2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Don Lee

Hon. I.

Chong

Tabling Documents

Annual Report of the British

Columbia Legislative Library 2007

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

The Campaign Finance Reform Act,

2008 (Bill M215)

C. James

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Farmers' markets on Vancouver

Island

Karagianis

50th anniversary of Dawson Creek

Lekstrom

E&N Railway

Routley

World Partnership Walk and Aga

Khan Foundation

Nuraney

Bike to Work Week

Cubberley

Zajac Ranch

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Government action on forest

industry

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Government support for forest

workers

Fleming

Hon. C.

Hansen

Government

action on forest industry

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

C. Evans

Pacific salmon treaty

Fraser

Hon. B.

Penner

Funding for post-secondary

education

Puchmayr

Hon. M.

Coell

Petitions

D. Thorne

N. Macdonald

S. Fraser

Tabling Documents

Letter from Auditor General in response to

request for review regarding ICBC research and training facility

Petitions

K. Conroy

G. Coons

Second Reading of Bills

Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Hon. T.

Christensen

Simons

Committee of the Whole House

Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(Bill 22)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(Bill 22)

Committee of the Whole House

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Ralston

Simons

Reporting of Bills

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

Third Reading of Bills

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

Committee of the Whole House

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. G.

Campbell

C. James

[ Page 12881 ]

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Christensen: In April of 2007, MCFD launched a new

program, the ministry student employment program, as a means of trying to

address perhaps some of the myths and the mystery of what goes on within the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. Today we're joined by a number of

students who are this year's participants in that program. They're here for a

program orientation.

Now, some of us might question whether coming to the House and

witnessing this place is a good way to start your orientation towards

government. Nevertheless, I'm very happy that they are here.

We're joined today by 15 students. They are Pamela Baddams,

Janpreet Dhade, Gerardo Espinosa, Cynthia Field, Geoffrey Homer, Vessela Kostova,

Lauren Larose, Christina McCauley, Tanner Oscapella, Stephanie Patterson, Megan

Purcell, Renee Schultz, Shauna Skinner, Lydia Smith and Jordan Wapass. They are

joined by two folks from the Ministry of Children and Family Development

strategic human resources department, Michelle Perren and Danielle

Carter-Sullivan.

I would ask that the House make all of them very welcome to this

place and encourage them to learn a great deal from their experience with MCFD.

Hopefully, we can talk them into pursuing a career in government.

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce Betty

Hoogendoorn. Betty is my belle-mère , as the French say, which is a much

more appropriate term for Betty. She welcomed me into her family many, many

years ago.

With her are my wife Karen Macdonald and my daughter Brandy

Macdonald. I would like you all to join me in making them feel welcome.

R. Sultan: In the precinct today we have 27 students and

eight parents and teachers led by Ms. Milva Barichello from Holy Trinity School

in North Vancouver in my riding. Holy Trinity has offered the best of scholastic

as well as spiritual education to our students in North Vancouver for well over

50 years.

Led by Principal Chris Sumner, they are now completing a ten-year

capital campaign to build a new school. I would remind members of the

Legislature that schools such as Holy Trinity pay for these new facilities out

of their own pocket and do not impose on the generosity of the Ministry of

Education.

Would you please welcome Holy Trinity to the precinct.

Hon. O. Ilich: This year as we celebrate our 150th

anniversary, our B.C. government agents are also celebrating 150 years of

service to the province. They have long been, in that time, the welcoming face

of this province, and they share the colourful history that we have.

These are some of the functions they performed. They enforced the

law; they kept the peace; they legalized mining claims; they performed marriage

ceremonies; they buried the dead; they sold liquor licences; they collected

taxes; they took custody of lunatics, as one old document puts it; they liaised

with first nations people; they sheltered voters who had ridden vast distances

to get into villages; they recorded water tables. There was indeed a very long

list of things that they did. Today government agents are part of Service B.C.,

which is the provincial government's chief provider of front-line services to

the public.

This year on June 19 we will be celebrating Government Agents Day

in British Columbia. Joining us in the gallery are some of the Service B.C.

staff from the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, who work closely with

the government agents across the province.

[1340]

In the gallery are Lois Fraser, assistant deputy minister for

Service B.C.; Bette-Jo Hughes, executive director responsible for Service B.C.'s

government agents; Melody Wey, communications coordinator for the government

agents 150 project; and Marty Nelson, former government agent in Ashcroft,

Chetwynd, Clinton and Lillooet. Would the House please help me make them

welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining us in the House is Tami Fur. Tami is

with the integrated land management bureau in Kamloops. She's a project manager.

She's working with first nations in the Okanagan, in the Kamloops-Thompson

region, building new relationships and creating economic opportunities for first

nations throughout our region. I would ask the House to please make Tami very

welcome.

Tributes

DON LEE

Hon. I. Chong: Today I rise with some sadness. I want to

inform the House of the sudden passing of Mr. Don Lee, who passed away this

weekend from pancreatic cancer. Don Lee came to Canada from China in 1949 at the

age of 13 and received his bachelor of science degree from the University of

British Columbia in 1960 and then completed his teacher training in Ontario.

Don taught math and physics at Templeton Secondary for more than

25 of his 31 years in the classroom. He was elected a Vancouver councillor in

1996, serving until 2002. Then he returned to public life in 2005 when he was

elected a Vancouver school board trustee. He has served as a director of the

greater Vancouver regional district, and while a school board trustee, Don

chaired the management coordinating committee and was trustee liaison for

Churchill and Templeton Secondary schools and their feeder elementary schools.

He was very active in the Chinese community. He was obviously

involved as a consultant, as a board member and as a director of many Chinese

associations

[ Page 12882 ]

and groups, of which I know there are many in greater Vancouver.

I also am aware that many members in this House have crossed paths

with Don while attending events in Vancouver, and I hope that those who knew him

well will send a note of condolence to his family, in particular to his wife

Sally.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the

Annual Report of the British Columbia Legislative Library 2007.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE

REFORM ACT, 2008

C. James presented a bill intituled The Campaign Finance Reform

Act, 2008.

C. James: I move that a bill intituled The Campaign Finance

Reform Act, 2008, be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

C. James: I'm very pleased to introduce The Campaign

Finance Reform Act, 2008. British Columbia's democratic institutions are

supposed to be accountable to the people we serve, but too often ordinary

citizens feel that their voices are crowded out by big money, that access to

politicians and decisions comes with a price. That has a corrosive effect on our

democracy, undermining people's faith that decisions made in this chamber or at

cabinet table result from no other consideration than the broad public interest.

The Campaign Finance Reform Act seeks to address these concerns,

to level the playing field and to ensure that the public interest always comes

first.

The principle underlying this bill is simple. If you can't vote,

you can't donate. Individual citizens, not institutions, should finance B.C.'s

political process. In addition to this far-reaching reform, this bill also calls

for a public review led by the Chief Electoral Officer to provide a detailed

examination of the entire campaign finance system to make further

recommendations on models that have been implemented in other jurisdictions.

Every British Columbian should have equal access to legislators

and input on the decisions that affect their lives. If passed by this House, the

bill I'm introducing will put the individual at the centre of our democracy and

will help to build public confidence in B.C.'s democratic institutions.

With that, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day

for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M215, The Campaign Finance Reform 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 25

B) FARMERS' MARKETS

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

M. Karagianis: Long before the hundred-mile diet became

popular, the Metchosin farmers' market was bringing the best in fresh food and

crafts to the residents of the south Island.

[1345]

The market that runs every Sunday from May through October at the

Metchosin municipal grounds has been operating for more than 20 years. It's a

delicious place that tempts the senses with organically grown produce, fresh

farm free-run eggs, jams and preserves, flowers and plants, baked goods, soaps

and a whole lot more. It's a delicious place to reconnect with your neighbours,

make new friends, listen to some great local music and soak up the fresh air and

sunshine.

Just down the road, the Luxton Station market operates every

Saturday at the Luxton fairgrounds in Langford. Both markets are run by

volunteers and vendors who believe strongly in going local and doing their part

to deliver healthy, nutritious fresh food.

They know that the food that the average British Columbian eats

travels hundreds if not thousands of kilometres to get to our plates. They

understand that more than 90 percent of the food consumed on Vancouver Island is

grown off the Island.

That must change. By supporting our local growers and local

vendors, we grow our own agrifoods industry, we enhance our food security, and

we help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The recently released Go Local West

Shore Food Strategy states that by increasing local production, processing and

enjoyment of great local foods, we can reduce our community's ecological

footprint. It makes a lot of sense.

After all, as the members here know and we're oft reminded by the

member for Delta South, we all have to eat to live.

50th ANNIVERSARY OF DAWSON CREEK

B. Lekstrom: It is a great day and a privilege to rise

today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the city of Dawson Creek.

On January 1, 1958, the city of Dawson Creek was incorporated. It

is an amazing community — one that I located to in 1961, mere days after I was

born. So it's a little older than I am. I've lived there and enjoyed the

lifestyle that it presents to anyone who calls it home or to a visitor — a way

of life and quality of life that is second to none in this great province.

We have developed a book and a CD to commemorate the 50th

anniversary. I encourage members of this Legislature to contact me if they're

interested.

[ Page 12883 ]

The main kickoff to this celebration was that Dawson Creek hosted

the Northern B.C. Winter Games in 2008. The Premier was up to kick it off. It

was a wonderful start to a wonderful year.

We're blessed in Dawson Creek, and it is truly a city filled with

community spirit. We have a diversified economy, with agriculture being our

mainstay — but also mining, forestry, oil and gas, and tourism just to mention a

few of the key aspects that keep our people working and our community in the

type of atmosphere that it has.

We have a 12,000-person community, maybe a little greater, that is

full of community pride. It is something to behold. I encourage every member of

this Legislative Assembly as well as all British Columbians to visit Dawson

Creek in the 50th celebration year. As well, I encourage all Canadians to come

to our community to see what the northeast part of our province is like. There's

no better place on earth to be than in Dawson Creek during the 50th anniversary

celebrations. Come and enjoy it. I know you'll have a great time.

E&N RAILWAY

D. Routley: I would like to speak to the House today about

the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway, the E&N, and about the E&N land grant that

really is about the history of Vancouver Island. In fact, its present-day

situation is tied up in that land grant as well.

The E&N was the completion of the promise to British Columbia by

Canada that we would enter Confederation and have passenger service from coast

to coast. It's that promise that has kept the E&N alive all these many years

when so many different operators would in fact have preferred to see it gone.

