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)

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Mohamedali Nuraney

Nuraney

Introductions by Members

Speaker's Statement

Rules for public bills in the

hands of private members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Wildlife Protection Act, 2008

(Bill M223)

Simpson

Gaming Control Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill M224)

H. Lali

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

International Year of the Potato

Roddick

Port Alberni Tall Ships Challenge

Fraser

Canada line to Richmond

J. Yap

World No Tobacco Day

L. Krog

Doug Parkinson

R. Hawes

Parliamentary democracy

C. Evans

Standing Order 35

Recognition of E. George

MacMinn's service to Legislature

Hon. M.

de Jong

Farnworth

Oral Questions

Emergency services at Royal

Columbian Hospital

C. James

Hon. G.

Abbott

Puchmayr

A. Dix

Funding for L'Arche Foundation in

Burnaby

Chouhan

Hon. T.

Christensen

United Nations declaration on the

rights of indigenous peoples

Fraser

Hon. M.

de Jong

Proposed power project for

Klinaklini River

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Tree farm licence land removals

in Revelstoke area

Macdonald

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government support for forest

workers

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Railway Co.,

annual report, 2007, and audited financial statements for the period

ended December 31, 2007

Forest Appeals Commission, annual

report

Petitions

B. Ralston

C. Evans

S. Hammell

D. Thorne

G. Robertson

G. Coons

N. Simons

Motions without Notice

Membership change for Special

Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner

Hon. M.

de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Reporting of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

Third Reading of Bills

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House

Patient Care Quality Review Board

Act (Bill 41)

A. Dix

Hon. G.

Abbott

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Patient Care Quality Review Board

Act (Bill 41)

Committee of the Whole House

Oil and Gas Activities Act (Bill

20)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Oil and Gas Activities Act (Bill

20)

Committee of the Whole House

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21)

Second Reading of Bills

E-Health (Personal Health

Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

(continued)

Committee of the Whole House

E-Health (Personal Health

Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Reporting of Bills

E-Health (Personal Health

Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

Third Reading of Bills

E-Health (Personal Health

Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

Second Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32) (continued)

Committee of the Whole House

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Hon. C.

Hansen

Reporting of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Third Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Second Reading of Bills

Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37)

(continued)

Committee of the Whole House

Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37)

Second Reading of Bills

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42) (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

On the

main motion

M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Hon. W.

Oppal

Reporting of Bills

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Third Reading of Bills

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 44)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 44)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 44)

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 44)

Royal Assent to Bills

Transportation Investment (Port

Mann Twinning) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 14)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and

Trade) Act (Bill 18)

Oil and Gas Activities Act (Bill

20)

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21)

Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(Bill 22)

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

E-Health (Personal Health

Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act (Bill 24)

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Health Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 26)

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Environmental (Species and Public

Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 29)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Emissions Standards) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 31)

Trade, Investment and Labour

Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34)

Social Workers Act (Bill 35)

Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking

When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

Carbon Tax Act (Bill 37)

Protected Areas of British

Columbia (Conservancies and Parks) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 38)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Vehicle

Emissions Standards) Act (Bill 39)

Patient Care Quality Review Board

Act (Bill 41)

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2008 (Bill 43)

Bridge River Valley Flying

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr401)

Lutheran Camp Concordia

(1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr402)

The Grassy Plains Community Hall

Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008 (Bill Pr403)

Supply Act, 2008-2009 (Bill 44)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

Gentner

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Farnworth

H. Lali

Puchmayr

Trevena

Austin

Estimates: Legislation

Estimates: Officers of the

Legislature

[ Page 13109 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: Today I had the very great pleasure, along with many of my MLA colleagues, of announcing the recipients of B.C.'s first Child Care Awards of Excellence. These outstanding professionals demonstrated excellence in four key areas: child development; diversity; involving parents, family and community; and commitment to leadership in the sector.

As a former teacher and now a parent, I recognize the importance of early childhood education and development and of building that system as we go forward. This amazing group of providers has more than proven their commitment to quality service for children in this province, and they well deserve our acknowledgment and thanks.

