there's a second wind, a second examination, there will be other situations that will be occurring again.

In speaking in favour of this bill to correct such an error, I also feel it's my resp onsibility to draw attention that we don't want to repeat that practice. We wish to encourage the government to open their ears, to listen and move prudently so that the chaos that was developed, that affected not just workers but seniors, communities, and the entire province….

I wish to close with saying that I am pleased to be voting for this particular bill, particularly with this amendment in it to correct such a gross error that took place by a government that was arrogant and would not listen, and the community paid the price. [1525] D. Cubberley: I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation. Like the member who spoke before me, I will be speaking in support of the bill, but the support is qualified.

I want to take the opportunity to look at several things that the bill is going to do and try to indicate my interest in seeing the bill strengthened so that it does those things more effectively. Like the member before me, I do want to begin by adding my voice to the many people who have spoken in this chamber, who have expressed their disgust with this government's unilateral actions towards the Hospital Employees Union members who supplied valued services

12514 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 to B.C.'s health care system, who supplied those services for a living wage and fair benefits, and who made a very important contribution to the delivery of health care. I think, in part, the problem that we have today is because the concept of a living wage and fair benefits is one that is somewhat foreign to the globalist mindset that tends to preoccupy many of the members opposite, especially those at the pinnacle of power.

I'm also dismayed that the government, really having been found guilty in the courts of the land, still continues refusing to bargain in good faith with its employees, sneaking around behind th e collective agreement, and still declines to apologize publicly for what is unseemly behaviour — behaviour that, in fact, dishonours the Legislature, in my view. I would like to see government atone for the damage that was inflicted on families and communities across British Columbia, the dislocation which I experienced directly in my own community and the impacts on our hospitals and our care facilities.

It was a tremendous change in the sense of the scope of it, affecting thousands and thousands of lives, and the saddest fact of all is that the government, which acted outside its obligations, cannot point to a single economy or efficiency today that it achieved through this unilateral action. What we look at, when we see our system today, is we see that our hospitals are less clean. The food people are eating is worse. Workers earn lower wages. They leave their jobs more frequently, and seniors get less care. Now, that is not an accomplishment to be proud of.

That is one to reflect upon and ask ourselves as a Legislature: what went wrong? What should we not do again in the future? An as tounding outcome, from what was by any account ideologically motivated action. I feel that there's a place for shame on the part of the government, because what it did was engage in legislative bullying of those who are, in many ways, the most vulnerable people in the health care system, people that the government had, as it was making its way to power, explicitly promised they would not harm, whose collective agreements it said it would not tear up.

Then, in fact, it did that upon taking power. This bill affects a number of important changes, and I want to comment on those that affect the complaint and disclosure provisions of the Medicare Protection Act, because for me they're a very important piece of it. First of all, in order to establish a context, I want to give a little history so that we can understand, again, the importance of the complian ce function within our legislative provision regarding the ban on user fees.

The ban on user fees, of course, is the linchpin of a publicly funded and universally accessible health care system, where access depends upon need and not upon ability to pay. So in that regard, before we had a Canada Health Act, medical services were available like any other consumer good in society. The amount and the quality of those services depended entirely upon the individual's ability to pay.

In other words, we were just like the U.S.A. in that regard, where health care currently consumes 16 percent of the gross domestic product of the entire country and is projected to rise to nearly 20 percent by the year 2017. What's intriguing about health care as a percentage of GDP expressed in that ma nner is that it's eminently sustainable from a right-wing government's perspective. You could expend nearly 20 percent of your GDP on health care, and the reason for that is most of the 20 percent is private pay. It isn't paid by government.

That's one of the reasons why I think members opposite don't really like the reference to GDP, because it does provide a good comparator, and it shows just how efficient our single-payer delivery system is. The difference in medicare systems is who is paying. [1530] [K. Whittred in the chair.] Medicare was introduced incrementally by provinces across Canada, beginning with Saskatchewan, with its go-it-alone universal and compulsory hospital insurance plan, in 1947, which happens to be the year of my birth, Madam Speaker.

It was followed in 1957 by the federal Hospital Insurance and Diagno stic Services Act, which enabled federal transfers to provincial insurance plans that covered both in-patient and out-patient hospital services so long as provinces agreed — and this was the beginning of no-user-pay — to make the services available on uniform terms and conditions to all residents. That made it universal, and it made the access to the system subject to need, which is the very heart of the design of health care provision in our medicare system.

With federal funding of 50 percent coming in for agreed hospital costs, Saskatchewan — bold innovator that it was under the legendary T.C. Douglas — was enabled to extend its coverage beyond hospitals, which it undertook on its own without any assistance from the federal government, to all medical treatments. That came into effect in 1961 — the medicare system that we still enjoy to this day and which all governments have attempted in their manner to cultivate, with several exceptions, and it may include the one opposite. Between 1962 and 1971 provincial health insurance initiatives were introduced.

They were bolstered again by federal investments, but at that time provincial laws discouraged but did not yet fully outlaw extra-billing or user fees. By means of the provincial creation of medicare — and it was a creation of the provinces, triggered especially by Saskatchewan — private-pay medicine was quickly replaced almost holus-bolus with public-pay medicine. The vehicle was a dozen individual systems of universal health insurance operating in tandem, which pooled the risks and the resources needed to address the risks and allocated access to all on the basis of need, not on the ability to pay.