The coal baron Dunsmuir was granted 30 percent of the Island, the

east coast. Along that line he established forestry and coalmining, and that was

the purpose of it. Along the line, though, there were also squatters at each

station, and those became the towns of Vancouver Island. Duncan station is now

Duncan.

Mr. Dunsmuir went back to the government and said: "What do I do

with all these people on my land?" So he was granted rights in the Peace country

and was granted rights further into Crown timber elsewhere on the Island. That

complicated mix is at work today in all the first nations negotiations and in

any kind of negotiations around our railway.

[1350]

The great thing, though, is that we didn't lose the track. The

track is still there. It's still viable. That linear string of communities is

still there waiting to be served. The E&N is a masterpiece in recycling. The

bridge in Niagara Canyon over Goldstream was in fact the bridge at Cisco where

the CN and the CP crossed the river in the Fraser Canyon. When the traffic

became too heavy for that bridge, it was taken apart and recycled onto Vancouver

Island. The masonry that the bridge stood on is now the masonry that the

current-day bridge stands on.

The E&N with its many bridges was the first part of the CPR to

have diesels. The testing was done there, even though they were misordered and

they got the wrong models. It was the last stretch of the CPR to have scheduled

steam service. It's a significant piece of Canadian and British Columbian

history. Let's make a commitment to the E&N Railway.

WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK

AND AGA KHAN FOUNDATION

J. Nuraney: Once again, over the weekend the Aga Khan

Foundation held their partnership walk in Vancouver and Victoria. Over 5,000

people of all denominations took part, and the event raised over $2 million,

setting a new record.

The foundation was established by His Highness the Aga Khan with a

view to develop and promote creative solutions to problems that impede social

progress in the underdeveloped countries.

In one of his speeches the Aga Khan said: "There are those who

enter the world in such poverty that they are deprived of both the means and the

motivation to improve their lot. Unless they can be touched with the spark which

ignites the spirit of individual enterprise and determination, they will only

sink into apathy, degradation and despair. It is for us who are more fortunate

to provide that spark."

It is through the efforts of thousands of volunteers and donors

that we will continue to strive to improve the lives of those who are socially

and economically deprived. I would like to commend the work of the Aga Khan

Foundation and the organizers and volunteers who have given us the opportunity

to touch the lives of hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

BIKE TO WORK WEEK

D. Cubberley: Next week is Bike to Work Week across British

Columbia. It's been 14 years now since intrepid commuter cyclists decided that

it would be a good idea to try promoting cycling to work. It began here in this

building, actually. We had no clear idea of what we were embarking on at the

time. We adopted Bike to Work Week as an off-the-shelf event week to try and

focus public attention.

The challenge was to make it realize its potential, and that meant

getting the public truly engaged in its program. Our credo was and remains that

if we can just get people to try it, some will see how easy it is, and they'll

keep on doing it. When we set out, all we really had was faith and a phrase:

"Bike it; you'll like it." Around that we framed an entire engagement program.

What makes it work? Primarily, sustained reinforcement for those

who are willing to try it, meaning a sense of camaraderie, a ton of fun and,

above all, draws for free prizes — lots and lots and lots of free prizes.

Bike to Work Week lowers the price of admission to zero, and it

invites riders to join a mobile party. It incentivizes change by making

everybody feel special. The results show in steadily rising participation. Last

year in greater Victoria there were 6,210 riders on nearly 600 teams. An

astounding 1,328 of those, over one in five, were trying it for the very first

time.

[ Page 12884 ]

These newbies, as they're known in the Bike to Work Week lexicon,

are the real reason for the event. Get them to try it, and some of them will

like it — the exercise, the endorphin rush, the stress relief, the weight

control or the simple freedom of just getting there under your own steam. Then

they keep going. The result of effective promotion is behaviour change.

Bike to Work Week, coupled with improving the infrastructure that

supports the choice, is what's making commuter cycling Victoria's

fastest-growing mode of transport. This year many more members of this House

will have the opportunity to try it for the very first time in their own

hometown. I would remind all that if they do try biking it, they're bound to

wind up liking it.

[1355]

ZAJAC RANCH

R. Hawes: Saturday night a gala was held to honour Mel

Zajac for his lifetime commitment to helping others. Hundreds turned out in

their finery to support this extraordinary man and the incredible legacy that he

and the Zajac family have built.

Since 1968 Mel has devoted his life to supporting seniors and

children. Mel's tribute also served as a fundraiser for the Zajac Ranch in

Mission. This former provincial corrections facility was purchased by the Zajac

Foundation about five years ago. Since then, investment of over $9 million has

transformed this site into a magical place where dreams come true for kids with

debilitating illnesses. These are kids who could never enjoy a camp experience

or know the joy of horseback riding, swimming or simply sitting by a campfire.

Now, thanks to the vision of Mel and his family, dreams are coming true at the

Zajac Ranch.

All kids are normal there because all of the campers suffer the

same condition. No one stands out because of their medical requirements. Those

requirements are all met with a 24-hour medical facility that is staffed by

volunteer doctors and nurses. This centre caters to a wide range of needs,

including kidney dialysis. Children attend with no charge.

The final tally is not in for Saturday night's gala, but it's

estimated that as much as $2 million was raised for the ranch, thanks in large

part to a $900,000 donation from Dennett Bryson of the Fisher Foundation. That

got the ball rolling. This incredible generosity is as much a testament to the

Zajac Ranch as it is to Mel Zajac.

Everyone should experience the magic of the ranch and the

infectious whirlwind of enthusiasm that is Mel Zajac. He makes me proud to be a

British Columbian. We're all better because of him.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. James: Last week the people of Mackenzie rallied to save

their town, to save their jobs, to save their community, to save their way of

life. Mackenzie is just one town of many communities who are on the brink of

losing support because of B.C. Liberal forest policies.

The Minister of Forests was there in Mackenzie at a round table,

but he didn't come out to the rally. He left that job to the Minister of

Agriculture, whose comment was that this wasn't a day to lay blame.

Well, my question is to the Minister of Forests. Is that why he

skipped out? Is that why he wouldn't show up — because he couldn't take the heat

for his government's failed policy and his lack of leadership?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the member should do a little bit of

research and find out that a round table was scheduled long before the rally

was. The rally took place while the round table was taking place. It started at

8:30 in the morning; the round table started at nine.

I hate to break the news to you, hon. Member. Quite frankly, the

MLA for that area, who is well respected in that community and is probably the

best MLA that Mackenzie has ever had…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …went to the event, by agreement with me,

so that I could chair the meeting, and he would take care of that.

In actual fact, he brought a very positive message to the

community. He had a very good response from the community, because we believe in

the future of Mackenzie, and we'll work with that community for its future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I can guarantee that if the minister had decided

to take a coffee break at the round table, the rally would have been happy to

welcome him to speak at the rally. But it's pretty clear that Mackenzie and

other towns aren't a priority for this Minister of Forests. Let's take a look at

what….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

[1400]

C. James: The Minister of Agriculture actually made a

policy announcement at that rally. I'm not sure if the Minister of Forests heard

it, but he told the people of Mackenzie that the policy now was to go to

[ Page 12885 ]

Alberta. He actually offered them jobs in Fort McMurray — jobs away from

their families. Nothing for Mackenzie, nothing for the town, but he did say that

he would make sure they had a plane ride to other provinces.

My question is to the Premier. How many other towns are going to

get direct flights to Alberta because his government…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

C. James: …has failed to support forest communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: The Minister of Agriculture was telling

the community about opportunities, as we go through a tough transition during

the forest cycle, for people to have other opportunities. I know that the Leader

of the Opposition would just have everybody stay there, be unemployed and have

no hope, rather than tell them the opportunities that might be available for

them.

The fact of the matter is that all the member was doing was

telling the crowd and letting the people of Mackenzie know where there are

opportunities for transition while we rebuild the forest sector in British

Columbia to deal with the market downturn and to have a future for the community

of Mackenzie.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: If the Minister of Forests had come out to the

rally, he could actually have heard firsthand what the Minister of Agriculture

had to say.

He actually made another announcement at that rally. He actually

said to the people of Mackenzie, "I promise you anything — anything from this

cabinet, anything it can get done. I can go to cabinet, and I can get something"

— a pretty bold statement from a minister who has done nothing except offer a

plane ride to Alberta to the people of Mackenzie.

My question is to the Premier. Given the minister's promise, when

will the Premier match the federal aid package so communities like Mackenzie can

actually get real support from this government?

Hon. R. Coleman: May 9, 2008: "It will give our community a

little bit of a lift right now to continue to diversify, and this will help us

get through it" — Mayor Stephanie Killam, the mayor of Mackenzie, on $2 million

from the province. A $129 million fund is there for workers in the province of

British Columbia — for job creation, for tuition and for matching grants to

bridge into retirement.

We will be there for Mackenzie, like we were last week. We'll

continue to be. We won't fly in and throw a bunch of negativity at a community.

We will build the positives, like the Minister of Agriculture was doing in that

community.

B. Simpson: After the Minister of Forests' visit to

Mackenzie he stated in an interview: "I think Mackenzie is a great community,

personally. I love this community, and I think they're saying we've got to help

us get past this." The minister thinks Mackenzie is asking for help? Well, if he

showed up at the rally, he would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this

community…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …is asking this minister for help. They're

demanding that this minister help.

If this minister truly loves Mackenzie, will he follow up on the

Minister of Agriculture's commitment, go to the cabinet table and demand of the

Premier $129 million of provincial money to match the federal money and make

sure our communities get the support they deserve?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: What I will tell the member opposite is

that the people that want to spend $250 million at Mackenzie Green Energy are

not going to be biased against because this member wants to write the Premier

and suggest bioenergy should come to his community first, because Mackenzie

should be part of that plan too.

I will tell this member that we are working with proponents who

are interested in buying the Mackenzie pulp mill so it can be put back into

production for that community's future, and we'll continue to work with them in

order to try and build the future of that community.

[1405]

I will tell this member that the fact of the matter is that

there's a strong fibre supply in the area for this community, and we're going to

work to make sure there's a strong industry for the future of this community as

well.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members — through the Chair.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: So much for the love for the people of

Mackenzie. The minister will not commit to go and ask the Premier for the money

that that community needs and all the other communities need to get the support

from this government.

In another post-Mackenzie interview the minister was asked

specifically if Liberal forest policy was partly to blame for the impact of the

current downturn. Here's the minister's answer: "Well, boldly would be that you

know we had to look at what's out there and say, 'You know, not every time

when….' Sometimes you swing at a bad pitch, and you say…. You have to

[ Page 12886 ]

admit that this didn't quite work the way you wanted it to. So let's go back

and have a sober second look at some things, and that's what we'll do."