[1335]

Joining us in the gallery today: Catriona Brown from Nightingale Preschool, a junior kindergarten in Victoria; Shannie Harvey from V'la l'bon vent Preschool in Vancouver; Kirsi Pereda from Whistler Children's Centre in Whistler; Rhonda Sylven from Lambrick Park Preschool in Victoria; Anne Wright of the Kitselas Nation Head Start in Terrace; Cynthia Gosnell of the New Aiyansh Nation aboriginal supported child care program in Prince George.

In the family child care provider category: Feneda Ha Au Yeung from Another Happy Home Day Care in Vancouver, Elisabeth Mueller from Little Raven's Nest in West Vancouver, Tara Pipke from Kidz on 6 in Richmond, Vicky Tutanes from Klarissa's Learning Centre in East Vancouver.

In the promising new early childhood educator category: Monica Neratini from Cape Mudge Nation and Head Start program on Quadra Island and Grace Tampi from Canyon Springs Montessori School in Coquitlam.

In the lifetime achievement category, those who have spent more than 20 years delivering fabulous child care: Raye Pinder from Majestic Cedars Child Care Centre in Cobble Hill, Donna Archibald from Harrison Hot Springs Preschool in Harrison Hot Springs and Patti Pernitsky from Kamloops United Preschool in Kamloops.

I would ask all of us to join together and extend the warmest welcome possible to British Columbia's 2008 Child Care Awards of Excellence.

C. James: I have one of my staff sitting in the gallery today to watch question period, and he's not anyone new to question period. He sat for many years watching question period in the office, assisting with question period.

He began his career as an intern here in the Legislature and then came to work for the New Democrat caucus in 2002. He survived the dark years, as we called them, but more importantly, our two members of the Legislature survived those years because of the support of people like this individual.

He's moving on to a new adventure, so I wanted to make sure that we've all wished him well. We're really going to miss his skills, his abilities, his talent and his energy. Most importantly, we're going to lose our music critic in our office, and we're going to lose our fashion police for our office.

Would the House please give a warm welcome to Rich Overgaard.

Hon. S. Bond: This is certainly the time of year that we have lots of school children visiting us here in Victoria and in the precinct. We're delighted today to be joined by a group of visitors from Henry Hudson Elementary School. On behalf of the Premier, we want to pay a very special welcome to them today. They come from the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're travelling today with their teacher Ms. Edwards, and I know they have a number of parents with them.

We want to wish you a wonderful learning experience here in Victoria. I want to ask all of my colleagues here to wish you a very warm welcome as you watch question period this afternoon. We're glad you're here.

N. Macdonald: I have two introductions to make. First, I would like to introduce Tracey Janes. She is one of our researchers. She is part of a staff that do a tremendous job for supporting our work here in the Legislature each and every day. She is tremendously important, and I want to assure her that she is very, very much appreciated for all of the work she does. Would the Legislature join me in making her feel welcome.

Second, I would like to introduce Brad Scott. He is a teacher of grade 11 social studies at Selkirk Secondary School in Kimberley. He's a longtime resident there. He is here to study government. Would the House please join me in making him welcome as well.

Tributes

MOHAMEDALI NURANEY

J. Nuraney: As we approach the end of our legislative session, I would like to take this opportunity to make an announcement. In the next few weeks my brothers Badru and Salim and my sisters Gulshirin and Rozy, with our extended family, will be celebrating my father Mohamedali Nuraney's 100th birthday.

He has been a very good provider and mentor and is a person with very high principles. He's very well respected in our community as being a true gentleman.

[1340]

I know that he's watching this announcement today. I want to tell him how very proud we are of him and what a great father he has been to us all these years. We truly love him.

We as a family look forward to celebrating your centennial birthday.

[ Page 13110 ]

Introductions by Members

R. Austin: I have a couple of introductions to make today. As the Minister of State for Childcare has alluded to, we have Anne Wright, who has come here to receive a child care award. Congratulations to her. She's also been accompanied down here from Terrace by her 17-year-old daughter, Geneva Erickson. This is her first visit to Victoria. She was very excited about coming here, and it was also her first time on an airplane yesterday. That also brought great excitement. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them both.