In other words, the private market in health services that had pre-existed health care was replaced with a system of public health insurance, partially funded federally, which covered a wide range of medically necessary services. Many of us celebrate that fact, because that was the beginning of medicare, and it is the basis of medicare.

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 12515 But some still rue the day this ever happened, apparently, like a couple of the Premier's close friends, Dr. Brian Day and Dr. Mark Godley, who, when they see Canada's most supported social program, see it as the work of Big Brother. They see it as so mething insidious, something that needs to be undermined and taken apart. Big Brother, as the member for Vancouver- Kensington reminded us, is the image on the opening slide of Dr. Day's presentation as the keynote speaker at the opening of the very first Conversation on Health.

His comparison was to say: "Health care, Big Brother." It didn't seem to bother the Premier at all. I haven't heard the Premier take a position on Big Brother, and it leads one to the very strong suspicion that he may in fact share this view of mandatory universal health care, pooling risks and resources. He certainly has never distanced himself from it publicly. Even within his own family, Dr. Vertesi, whose book I've had a look at, subscribes to an identical point of view in his published writings. Universal health care with mandatory participation and no user fees is Big Brother, because it removes choice.

That, to me, is an extreme right-wing — indeed an extreme libertarian — view. The interesting thing is how totally at variance that is with public opinion, with the Canada Health Act and indeed with our collective experience of health care. I believe what some are really ruing is the loss of the freedom that they once ha d, and that doctors in the United States continue to have, to charge whatever the market will bear for the service.

But I would have to say that the loss of that freedom is very much offset, many times over, by the gain in freedom that the over- w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f p e o p l e p a r t i c i p a t e i n b e c a u s e they're relieved of the anxi ety around their lives and the lives of their children — those they value and love — and the worry of being struck by illness and having to pay for it out of their own resources. [1535] In the early going, some physicians did persist in billing beyond provincial fee revenues, and that phenomenon gathered steam in the late '70s and early '80s.

That prompted a now-famous review by Justice Emmett Hall, which in turn led to the introduction of the Canada Health Act with its now-famous founding principles — principles now being amended via a Trojan Horse fifth principle called sustainability by this government, a principle that has never been defined and indeed the need for which has never been defended. This is led by a Premier who himself has expressed doubt about the sustainability of a universal health care system and who has not distanced himself from an image of it as Big Brother.

A principal objective of the Canada Health Act was to address the issue of user fees and to establish clear criteria for federal financial support for medicare. Universality of health care requires the policing of the issue of fees. It requires vigilance, and it requires com- pliance. One compliance mechanism was the power to reduce federal transfers to province s that continued to allow doctors to charge user fees. It has, in practice, turned out to be a relatively weak compliance mechanism if the second compliance mechanism isn't working.

The CHA encouraged provinces to implement that by asking them to strengthen and enforce provincial legislation prohibiting physicians from double-billing. Then with all of those measures in place, what happened was magical. The problem largely disappeared again until the mid '90s, when it re-emerged across Canada in every province in concert with the rise in the relatively new phenomenon of private clinics. This was a new form of business association by doctors which was used to provide an array of services, some of them medically necessary and some of them publicly insured.

In other cases they were cosmetic, things that were outside th e medical care plan. There was no problem with what happened there. Some were dedicated to insured services and operated within the law, and there was no problem with those. Some sought to use the corporate framework to reintroduce user fees in novel ways, like facility fees. I would note to the minister, because we have at times duelled over this in a mock fashion, that there is no problem with clinics as a form of practice by doctors, a way of organizing a practice, nor is there with the incorporation of doctors.

The problem lies with the reappearance of the practice of user fees, requiring patients to pay a supplementary fee or a fee to expedite access beyond what the Medical Services Commission allows. It can be styled a service fee, a registration fee, a facility fee or any other name you might like to give it. But if government tolerates fee-charging by clinics, what it's in fact doing today — and what I believe this government has done by turning a blind eye throughout the seven years of its oversight — is permitting a private medical sector to begin to develop with a deep public subsidy.

Why should we care if a public health care scheme is used to subsidize the development of private medicine? Quite simply, we have to care. We have to care about it, because it reintroduces user-pay. User-pay screens out all those who cannot afford the premium at the time they need the care, and it se nds them to the back of the queue or to a secondary queue.

To the extent that physicians are allowed to do that through an associated practice, they enrich themselves more than those who are practising solely within medi- care, and they tend to work fewer hours per dollar earned than those who are workin g within medicare. They actually remove needed capacity from the universal plan that's serving everyone, and they transfer it to the private- pay plan, which serves only those who can afford it.

In British Columbia the Medicare Protection Act in 1995 superseded the Medical and Health Care Services Act of '92 with the intent of reinforcing the commitment of the province of British Columbia to provide universal benefits for medically necessary services without user fees. This was made explicit in the

preamble, which states in part: "…WHEREAS the people and government of British Columbia believe it to be fundamental that an

12516 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 individual's access to necessary medical care be solely based on need and not on the individual's ability to pay." From that principle the rest of the act, the declaration, flowed. [1540] The Medicare Protection Act provided tools to the Medical Services Commission to meet the obligations placed on it to police the incidence of extra-billing, and it placed a prohibition — and this is central to the matter we deal with in the legislation — on disclosing the identity of a physician under investigation.

The intent there, I believe, was to protect individual doctors against unwarranted public exposure from a participant in the plan making a claim about a fee. That was the intent at the time. There was a flaw in that.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0515pm 07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0515pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62dccdd4a9f1c9615e8575352ad2d91b67dc468d

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