I would like a translation sometime, but I take it that's a yes.

The B.C. Liberals swung at bad pitches when they gutted the Forest Act in this

province in 2003. One of those bad pitches was the focus of Mackenzie, and that

is the bad pitch of cutting the link between communities and their public

forests. The minister said that Mackenzie…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: …has a strong fibre supply.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

B. Simpson: The question Mackenzie has for this minister

is: will it be there when those mills come back up, or will they be another

Kamloops, in which this minister will allow those forest licences to be sold for

mills in Prince George? Will the minister commit today that Mackenzie's forest

licences will stay in Mackenzie?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have more of a question for the member

opposite. When the mills are operating in Mackenzie, will it be okay if some

logs come over from Fort St. James or Prince George? They were before, when they

had all the mills operating in Mackenzie. Will that be all right, hon. Member?

Because the fibre basket actually belongs to all of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Do you think there's a possibility that

maybe there could be some movement of fibre between mills to get the right log

to the right mill for the right job to build the right economy for the future

economy of British Columbia?

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

R. Fleming: This government's hastily concocted tuition

assistance program for unemployed forest workers will cover only basic tuition

fee costs at schools like College of New Caledonia and the University of

Northern British Columbia. It will not cover the cost of the institutions'

actual costs for providing the student spaces. Right now these institutions are

trying to cut costs in programs because this government reduced their core

funding by 2.6 percent only two months ago.

My question is: rather than add to the deficits of B.C.'s public

post-secondary institutions, will the Minister of Advanced Education agree to

fully fund them to meet the requirement of the Minister of Forests'

uncoordinated program?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm proud of the fact that when we were

allocated $129 million of federal money for resource communities, this Premier

and this government made a decision that every single dollar was going to go to

help forest workers and forest families. The tuition assistance….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The tuition assistance program is

specifically designed to help individual workers who, at a time that they may be

temporarily unemployed, can actually tap into up to $5,000 for tuition so that

they can upgrade their skills. When those forest jobs return in those

communities, they're going to be more prepared for the forest jobs of the future

as a direct result of that $5,000.

[1410]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: You know, it's incredible to me that this

minister expresses pride that the federal government has come to the table when

his own government in British Columbia has been missing in action.

The tuition assistance program is one that fewer than one in four

displaced forestry workers will qualify for. There are between 4,500 and 5,000

laid-off displaced forest workers in the northern region served by the College

of New Caledonia and Northern Lights region alone. In the town of Mackenzie

2,000 jobs were lost from the pulp mill, the paper mill and three sawmills

closing. Forest workers expect….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: Forest workers expect that any assistance being

offered to them by this government is actually real. But as it stands, the

government's tuition assistance program will further strain CNC and Northern

Lights if potential students pursuing retraining do not have ministry funding

for new seats being created.

Again to the minister: will he agree to fully fund new seats at

the northern institutions so they'll have the capacity to actually retrain

displaced forest workers?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I am proud of the fact that the

federal government has put in $129 million. That's in addition to hundreds of

millions of dollars that the provincial government has put into economic

development in northern British Columbia. If the member were to check his facts,

he would realize….

Interjections.

[ Page 12887 ]

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member would check his facts, he

would actually find that the College of New Caledonia and the college of the

northern Rockies are receiving more funds this year than they have ever received

in the history of those colleges.

The member will know that the Premier announced the details of

this funding just a week ago last Friday. We already have teams on the ground

that are working in the communities of Mackenzie and Fort St. James to make sure

that those workers can get the benefit of those dollars at the earliest possible

opportunity. The tuition assistance is available today for any displaced forest

workers.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

D. Routley: It must be unbelievable to the forest families

in these communities to hear these ministers. We have the new Nero, the Forests

Minister who fiddles while our industry burns. He will do nothing. Now we have

the "say anything" Economic Development Minister, who will weasel out of his

responsibility.

The 535 workers at Harmac who lost their jobs need answers. There

are at least 2,000 direct family members, at least 2,000 other jobs implicated.

This translates into local businesses being hurt. This translates into local

people being hurt. The mill can run. It has markets. What it doesn't have is a

minister who will do anything to help.

We need this minister to promise today to this House and to the

workers that he will guarantee a fibre supply to their mills to save those jobs,

to keep those jobs in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: What Harmac needs right now is an investor

with a vision of how to make that mill work in a competitive world with a

growing supply of kraft fibre that is coming on the market in the next three to

five years. They have some people doing that, looking at it today.

For the member's information, I met with one of those proponents

this morning and sat down with them, and we worked through what they needed to

do and how they're going to look at this thing. The one thing there, hon.

Member, is fibre. There will be fibre for that mill.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: The big thing to remember, hon. Member, is

that we need an investor who has significant money to invest in Harmac for the

future of that mill for the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, through the Chair, please.

The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Shoulda, woulda, coulda. "We're gonna. We'll do

it later. We're going to…." Enough of that from this government.

[1415]

Their policies drove these mills under. They didn't have fibre.

Now the recruitment fairs are on, and pulp mills from Alberta and Saskatchewan

are recruiting the skilled workers to their markets. That is because of the

policies of this government. That is the only reason that's happening. Those

workers want to stay in British Columbia.

What they don't see is a plan. What they don't see is a minister

who will do anything. They and I and this side of the House are calling on that

minister to come down from the bleachers, stop being a spectator and take the

action that's necessary. We're telling him what to do. He can do it.

Go down, Minister, and guarantee the fibre. Bring those jobs back

to British Columbia. Stop making excuses.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, and through the Chair, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's be really clear. There

was no policy of this government that drove Harmac into bankruptcy. The member's

definition might be to do anything, might be to go buy this mill — like they did

at Skeena Cellulose — and blow $500 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I was also in Terrace last week at a round

table, and a guy came up to me who used to have a mill in Terrace. You know what

he told me? "The NDP bought Skeena Cellulose and kept sawmills running in

competition to me. They subsidized those mills and put me out of business."

That's the type of policy you want. We're not going there, hon.

Member. What we will do is work with investors. We'll work with the people to

try and build a future for the Harmac mill.

C. Evans: The minister says it's not a policy of the

government that drives companies into bankruptcy. I'm holding a letter from

Andrew Powell of Paragon Wood Products, independent producer in the Okanagan.

Mr. Powell says: "We regret to advise that we are now shutting

down our primary operation at Lumby. In short, we have no logs and no reasonable

expectation of acquiring any. It doesn't take a great deal of effort to conclude

that this government has decided it has no need any longer for independent

companies in the forest industry, and so finally we are taking the hint."

My question to the minister is: is Mr. Powell wrong in believing

it is the government's policy to use the downturn to wipe out the independent

sector to reward the monopoly major holders of tenure when the markets come

back?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, I do believe he's wrong. The fact of

the matter is that this particular operation needs a certain kind of fibre which

has a lot of competition coming from other mills all through the Interior and

[ Page 12888 ]

the coast of British Columbia. There have been actual sales….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been actual sales, no-bid

sales, put up in this area where this operation actually runs, and not bid on.

It's the profile of the log, and what they want to trade for it isn't the issue.

It's the fact that the profile they want, the fibre they want, is not in great

supply in that particular timber supply area.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I'm guessing there are some people that actually

believe that answer.

My second letter is not from the particular timber supply area the

minister refers to. It's not from that

section of the industry at all. It's not

from the reman sector. It's from the Queen Charlotte Islands, from Randy

O'Brien, CEO of O'Brien and Fuerst Logging Ltd. It's not to the minister; it's

to the Premier.

Mr. O'Brien says to the Premier: "You depict your government as

being one that encourages secondary manufacturing. How is this when you are

allowing major corporations to squeeze small business owners out?"

My question is to the Premier. Is the absolute vacuum in the

forestry file the ineptitude of the minister, or is it your direction to wipe

out the independent sector?

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know this particular company's

arrangement with other companies or what it might have bid on and how it would

be….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There is competition out there for logging

contracts, and people bid on them with companies in order to do business.

Frankly, that's the way the business operates in the field. I will check into

the individual member's comments after question period.

PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

S. Fraser: Not only is the forest industry suffering from

failed Liberal policy and Liberal neglect, but our fishing communities are also

under attack. The Canadian government recently announced the results of the

Pacific salmon treaty deal with the United States, which was negotiated in

complete absence of consultation with the fishing industry and coastal

communities that will be so badly affected by the 30 percent reduction in

chinook salmon fishing.

To the minister: is he going to follow the lead of other Liberal

ministers and just be a spectator, or will he stand up for the B.C. fishing

fleet?

Hon. B. Penner: We certainly will be standing up for

Pacific salmon and making sure that conservation is first and foremost so that

there is sustainable fishing. The member should know that what's been concluded

is a tentative agreement, and now there's consultation taking place with

industry and other stakeholders that have received their feedback.

I'll be interested to hear what the member has to say and whether

he wants to see a repeat of what happened on the east coast, where people are

fighting for the right to catch the last fish instead of making sure there's an

abundance of fish to catch in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I was actually addressing that to the Minister

of Agriculture and Lands, so this is interesting. It explains, I think, recent

comments by the member for Nanaimo-Parksville when he was talking about doing

away with the commercial fleet in favour of fish farms in B.C.

There are still 160 troll vessels in Bamfield, Ucluelet and Tofino.

Those fishermen, their families and these communities are the historic backbone

of the fishing fleet and the economy, to a large extent, in this great province.

Instead, they're getting another Liberal minister sitting back as a spectator

while the control of our public resource is being pulled away — this time not

trees, but salmon. It's being handed over to the United States forever.

Will the minister show some backbone and fight to protect our

resource and our troll fleet, or will he follow the pattern, which we're getting

used to, of Liberal ministers who simply give up on the very people that built

the economy of this great province?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member knows, these negotiations

were led by the federal government through the DFO. I will be getting a detailed

briefing on those negotiations and what the recommendations are, and we'll be

listening for feedback from all stakeholders.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: Let's keep something in perspective. For

the first time this proposed agreement anticipates curtailments on the part of

Alaska fishermen of 50,000….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue.

Hon. B. Penner: For the first time, Alaska fishermen would

be expected to participate in conservation efforts to the tune of 50,000 fewer

chinook salmon being caught. That stands in stark contrast to the record of the

NDP when they were in government.

What did they end up with at the end of the day? They ended up

with a situation where Alaska did not

[ Page 12889 ]

reduce their catch, where they picked a fight with our American neighbours

and where the federal government pulled $125 million out of the Nanoose Bay

settlement. That's the NDP's record. We're not interested in repeating it.

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

C. Puchmayr: The 2.6 percent funding cut for 25

post-secondary institutions in B.C. resulted in a $400,000 shortfall for

Kwantlen. Today we saw a full-page ad in The Province newspaper with the

smiling faces of the Premier and the Advanced Education Minister.

My question to the Advanced Education Minister: who paid for these

ads, and how much did they cost?

[1425]

Hon. M. Coell: For the member: as he knows, a $68 million

increase in my budget this year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: Now, I know the members opposite spoke

against the new universities. I know they spoke against the new universities,

but I want to know: does that member support Kwantlen becoming a university?

This side of the House certainly does.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Well, we know that these types of ads cost

between $10,000 and $15,000. Why is money being spent on partisan photo ads when

programs are being cut for students, especially students with disabilities?

Instead of putting the money to students with disabilities and

saving those programs, this government elects to put in partisan photo ads. Will

the minister intervene and cut this practice immediately and restore the funding

to post-secondary education?

Hon. M. Coell: Well, the member knows that we have five new

universities in British Columbia. I think he knows….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member knows that the five

communities that those universities represent are pretty darn happy that they

have universities. I think the member knows that the $68 million increase in the

budget is an increase every year since we've been government. I think the member

knows that we spent $1.5 billion on infrastructure for universities and those

five new universities.

Now, I can't help it that the NDP, in second reading, continuously

spoke against the creation of those new universities. On this side of the House,

we're for them.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Thorne: I rise to table a petition with 1,115 signatures

asking that the Riverview lands in Coquitlam-Maillardville riding be kept in

public ownership, with services for mental health and wellness, and protection

of the botanical heritage and equality of the lands. With the petitions that

were tabled before Christmas, this makes over 12,000 signatures asking for this.

N. Macdonald: I'm tabling a petition with 1,028 names from

Golden objecting to proposed private power projects on the Blaeberry River,

Cedar Creek and Kicking Horse River. The signators ask for a two-year moratorium

on private power development so that environmental and recreational issues can

be properly considered.

S. Fraser: I present a petition from hundreds of British

Columbians supporting the Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise to table a document.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. van Dongen: This is a letter from the Auditor

General, in response to my request for an independent review of the issues

surrounding the research and training facility of ICBC.

Mr. Speaker: Is leave granted?

Leave granted.

Petitions

K. Conroy: I rise to present a petition from 960 residents

of Rossland asking that the government not approve any amendment to the

controlled recreation area that would allow construction of a golf course or

residential property in the Topping Creek watershed.

[1430]

G. Coons: I present a petition with over 300 names from the

North Coast, specifically Bella Bella and Bella Coola, with concerns with the

Coastal Ferry Act and wanting to place a moratorium on ferry fares.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: The first order of the day comes to us

from the staff who tend to our needs in this

[ Page 12890 ]

chamber. They've asked me to remind people to begin the process of collecting

personal items from the desks over the course of the week.

Secondly, in this chamber — after discussions, happily, with the

Opposition House Leader — I call second reading of Bill 35, the Social Workers

Act, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the

estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Hon. I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Today in the gallery — some have come and

gone, but I know another group will be coming in shortly — I do want to

acknowledge a number of students from Oak Bay high school, who are watching and

observing things that are taking place in the chamber.

A group was accompanied by their teacher Jacqueline Gillespie. A

number of senior students aged 16 and 17 were here earlier observing question

period. I'm sure they have lots to take back to their classes. Later today

another group of students from Oak Bay high school — again, senior students —

led by their teacher Mr. Todd Evanchiew, will be in the House as well. I hope

the House will make them welcome by this acknowledgment at this time.

Second Reading of Bills

SOCIAL WORKERS ACT

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that Bill 35, the Social

Workers Act, be read a second time now. I understand that the opposition is

supportive of Bill 35, and I simply propose to briefly comment on what this act

will do.

Registered social workers in British Columbia currently lack the

support of good professional governance legislation. The current legislation is

almost 40 years old and does not provide sufficient authority for effective

regulation of the social work profession. Registered social workers have told us

that they want enhanced governance and have asked for a major revision to the

existing legislation, and we are proud to have acted on their advice.

This legislation provides registered social workers with what they

have been asking for by creating a B.C. college of social workers with the

majority of its members elected by registrants. This legislation supports

government's goal to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with

disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I think we all recognize that as we work in our communities,

registered social workers are an important part of our schools, hospitals,

mental health and treatment facilities, child and family service provider

programs, resource and counselling centres, and non-profit and government

organizations. We also recognize, when we get an opportunity to sit down and

talk about issues with social workers, that it is an incredibly complex,

multifaceted profession that involves providing direct services to some of the

most vulnerable people in our communities.

Our first priority is to protect British Columbia's most

vulnerable citizens, and a new college will help us do that. It will protect and

represent the public interest while serving the professionalism of registered

B.C. social workers.

This new act will create the B.C. college of social workers. The

board of the college will be responsible to govern, control and administer the

affairs of the college. This legislation establishes comprehensive authority for

the college to make bylaws in all areas necessary for professional governance.

Until now the board of registration for social workers has all

been appointed by government. The newly established self-governing college will

have a board with two-thirds of its members elected by registrants and the

remainder appointed by myself as minister.

[1435]

The new act will enhance public protection by strengthening the

college's disciplinary powers and by requiring employers to report terminations

for misconduct to the college. All registered social workers will be required to

report suspected abuse of clients by another registrant. As well, a business

associate who has reason to believe that a registrant might harm a member of the

public and dissolves their business relationship as a result must report that

dissolution to the college.

The college will also be required to provide public notification

of the disciplinary decisions that it makes. Extensive provisions to safeguard

the rights of registrants have been included in the new act through the

establishment of registration, inquiry and discipline processes that are

transparent, impartial and fair.

The new act will establish the legal foundation for the college to

create new professional categories of registered social workers authorized to

perform specialized functions that the current act simply doesn't provide for.

This act will also authorize interprovincial cooperation and enable the college

to make agreements with other jurisdictions, such as determining the process for

registering social workers moving to British Columbia from another province.

Finally, this act will bring B.C. legislation in line with

legislation for registered social workers in other provinces by setting out

procedural requirements for registration, complaints and disciplinary

proceedings in a governing statute.

Today there are more than 2,000 registered social workers across

the province, each one day in and day out helping British Columbians to improve

their lives. These legislative changes are the result of a long period of

extensive consultation with the Board of Registration for Social Workers and

with agencies that represent these social workers.

I want to thank all of those who have been involved in advocating

for this legislation, for advocating for the

[ Page 12891 ]

profession of social work across our province. We have asked for their advice

on how to better protect the public and to strengthen the regulation of the

profession, and we have taken their advice to heart in moving this legislation

forward.

We are committed to building the best system of support in Canada

for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors.

These changes will help us meet that commitment by enabling this new B.C.

college of social workers to better protect the safety of the often vulnerable

people who receive registered social work services in a wide range of sectors

and service areas right across British Columbia.

The new act provides certainty and greater fairness for

applicants, registrants, clients and others affected by professional regulation

of social workers.

N. Simons: It's my pleasure to be able to offer comments

from this side of the House on the Social Workers Act. I talked to many social

workers in late April after the act was tabled for the first time and heard many

positive comments about the legislation and about how long overdue it was to

update legislation that actually was written a long time ago, in the late '60s

originally.

Many people in the social work profession have been calling on

this act to be brought forward and have been calling on this legislation to

finally address some of the outstanding issues that could only be addressed

through updating the legislation. As people know, legislation needs to be

reviewed and updated according to circumstances in our communities.

As we learn about the regulation of various professions, we also

know that those regulations and legislation governing those regulations

sometimes need to be changed and updated.

What is particularly rewarding for social workers is that they

believe their voice is now being heard and being expressed through the tabling

of this legislation. I'm pleased to say that this side of the House has been

looking forward to having this legislation come forward, and we've been looking

forward to being able to extol its virtues as well as to perhaps illustrate

where some concerns might be raised.

However, this is a bill that has been long awaited by social

workers, who believe that it will do a lot to ensure that their profession is

managed and overseen by a quality board and by a college that actually has the

ability to govern their professionals.

[1440]

Social workers, as members in this House know, have an extremely

complicated job, and I think that complicated job is illustrated quite clearly

in this new definition of social workers. Social work encompasses or means "the

assessment, diagnosis, treatment and evaluation of individual, interpersonal and

societal issues through the use of social work knowledge, skills, interventions

and strategies, to assist individuals, couples, families, groups, organizations

and communities to achieve optimum psychological and social functioning." A

social worker is "a person who practises social work."

With that clarification for the people of British Columbia through

the new Social Workers Act, we actually finally have a clear definition of what

social workers do. And yes, in fact, it does say that they do everything, and

social workers will agree that they in fact do everything. It's an opportunity

for them to see that their profession is being treated like other professions in

the province, with a regulatory body, a body that can do disciplinary hearings

and can provide all sorts of insight to the professionals who practise social

work.

It's a good day for the province. It's a good day that we have

this bill on the table, and it's also going to be a good day when further

information can be elicited through questioning in the committee stage. That may

identify some issues that it would be good to have on the record in terms of the

expected rollout of the Social Workers Act.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, I mentioned that in 1968…. When the first Social Workers Act

was created, it called for a board made up of two private citizens, I believe it

was, and the rest were eight government appointments. Oh, they were all

government appointments. I think that partly what this bill does is add the

voice of social workers into the college.

The voice of registered social workers will be heard. They will be

dealt with and spoken to and understood as a body representing registered social

workers who deal with many of the most vulnerable people in our provinces.

They deal with children in schools. They deal with patients and

families in hospitals. They help navigate, sometimes, the very complex systems

of government and non-government agencies to access help that they need,

whatever their circumstance. There are social workers who assist prisoners upon

release from jails, where their reintroduction into society is made easier.

We all benefit from social workers, whether we have a social

worker or not. I believe that when we think about the work that they do, we

realize the breadth and the scope of their work and how it impacts on all of us

in such a positive way.

Now, in committee stage certain issues will be raised, partly

because we are now, I think, the fourth-from-last province to have updated our

legislation to a similar standard. It's good, and it's not a negative. I don't

mean it as a slight in any way. But what it does exemplify or illustrate is the

complexity of the situation, the complexity of the work that social workers do.

How is it to be governed? How is it to be overseen? And how is it that the

community will benefit from this governance model change?

I believe that the minister is correct, in that it will add to the

confidence of the people of British Columbia. They know that those social

workers who work with their grandparents or children or whoever they happen to

work with are held to a standard that is understood and defined and clearly

illustrated, so that when, in fact, there is a need to step in to address

concerns within that college, they have the authority to do that.

[ Page 12892 ]

We know that lawyers have the ability to regulate their industry,

so to speak, and that it serves the public interest knowing that there's an

independent college looking at the practice of social workers and establishing

fundamental expectations of what social workers should be providing and the

manner in which they provide that service. The college of social workers will

replace the board.

[1445]

I believe that there will be a lot of work in the transition

phases. When you talk to social workers, they often talk about the need for

adequate transition to make sure that the new situation is dealt with in a way

that isn't a shock — that there's a transition that'll allow all those who are

involved in this profession to make the appropriate adjustments, such as they

need to be.

Now, there are some people who will see that this is

an act that

is a long time in coming and that finally, there's a recognition for the

important and distinct role that registered social workers play in our province.

There are some people who are concerned that this might look like an exclusive

piece of legislation, one that may exclude certain people who provide essential

social services to communities and that maybe they will not be included in that

college.

Some provinces have dealt with the difference between registered

social workers and others who work in the social service field by creating

legislation specifically for those social service workers. They're separate and

distinct from the work of social workers and registered social workers. I don't

want to add to this idea that there is any conflict or any differences of

opinion in terms of the quality or the importance of the work, but there's a

professional body of social workers, and there are hundreds of people who would

benefit from membership.

Currently we see a situation where, if there's a concern about a

social worker and if someone brings a concern to light, the board of social

workers would be without any recourse in the previous legislation should that

individual decide to withdraw from membership. That's sort of like taking the

teeth out of any particular enforcement mechanism, and legislation without teeth

is gummy at best.

The importance of establishing standards and establishing clear

and precise

definitions of the various occupations that are encompassed in

social work I think is a good step. It's a step that I think most everyone I've

spoken to has said is a good idea. The transition is not just in terms of the

legislation being new, but many of the regulations, I believe, will have to be

updated, and much of the background support for this bill will have to be

updated and potentially changed.

On a positive note are some of the comments that we've heard from

people about this act, the Social Workers Act, Bill 35: "The improved

recognition and regulation of social work in B.C. is critical to better

understanding and serving those who receive social work services," and "The

creation of a college is a major step in the direction of protecting the public

and supporting the profession of social work and self-regulation."

The comments from social workers have been quite clear. They have

been wanting this legislation for a long time. They've been in extensive

discussions not just with the ministry but also with those who were charged with

drafting the legislation.

We've seen some legislation come before the House that is very,

very simple and straightforward. I would submit that this is complicated, and

it's important that in committee stage we make sure that it's adequate in all

aspects of its development — that it does in fact provide for the protection of

the public that we hope it does and that it does in fact provide for the

protection of the social worker, as well, in terms of being able to be not just

a disciplinary college but one that is also supporting best practice and

innovation in all aspects in social work.

[1450]

Many child protection social workers are not necessarily members

of the board or registered social workers. This might be a place for many of

them to find common needs met through an advocacy body as well. I know they're

not specifically set up for that purpose, but when there's a college

established, it does provide that profession with the recognition of their role

as a professional.

Another social worker made a comment that you needed to be

registered to work in forestry but not in social work. When you work with trees

or when you work with individuals, there seems to be a bit of a standard

difference there. In fact, they're sort of pointing out the obvious,

illustrating that, it's safe to say, for decades…. It has been a long time for

this legislation to find its way here, and I'm pleased that it is here.

The Association of Social Workers has been lobbying for changes

for a long time. There are a number of positive aspects of this legislation that

will be both…. We'll see them as they come out during the committee stage as

well. What I'm saying is that the opposition will have an opportunity to address

those concerns that may have been raised by others after April 28, when the

legislation was originally tabled.

Now, some of those have to do with cross-jurisdictional issues and

the accreditation that's necessary in different provinces. I think that we need

to be careful to ensure that provinces are aware of the standards of every

program that trains social workers and trains people to work in the social

services sector. In order to really understand the impact that could have, with

having varying levels of qualification and then having workers from one province

go to another province with different levels of expertise…. I think those are

among the issues that need to be discussed in further detail.

Now, I'm hoping that during the phase of transition from the

current governance structure to the eventual governance structure that the

necessary resources are in place in order for that to occur. There are a number

of committees under the board, and they have to do with everything —

registration, a discipline committee, quality assurance committees. While they

exist already, they're going to need time to be transitioned into the new

governance structure.

The bylaws and the standards, not just the practice standards but

the ethical standards, the competency standards…. Once again, the current

bylaws, I'm sure, will be applicable, but how they're established and

[ Page 12893 ]

how they're reviewed by the new board is also going to be something that

we're going to be talking about at length, I hope, in order to make sure of the

soundness of the legislation. It would be a good opportunity now to make sure

that when we establish it, that it's roadworthy, as they say.

I think it's fair to say that social workers are very good at

analyzing situations. Just look at the job description currently in the Social

Workers Act. I think they will be looking at this legislation from not just the

perspective of: "Finally, we're seen as professional, and that's the end of it."

In a way, there is an onus on social workers as a registered body of

professionals to maintain standards that meet the communities' needs and that

also ensure that information and knowledge about social work practice is shared

among professionals and is understood. There will be a body over which social

work practice…. It will oversee social work practice in a more comprehensive

way.

Part of what this act might do is clarify for some people how

there are so many

definitions of social workers. I will say that many people

even in this precinct are sometimes using "social work" in a way that isn't

quite precise. There are different kinds of social workers, and there are people

who do different kinds of social service work. I guess the concern that many

have is, by having to be a registered social worker in order to be called a

social worker, that that in some way has an impact on the quality of the other

work that has sometimes been called social work.

[1455]

I want to make sure that it's understood that there is a breadth

of skill necessary in social work to deal with almost every aspect of society.

It's not always just an individual family. Sometimes these social workers are

dealing with societal issues and how to address the challenges that sometimes

entire communities face.

With this act, we'll see that there's a recognition for the

breadth of practice that exists as well as for the standards of that practice.

After four decades of…. Essentially, there's been lobbying for

four decades, apparently, referring to the old legislation as antiquated. This

is, in effect, a relief. When social workers across this province hear that Bill

35 is going for third reading in the near future, they will be pleased. There

will be a lot of people who are saying: "Finally. It's about time that we have

had this issue addressed."

The complexity of the issue has been partly what has stalled, but

I'd say that negotiations and discussions have been going on for a long time.

This is something that has been applauded and welcomed by various social work

agencies in the province.

The concerns around some of the mobility of workers should be

addressed in committee stage. Concerns over the potential exclusion of some

people should be discussed. I believe that this is the forum for that sort of

debate, and this is the forum for trying to find out much about a piece of

legislation — not just its intent but its potential impact.

It's

an act that social workers have been asking for, for many

years, and the changes that it will impact…. In effect, the changes will come

later. In a way, it's

an act that will enable the strengthening of regulations

and standards, and that, in itself, is a good thing. We need to be sure that all

aspects of this legislation meet the needs of all of those who are working in

the social services sector.

Without going into the details of concerns, they are not

sufficient to really do more than heighten our interest in knowing more about

various parts of the act. This is a good day for social workers. It's obviously

going to be a good day for the college. It's about time. I think we've seen that

every major profession in the province is regulated. People have the resulting

confidence in that profession. I think that if there are ways that we can make

sure that the public has confidence in their social workers and that there are

professionals overseeing the practice of those social workers, that's not a bad

thing.

It's not about policing. It's about just ensuring the integrity of

the profession, a profession that promotes health — individual health, community

health and societal health. I think the public of British Columbia are pleased

that this is on the agenda. They're pleased that it's going to be going to third

reading, and I'm looking forward to that time.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of

Children and Families closes debate.

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member opposite for his

comments about Bill 35. With that, I move that the bill now be read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen: I move that Bill 35, the Social

Workers Act, be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Social Workers Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 22,

Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

[1500]

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 22; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:01 p.m.

section 1.

A. Dix: We have, actually, a very few questions for the

minister on Bill 22. We've got an afternoon of discussion on these three bills.

[ Page 12894 ]

My first question on the

definitions…. Just going through the

definitions, particularly the definition of health care services as it applies

here in the act, can the minister clarify for me that Pharmacare costs would, in

the case of the bill, all be recoverable?

In other words, especially with respect to long-term Pharmacare

costs, when we define health care services, which is the recovery of the cost of

health care services and which I think is probably beyond what's covered by

similar measures in other jurisdictions…. How might Pharmacare costs, which

conceivably could be in existence over a long period of time, be picked up? Does

the minister feel satisfied that those costs would be covered here?

Hon. G. Abbott: First, I should introduce the staff with me

today. On my left is Gord Macatee, who is the Deputy Minister of Health. Behind

us are Barbara Carmichael and Corrie Campbell, respectively.

The answer to the hon. member's question is yes. Pharmacare costs

are among those which we hope to recapture.

A. Dix: Just so we get it correctly, that's contained in

part (

e) under "health care services." Those wouldn't be just drug services that

might be picked up under the Hospital Insurance Act but in fact would be

Pharmacare claims that could actually go for a very long period of time under

those acts.

I just want to be clear that it's under

section (

e) where it says:

"any other act or thing, including, without limitation, the provision of any

health care treatment, aid, assistance or service or any drug, device or similar

matter associated with personal injury." That's where the Pharmacare provisions

would come in.

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes, but only the province's

portion of the costs.

A. Dix: In terms of that, to explain how those estimates

would work, can the minister explain how that would work in terms of the

Pharmacare provisions? Really, those are the only questions I have under this

section.

[1505]

If as the result of negligence in this case, for example, a

long-term need for a particular drug was necessitated by the incompetence or the

issue under which the claim was made, the government would make an estimate of

that, and that would be provided by the claim. Is that kind of how it would work

in that case?

Hon. G. Abbott: There would be consultations with medical

professionals to try to determine what the pharmaceutical needs of the accident

victim would be. What we would attempt to determine through a professional

consultation at the time of settlement is what future drugs are required, and an

allocation would be made of the provincial share of those drug costs. The

patient's share of the drug costs at settlement would be recovered by the

patient. So there would be a division there based on the division of drug costs.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

A. Dix: We have an amendment standing in my name on the

order paper, which I don't intend to move at this time. I think maybe we'll have

the discussion and move through.

One of the issues that in other jurisdictions has been put forward

is the idea that a particular hospital…. Say, essentially, that a very expensive

case goes forward. Let's just say that Royal Columbian Hospital picked up the

costs of a particular case, which could conceivably be in the millions of

dollars to that hospital.

I guess my question to the minister is: would the money, the

benefit in this case, come back to the Crown? I'm using this as an example. This

question could actually be asked on a number of sections of the bill, so why

don't we have the debate here and then just leave it?

Royal Columbian Hospital has a cost of $3 million or $4 million on

a particular case, which really came out of their budget, yet the money would

eventually come back to the Crown. As is the case in Britain with some similar

laws, do you think it would be useful — for a particular hospital, which took up

almost all the costs or had to pay out almost all the costs or assume all the

costs on a particular case — for that money, in that case, to go back to that

hospital? Or is the minister satisfied that the money would come back to the

Crown and then be divided up?

The minister said before, I think, in his response to the second

reading debate that it was satisfactory to him that 40 percent or 45 percent of

the costs that would come back to the Crown would go to health care. But does he

think there should be some particular allocation in that case, say, to a

particular hospital? Or is he satisfied that the Royal Columbian Hospital or

another hospital that might assume a particular cost in a particular case would

be compensated adequately to do that?

The idea here is that the state gets that money back, but in some

cases it might be that a particular hospital in a particular set of

circumstances has a particularly high cost. Does the minister not think that

perhaps that hospital should get or receive the compensation that comes back in

a particular case?

[1510]

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I gather we'll see this in

the form of an amendment later on, and I'll be seeking the advice of the Chair

with respect to whether the amendment is in order or not.

To briefly address the member's point, I think it's a good,

appropriate question to be asking. I think the answer to the question is this.

In these kinds of cases, to try to say the dollar should go exclusively to Royal

Columbian Hospital or here or there is probably not going to be practical.

In most instances where as a consequence of wrongdoing or some

unfortunate accident — one can't

[ Page 12895 ]

begin to imagine all the circumstances that might produce a judgment…. They

may initially get their treatment — and I'll use the member's example — at Royal

Columbian Hospital. There will be some expenses to Royal Columbian Hospital, no

doubt, but the surgeon's fees, for example, will be part of MSP. The drugs will

be Pharmacare. So it's difficult to know exactly.

Plus, it may be that after a stay at Royal Columbian — where the

trauma, for example, is being dealt with — there may be a long period where the

patient is at G.F. Strong getting rehab services, and then they may return to

Kamloops to live in long-term residential care that supports their condition.

It's difficult to make those kinds of judgments about division of legal

revenues, so I don't think it's practical on that basis.

A. Dix: The minister will agree, though, that the purpose

of the bill is to ensure that health costs that are being borne by the province

but that are really, in a sense, the responsibility of some negligent individual

or company be picked up by that individual. It does sort of flow that if in a

particular case the health expenses are picked up by Royal Columbian Hospital

or, as he said, by G.F. Strong, those expenses — if they were particularly large

— might be picked up through the same costs.

Rather than move the amendment, because I don't think…. I agree

with the minister that since the amendment that stands in my name on the order

paper might well have produced an obligation on the Crown and therefore might

not be in order, I think we'll just have the debate. I won't move my amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. I think that's fair enough.

[1515]

I wanted to ask the minister: what process might they consider

under those circumstances? I think it's fair to say that there might be a

circumstance…. The minister talked about $6 million to $12 million a year,

depending on the year, and it would obviously vary greatly.

Will the minister and the Crown have a process to consider that?

Given that it might be the case that the Crown or a particular agency like G.F.

Strong picks up an unusual share of the costs, will there be a process to deal

with that on the Ministry of Health side? It seems to me that's kind of the

purpose of the bill.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think that in addition to the comments I

provided last time, which is that it would be rare where, as a result of the

catastrophic injuries sustained by an individual as a consequence of the

wrongdoing or failure or something of another party, it would rest entirely with

one particular facility within the health care system….

However, let's hypothetically go to the member's suggestion,

because it is conceptually or theoretically possible that in a particular case

there could be an outcome which meant an additional burden of millions of

dollars annually to a particular health authority. What we would attempt to do

in a case like that is what we do in the normal annual budget process, which is

that beyond what we allocate through the population-needs-based formula…. We

have allocations over and above that which would reflect new long-term care

facilities coming on or new tertiary or community hospital facilities coming on

— those kinds of things.

So in a case where there was something huge enough that might

happen, where it could perceptibly or measurably affect a health authority, we

would try to be sensitive to that in the annual budget discussions that we had

with the authority.

A. Dix: What the minister is saying is that if he were

discussing this issue with the Minister of Finance, he would make the case, or

the process here would be…. In some cases we've had bills in the past, as you

know, where we've said that half of lottery revenues should go to health care,

and that was a debate that was held and so on.

In this case the Minister of Health would make the case,

presumably, that if in a particular year — I don't know — a $30 million

settlement came in to the government, the allocation of costs might be affected.

The Minister of Health would make that case within the budget round that given

that a particular settlement was high, the Minister of Health would have the

responsibility. Rather than having a statutory requirement to do that, the

Minister of Health should make that case within the budget process.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, a settlement of $30 million

would be an uncommon one and would likely be one of the class action

settlements. Those tend to run, I understand, in the $3 million to $5 million

area, and those are the larger ones.

The personal injury ones tend to be much smaller, and it would be

difficult to try to demonstrate that a particular health authority had a

preponderance of the personal injury cases. That's not likely to happen. They're

going to be kind of spread around.

[1520]

I think it goes back to the earlier answers, which is that in the

single-payer system that we have, the province funds the health authorities. The

distribution of services across health authorities tends to sort of mediate

these kinds of things. But again, in some extraordinary circumstance where there

was a large and disproportionate burden to a particular health authority, we

would undoubtedly discuss that within the bounds of the annual budgeting

discussion.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the minister about this process,

because

section 8 talks about the government's independent right to recover. We

understand what the process is if a case for wrongdoing is brought, and the

government is automatically joined to the case — or that the people bringing the

case have an obligation to inform the government, and the government is

automatically joined.

[ Page 12896 ]

In this case, no case is brought under

section 8, and what's

suggested is that the government has an independent right to bring a case

forward. I wanted to ask the minister what processes will be put in place, if

any, to bring this into action.

In other words, is the government suggesting that maybe a whole —

I don't know — group of lawyers or an individual lawyer or an individual public

servant might be reviewing all cases? How would this measure be brought into

force or brought into action by the government?

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

The act does provide the authority to bring independent action in

cases, for example, where the individual who may have been the victim in the

accident is for whatever reason not motivated to proceed. This provision in the

act would provide government with the authority to undertake independent action

for recovery of costs.

Another example might be where there are several individuals on

their own — maybe not particularly large health care costs, but aggregated are

significant…. Again, the act would provide us with the authority to undertake

independent action for recovery.

In terms of process, it would be Ministry of Health legal and

other officials and health authority officials who might flag an issue of

consequence and concern, and we would undoubtedly seek further advice from the

Ministry of Attorney General before proceeding.

[1525]

A. Dix: Just to understand this. What they found in

Alberta…. This was more involving car insurance, which is obviously not dealt

with in the same way here. As I understand it, when this was brought into effect

in Alberta, the issue was: how exactly would you become aware of a case if

someone didn't sue?

I think what happened in Alberta was that they had a process set

up. What they discovered was that the process itself to oversee different cases

as they came forward was more expensive than the amount of money that was

actually brought in by having the capacity to review all these cases.

I guess what I'm asking is: will the Ministry of Health or the

Ministry of Attorney General, or whoever is responsible in this case, set up a

new process of review in order to ensure that they pick up cases beyond cases

brought by individuals who have complaints?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think what the member is asking is how we

will be aware of cases and how we will determine whether a given case is worth

fighting or not worth fighting, in terms of the recoveries we are apt to receive

from it. In terms of whether we need to fight cases where recoveries are minimal

or less than the cost of recovering them, no. There's nothing in this act that

would compel us to undertake a legal case where we didn't believe the recoveries

warranted our entry into it.

The insurers, I'm advised, have an obligation under this act to

inform the ministry, I think, of these issues. We would, I suppose, like any

other party that was considering entering a class action or other legal action,

do a careful assessment of what we would be apt to recover versus costs and make

a decision based on that. In making a decision, we might well secure the advice

of the Ministry of Attorney General as well as the advice of our own legal

advisers in the Ministry of Health.

A. Dix: Let me try and give an example to the minister just

so I understand. I'm injured in some way. We'll just give an example. My doctor

believes that a particular insulin that I take, say, was faulty in some fashion.

I'm a diabetic. I decide not to sue for whatever reason. Will the minister,

within the hospital system…?

I'm taken to the hospital. There are costs associated with that

faulty insulin in some fashion. The manufacturer has made a mistake, and I

decide not to sue for whatever reason. My doctor knows about it, or the hospital

may know about it and may suspect that. Will there be a process in the Ministry

of Health to review such cases?

[1530]

The thing kicking off the Ministry of Health's involvement if I

sue is that my lawyer has to inform the Ministry of Health — right? But without

that, will the Ministry of Health be putting any new processes in place at the

hospital level or the reporting level to inform the ministry so that the

ministry may attempt to recover the health costs spent on me in the hospital

because of that theoretically faulty insulin?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes, in terms of process.

Both at the hospital level and at the health authority level, there is a process

whereby information that is secured at the hospital level is sent along to the

third-party liability branch at the Ministry of Health. At that point the issue

would be flagged, and the assessment we discussed previously would be

determined.

A. Dix: Just to be clear on that. Presumably, this would be

somewhat enhanced by the expanded use of electronic medical records — wouldn't

it? Would that conceivably aid the government in that regard? It seems to me

that otherwise, the process would be extremely hit-or-miss unless you had some

new process in place at the hospital level to assist you.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are permitted to use our electronic

databases only for the purposes of providing health care.

A. Dix: So in that case, any new changes wouldn't be

brought into place. The process would be as the minister describes, but this

portion of it isn't something that the government would expect to get a lot of

money from. Essentially, you're just giving yourself the right to recover such

expenses if something happens, but it's kind of a default — right? You're not

going to be

[ Page 12897 ]

actively pursuing that part of it. The main recoveries that the government

would see would be strictly through cases brought by others, which the

government would attach itself to.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of the bill is for government

to be able to make health care cost recoveries. It's not to make legal suits a

profit centre for government. It's to try to recover legitimate health care

costs that have been incurred by the people of British Columbia.

[1535]

In most instances the substantial recoveries will be in areas

where there are class action suits underway, but as this

section of the bill

indicates, it's not the only way that recoveries can be made.

A. Dix: This will be my last question. In the minister's or

the staff's history in other jurisdictions — because the minister is coming up

to other jurisdictions — have there been any cases where the government has

taken legal action for health care recoveries?

Of course, as the minister says, if there are no health care

costs, the government isn't going to get a judgment. But in other jurisdictions

where similar rules are in place, have there been any cases where the government

has taken action independent of a suit by an individual or by a class?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may want to rejig his question,

but it is difficult for us to be definitive about what has occurred in other

jurisdictions. We understand that provisions like this exist in other

jurisdictions, but when and how they've used them, it's tough for us to be

definitive on.

Sections 8 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

A. Dix: On the regulations section, can the minister give

us any sense of the intent in terms of bringing regulations pursuant to this

into effect? Are we ready to go? This will save us the questions on

section 28

as well. Is the government kind of ready to go here in terms of the regulations

to bring the bill into force?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is difficult to put a precise time frame

around when the regulations will be in place. I expect it will be over the next

few months that the bill comes into force, but it will depend on how quickly all

of the necessary regulations and provisions can be brought into force.

[1540]

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage on Bill 23, the

Public Health Act.

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 3:43 p.m.

section 1.

A. Dix: I just want to start by thanking the minister, the

deputy minister and Dr. Kendall and the team for providing us with a briefing on

the bill last week, which I think will greatly shorten the debate and was also

very helpful. I thank the minister and his staff for that.

section 1, I think the minister would agree that one of the

innovative parts of the bill is the definition here provided to "health

impediment" which I think will assist us. Maybe the minister can speak to the

purpose of it, because it seems to me that that will provide us with an ability

to get at some public issues that are not, shall we say, emergencies but some of

the issues such as the trans fat issue, which is one of the broader public

initiatives that will come out of this bill.

Perhaps the minister could speak to that definition — why it's in

the bill and what the government seeks to accomplish by it.

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

Joining me again is my deputy Gord Macatee, and behind me are Dr.

Brian Emerson and Dr. Perry Kendall. Dr. Kendall is the chief provincial health

officer for the province of British Columbia.

[1545]

In terms of the member's question, I think he summarized it

correctly that a health impediment is something that might produce long-term

cumulative effects in relation to public health, may cause chronic disease or

disability, interferes with the prevention of injury or illness or is something

associated with poor population health.

[ Page 12898 ]

Though trans fats would be a very good example of a health

impediment, the impacts of trans fats are not immediate. They are cumulative and

long term, but there's not an immediate risk to health. It is a longer-term

process whereby it has that deleterious effect.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

A. Dix: Perhaps the minister could introduce this

section

by giving some indication of the purpose for which he would plan to use it. It

says, of course, that the minister may require public health plans. Just to

introduce this sort of health planning part of the debate, perhaps the minister

can talk about how and when he would intend to use this — to assist us as we go

through these sections.

Hon. G. Abbott: This provision around public health

planning would structure more formally what has already been undertaken in the

province, which is the production of public health reports in particular areas.

For example, a health authority or a regional hospital district might be obliged

to produce a public health plan in respect of the management of HIV issues

within its bounds or mental health issues within its bounds, and so on. Those

are the kinds of things that would be done under this provision.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Dix: Just on

section 5, this

section essentially talks

about the impact of public health plans on statutory decisions. It gives the

minister's plans a certain override, both

section 5 and I think

section 6, over

other plans already made by the provincial government.

Can the minister just talk a little bit about that relationship,

particularly its relationship between public health plans and other plans put

forward, say, by local government but also other agencies of the provincial

government?

[1550]

Hon. G. Abbott: This provision will take us into an area

which is by its nature apt to be controversial in some instances. As members on

all sides of the House know, there are occasions when the need for a mental

health or addictions facility is confounded by public opposition and the

reluctance of a local government to plan for facilities of that character

notwithstanding the public concerns that they may feel.

This would oblige local governments to plan for those kinds of

facilities to make sure that within their zoning bylaws and their official

community plans, there are areas where those kinds of facilities — mental

health, addictions and other facilities — can be found within that community.

It is occasionally believed that there are some communities where

there are no mental health or addictions issues. That is not true; every

community has them. I guess the core of the proposition here is that every

community should plan for them.

B. Ralston: Then dealing with

section 5 — there are also

questions that arise out of the more specific legislation in

section 6 — the

minister, I think, has referred to some of the problems that do arise in

individual communities. Does this then give the provincial cabinet — under the

auspices of this act and the powers that it grants itself here in

section 5,

assuming this

section passes — the power to override a specific municipal zoning

decision not to locate a facility in, say, a certain part of a city or

municipality?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: In this

section there's is a more

generalized requirement for municipalities or local governments to plan for

mental health facilities, addictions facilities and so on. There is not in this

section the notion that we decide that a facility should be in this part of town

or that part of town. The obligation is that local governments recognize that

these kinds of facilities are necessary within their bounds.

The only way that we would override in this section…. I think

there is a more specific override

section later in the bill. But in this

section, if an override were to be used, it would be in the generalized sense

that we encountered a local government that said: "We don't need to have any

mental health or addictions facilities here. That's not necessary. We don't

believe there is any need for them." In that case, this

section would provide us

with the authority to say: "No, we believe that you do need to plan for those

things."

B. Ralston: In

section 5(2)(a), (

b) and (

c) there's a

phrase, "specified enactment," that's not set out in the

definitions section. By

"specified enactment," is that what is being referred to — a municipal bylaw, an

official community plan or some other act of municipal jurisdiction — or, I

suppose one could also argue, of a regional district or a regional government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

B. Ralston: I believe this is the

section that the minister

was referring to just moments ago when discussing

section 5. I'm looking

specifically at 6(1)(c), which reads: "…despite any other enactment, provide

that specified government or local government strategic or operational plans,

bylaws or other planning documents, or classes of these, do not have legal

effect to the extent of any inconsistency with the public health plan."

That would seem to be relatively clear language that would give

these plans priority over municipal bylaws or those of a regional district or a

regional

[ Page 12899 ]

government. I just wanted to confirm that. I understand the policy reasons.

Certainly the area I represent sometimes views itself as the

choice for locating these kinds of facilities as opposed to other parts of the

city. I know that it's sometimes a widespread sentiment whenever these kinds of

facilities are discussed. In the area that I represent, it's a view that's quite

common.

I just wanted to be clear that notwithstanding the view of the

city government or any efforts to locate those elsewhere, if the public health

authorities thought that the best location was, say, in Surrey-Whalley, this

would give them the legislative authority to place that facility there.

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member is pretty much correct

in his analysis of this. So (

c) goes to where the enactment of a local

government is inconsistent with the public health plan for that area. Where it

is inconsistent, where we identify that there is an issue, there is an

obligation on the part of the minister to consult with the affected local

government. Any override of the local government enactment would have to be done

by order-in-council as opposed to a ministerial order. Those are the safeguards

in respect of that.

To the member's point about Whalley in particular and the number

of such facilities there, the aim here by government is that every municipality

recognize that it has an obligation to its own citizens who have mental health

and addictions issues and that we shouldn't expect only some communities in

British Columbia to take account of those. Certainly, Whalley would be the last

place we would suggest that hasn't done their share.

B. Ralston: Just a more general question before moving on,

maybe a two-part question. I take it that

section 120 is the

section that

empowers the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to make these kinds of

orders. It appears to be related to

section 6.

Secondly, can the minister advise what the views of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities was when it was consulted about this obvious potential

conflict with municipal jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct in respect of

section

120 and its application.

In terms of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we did have a number

of discussions with UBCM. Some of the changes that we made over time reflected

the concerns of UBCM. I think it would be fair to say that UBCM still has some

residual concerns about that. I suspect their preference would be that the

province not have an override, although depending on which members of local

government one talks to, some of them would actually welcome this, and others

would not. I guess that's to be expected.

Sections 6 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

A. Dix:

Section 16 is related to preventative measures. I

wanted to just draw the minister's attention to

section 16(4). I think it's

useful to understand what happens here, what the process is if someone has a

form of conscientious objection to treatment and what the process is, for

example, with respect to objecting and then potentially to being quarantined.

[1605]

The individual might make this objection, this sort of

conscientious objection to certain forms of treatment, say, during a SARS

epidemic or something. The processes of appeal to both the chief medical officer

of health and, well, not potentially to the minister…. I think that in this case

it's what the process would be for them to raise this issue of conscience. What

would happen when that takes place?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are only a very few instances where

this provision of this bill would apply. I'm advised that when babies are born,

there's a requirement to have their eyes treated with ointment at birth. In that

instance, if the parents — and presumably they would be aware of the procedure

because of previous consultation with the obstetrician about it — had an

objection to the treatment by ointment, then it wouldn't be required. It's kind

of as simple as that, I guess.

Sections 16 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

A. Dix: This is the

section related to health impediments.

Maybe the minister can just give us an update in terms of his consultation

process on — I believe I've got this right; I may be wrong — the trans fat issue

and where the consultations are at right now. This might be the appropriate time

to ask that question; there may be other times.

Maybe the minister could just comment on that and also

comment on what other potential issues he sees in the future as possibly being

addressed by that, if I may ask him to speculate. What other kinds of things

might the government be considering having a look at here?

[1610]

Hon. G. Abbott: This

section is an enabling provision. It

doesn't mean that we're necessarily going to be covering off trans fats, but

trans fats are the one example of a health impediment that is likely to be

utilizing this section.

It can only be done by regulation. That regulation has not been

drafted yet. There have been some early initial consultations, and the

consultation process is in fact being designed currently. There will be much

more consultation around the potential application of this provision to trans

fats before a cabinet decision would be made to add it by regulation.

We've briefly canvassed what some other examples are. We can't

think of any other examples at this point that would have the same sort of

health impediment profile as trans fats do in our society. We're pretty

[ Page 12900 ]

pleased that there already seems to be quite a bit of movement in the

industry to find alternatives to trans fats. So that's a good thing too. Perhaps

by the time this actually does become a regulation, hopefully most of the

industry will be moved from utilization of trans fats.

A. Dix: But it would be the intention of the government,

consistent with the throne speech, to actually act — not to go for voluntary

compliance, although one would hope that as the minister says, some form of

voluntary compliance would come through. Then the effect of the regulation would

just be to essentially regulate the status quo. It isn't the intent of the

government to seek some sort of voluntary compliance and not bring in a

regulation.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, it is the intention of government to

proceed with the regulation of trans fats as per our promise in the throne

speech.

Sections 22 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

A. Dix: Just on

section 26. Presumably, the reason this is

a ministerial responsibility — I'm going through my notes; I just wanted to

check this — as opposed to, say, the chief medical officer of health would

simply be because of the cost implications. Is that correct? I would assume that

all of these provisions would be done on recommendation by the deputy minister

or the chief medical officer of health.

[1615]

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the wording of this

section reflects the seriousness of the step that is being undertaken.

Essentially, it would involve the expropriation of a given facility for a period

of time — for example, sequestering an entire hotel or something of that

character. That is the reason for the elevated decision-making on this.

A. Dix: It's obviously pretty important, and the reason it

would be…. In a general sense, you'd say that Dr. Kendall would have that power,

and he probably does. The reason it's elevated to the level of the minister is

that, for example, quarantining a hotel would be a multi-million-dollar cost.

Would that be the reason why it would be the minister rather than, in that case,

Dr. Kendall or the chief provincial officer of health? Is that fair to say?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes.

Sections 26 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

A. Dix: Just on

section 36. This

section gives a health

officer the responsibility to contact the land title office about public health

hazards. I presume this would include things such as — I don't know —

contaminated wells or other pollution on a property. I thought of a piece of

property that I once dealt with when working for government, which had a number

of problems. I think it was a B.C. Hydro property with problems relating back to

B.C. Electric.

Presumably, what this does is allow anyone seeking to buy a

property to have some assurance that if there's something that's reached the

level of a public health hazard, they don't just have to depend on the absolute

obligation of a seller to tell them that something's wrong. In addition, if

something has reached that level, there's the additional assurance that the

public health officer — if they know about it — will absolutely ensure that that

matter is put to the land title office.

Am I understanding that correctly? I wouldn't think that would be

a change, although it might be a change. Maybe the minister can just assure us

that that has not in fact changed and that obligation already exists.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assessment of what this does

is correct. It is new. There does not currently exist the statutory authority to

do this, but this gives expression to what's been done informally, I think, in

the past. It is new in that sense.

[1620]

Sections 36 to 49 inclusive approved.

section 50.

A. Dix: It's one of those things which is clearly

heartbreaking, but I gather what this

section does is allow the government to

remove someone living in squalor from their home under a number of conditions. I

mean, one of the real frustrations, and we talked about this a little bit at

second reading, is that many people….

The minister will know that when I talk to people about diabetes,

I frequently talk to people who are living in very difficult conditions.

Obviously, they would like to get out of those conditions and live better.

This isn't lifting people up. This

section actually has to do with

people who would require removal, if I understand correctly — that they're

living in such terrible conditions and are refusing, in some cases, to move — to

move them out. It doesn't, obviously, deal with people who probably should move

and we'd want to move but aren't able to move because they don't have enough

money to move. In this case, this deals with, say, an older person, if I

understand, or a person who for whatever reason may not wish to move. This

allows the medical health officer to apply and seek their removal under a series

of conditions.

Am I correct about this? I know there have been a lot of changes

with respect to adult guardianship in recent times. Is this a new section? What

are the current arrangements? Are these arrangements frequently used? Am I

correct to say that this kind of

section would be used rather rarely? It

wouldn't be used in a case where someone maybe should move, but this is to deal

with really extreme circumstances.

[ Page 12901 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's characterization is largely

correct but not perhaps entirely. This is a provision, I am advised, that would

not be used often. The medical health officer reckons that over four years, they

might see it three times.

[1625]

It is squalor in combination with a serious and ongoing illness

that is likely to be exacerbated by the conditions in which the individual is

living. That may involve a proliferation of cats and rats and feces and other

issues that would obviously be very consequential to the health of the

individual.

This would only be used where all other avenues have been

exhausted. It requires a Supreme Court order to use this section. It is a

serious remedy; it is one that is rarely used. But it is one that needs to exist

because these circumstances do occasionally occur.

A. Dix: In this case, unlike other cases, this remedy does

already exist, I think. Does it? I guess that's the question I have. Does the

remedy already exist, and this is just an updating of the existing legislation?

The minister is indicating yes, so we'll let this go through.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct.

Sections 50 to 53 inclusive approved.

section 54.

A. Dix:

Section 54 is the general emergency powers section.

These kinds of powers, as I understand it — and I know this because Dr. Kendall

told me this the other day — haven't ever been used. Maybe the minister can just

let us know, because these are obviously important provisions, if they were to

be used. This would give the minister and the health officer, I should say in

this case, some more flexibility in the time of emergency powers.

Can the minister perhaps quickly explain what the purpose of this

is and what additional powers this gives the health officer to deal with medical

emergencies, were these powers to be invoked?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of these general emergency

powers is to allow the medical health officer or the provincial health officer

to act quickly to deal with an extraordinary and dangerous situation.

The exemption would be to provide…. I'll quickly run through the

list: be exempt from time limits; be exempt from providing required notice;

present orally what otherwise would be done in writing; suspend or vary a

licence or permit without allowance for dispute; specify a facility, place,

person or procedure in an order that is not required under

section 60; omit

otherwise required things from orders; serve an order in any manner; not

reconsider, review or reassess an order; exempt an examiner from providing an

individual his or her examination results; conduct an inspection at any time

without a warrant; and collect, use or disclose information as needed.

[1630]

Those are the things that would be exempted for these purposes.

But it is important to note that the expectation is that all of those things

would be remedied when the emergency had passed. It is not something that one

would leave unresolved permanently, but I think, as all members of the House

would appreciate, there will be times of extraordinary emergency where people

need to move very quickly and do the things they need to do to contain an

emergency. That's the reason for the section.

Sections 54 to 62 inclusive approved.

section 63.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

A. Dix: I believe, if memory serves, this is the

section

that deals with the standards for environmental health officers — that this is

new. Can the minister say whether the regulations that are pursuant to these are

ready or when they're expected to be ready? Just very briefly, if you could talk

about these provisions. We've already done this in the previous part of the

update to the statutes that has been done with regard to drinking water.

Can you talk just briefly about the standards for environmental

health officers and when we can expect those standards to be put in place

pursuant to this section?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is on the orders of the day an

amendment to

section 63 standing in my name. Perhaps I'll move that. I just

wanted to inquire, Madam Chair, whether the member had a copy of the amendment.

A. Dix: Yes.

Hon. G. Abbott: Okay. So the member's question is informed

by the amendment. I'll move the amendment and get the answer to the member's

question then.

[SECTION 63, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Power to establish directives and standards

(1) The minister may by order establish

(

a) directives respecting the exercise of powers and

the performance of duties

(

i) by health authorities under this enactment,

(ii) by local governments under a regulation made

under

section 120 (1) (2) (

a) or (b ) [regulations

respecting local governments], and

(iii) by a person under a regulation made under

section 125 (4) [other regulation-making powers], and

(

b) standards of practice for environmental health

officers in relation to the exercise of their powers and the performance of

their duties under this or any other enactment.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), in

respect of a provision of this Act or a regulation made under it that refers to

a facility, place, person or procedure specified in an order, the minister may

by order do the following:

[ Page 12902 ]

(

a) require particular facilities, places, persons or

procedures to be specified for the purposes of any section;

(

b) set standards or qualifications

that facilities,

places, persons or procedures must meet before a health officer can specify the

facility, place, person or procedure in an order;

(

c) authorize health authorities to

set standards

respecting facilities, places, persons and procedures that can be specified by

health officers in an order.

(3) The minister may make orders

respecting the following:

(

a) the timing and substance of performance reviews

for medical health officers to be conducted by the provincial health officer;

(

b) training and qualifications for

environmental

health officers, including requiring ongoing training.]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: Maybe the minister can just explain the amendment

and then answer the question, and then we'll pass the amendment and the

section

together.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are two parts to the answer here. The

amendment is quite straightforward. It just corrects a cross-reference in the

bill.

In terms of the member's substantive question around the

consultation on standards of practice for environmental health officers, those

discussions are underway. We expect the first area that will be brought to a

conclusion is around the minimum educational qualifications for the practice,

and consultation on other issues will be continuing for some time.

Amendment approved.

Section 63 as amended approved.

[1635]

Sections 64 to 73 inclusive approved.

section 74.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 74 that

stands in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 74, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined :

Delegation by medical health officers

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a medical health

officer may in writing delegate to a person or class of persons any of the

medical health officer’s powers or duties under this or any other enactment,

except the following:

(

a) a power to further delegate the power or duty;

(

b) a power or duty as provided in an

enactment;

(

b) a power or duty under another enactment, if the other

enactment provides that the power or duty is not delegable;

(

c) powers and duties under

section 73

[advising and

reporting on local public health issues].

(2) A medical health officer must not

delegate a power or duty to a health officer who has not been designated to act

in the geographic area in which the delegated power or duty is to be exercised

or performed.]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: I think it's a similar kind of amendment. Maybe the

minister could just explain the purpose of the amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of the amendment to subsection

74(1)(

b) is to clarify that if another amendment doesn't provide for delegation

of a duty or power, then that delegation cannot be achieved through this act

either.

Amendment approved.

Section 74 as amended approved.

Sections 75 to 82 inclusive approved.

section 83.

A. Dix: The minister talked about the cooperation with

local government before in the discussions with the UBCM. I think this is the

section. The minister will know that in the Chapman Creek case, there was an

effort to bring forward a case that complained about health hazards. I know

there are a number of sections here that deal with that.

I wonder if the minister can speak to the old sections 57 and 58

of the Health Act and the reason why changes were made so that a similar locally

generated concern about drinking water couldn't come forward in the same way in

the future — maybe just as part of that, sort of an entry into that debate.

I know that, as the minister will know, this obviously doesn't

mean that complaints can't be brought forward. I think I'm on the right section.

I may be wrong on this. I was just doing my notes. Maybe the minister can speak

to the Chapman Creek case — the changes the bill makes to that process and why

that — I don't know if you'd call it a loophole; the government may call it a

loophole — hole was closed.

[1640]

Hon. G. Abbott: We can get the debate underway at least

with this. I'm sure this is an exciting part of the day for members, and that's

good.

The Chapman Creek case — the member is right. That certainly is

connected to what is being undertaken here. The Chapman Creek case involved a

local government — I believe it's the Sunshine Coast regional district —

re-forming itself as a local board of health. Local boards of health are

something that I'm advised was created in the early 1900s, the early 20th

century. They were created to deal with issues like typhoid and cholera and

those kinds of issues.

[ Page 12903 ]

Prior to that case of the Sunshine Coast regional district

re-forming itself as a local board of health and undertaking the work that they

did, we believe that the local board of health provisions had been moribund for

at least 25 years. That is, we had never seen an instance for at least 25 years

of a local government taking what certainly appeared to be an antiquated

provision and using it for a public policy purpose.

The big difference, of course, over 25 years at least, was that we

have