Secondly, hon. Speaker, we have Angela Miranda in the House today. She is the legislative assistant who works for me along with the members for Nelson-Creston, North Coast and Vancouver-Kensington. Angela has done superb work for us in the last few months and will be leaving us shortly as she is due to have a baby in September. Congratulations to her, and I hope everything goes well.

J. Yap: I would like to welcome to the House a group visiting from the Canadian Chinese Business Development Association. The CCBDA has been in existence since 1984 serving the Canadian Chinese business community. Its mandate is to advance the socioeconomic position of Canadian Chinese, foster a spirit of cooperation and mutual help among its members, establish trade connections with foreign businesses, and enhance the economic, social, cultural, artistic, scientific and educational exchanges and cooperation between Canada and other countries.

With us today in the gallery for the first time in the Legislature are president Amy Huang, vice-president K.F. Kam and members of the executive Cathy Ju, Sam Lee, Lily Au, Yuen Lee, May Zhou and Lily Liu. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these visitors.

K. Conroy: I have a couple of introductions to make, but first I also want to introduce a staff member. Amber Nash is sitting in the gallery today. She is the legislative assistant to not only me, the opposition Whip, but the House Leader for the opposition. You can imagine the job she has to do. People are very upset when she takes days off, which have been rare and few and far between. I want to acknowledge the work that Amber does. She's done an incredible job for us this session, and I want to thank her for that.

Today I was really pleased to accept the Torch of Life from Victoria High School students on the steps of the Legislature with a number of my colleagues. The Torch of Life was brought to Victoria by George Marcello, who since 1998 has been running across Canada with the torch to raise awareness of organ donation.

The students were running today in memory of Alexa Middlear, whose family made the most difficult and generous decision parents can make in their grief at the losing of their daughter Alexa. They chose to donate her organs. I ask that all members of the House join me in acknowledging the work of the students, the Middlear family and George in their ongoing efforts to remind us of the importance of organ donation.

D. Hayer: We have 30 students from grade 5 visiting our Legislative Assembly today. They're from Woodland Park Elementary School. They're here with their two teachers, Lara Campbell and Sandy Carlon, along with seven volunteer parents. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: It was a treat for me to participate with other colleagues at noon today in the child care awards, and I want to introduce three people who are here visiting with us today. Vicky Tutanes is one of the award winners. She's here with her daughter Clarissa and her friend Ranette Sanchez. They are not only all three award winners, and they are not only constituents, but they are dear friends. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1345]

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is communications officer extraordinaire Sandra Steilo, who is on our communications team. With her is her mother Carol Steilo, who is visiting from Edmonton, my old hometown. Could the House please make both of them very welcome.

S. Fraser: I have two sets of introductions to make today. We are graced with two members from the Port Alberni Tall Ships Society, who are destined to put on the best Tall Ships Challenge in the world. Today with us is a good friend Michael Kuruliak and also a good friend Councillor Kenn Whiteman from Port Alberni. Please make them feel very welcome.

My second introduction. Today is the aboriginal National Day of Action, and there was a large rally on the steps of the Legislature. I'd like to especially thank Willard Gallic from Tseshaht First Nation in the Alberni Valley. He was the main coordinator and organizer for that event. Joining him in the gallery today are respected first nations leaders Laverne Good, Dan Smith and Gary Albany. Please help me make them feel very welcome today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today I'm pleased to be joined in the gallery by a very prominent businessman from British Columbia. He is the founder of a chain of produce stores called Fruiticana. Tony Singh is also a member of the provincial Small Business Roundtable and has been a great contributor to that effort to make sure that we continue to have a thriving small business climate.

Tony Singh is joined by another special guest, Sunil Gupta. Sunil is visiting from Delhi, India. He's also a successful businessman from India. I want to welcome both of them to the House with us today.

C. Trevena: I, too, have a number of introductions. I'd first like to introduce Rod Sherrell, chair of the Mount Waddington regional district, and Greg Fletcher, the administrator for the Mount Waddington regional district, who have been down in Victoria for meetings. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

I would like to join the Minister of State for Childcare in welcoming and acknowledging the hard work and dedication of all the child care workers across the

[ Page 13111 ]

province, particularly those who have won the first annual awards for child care. They do a very good job.

I would particularly like to make note of Monica Neratini, who won one of the promising early childhood educator awards. She lives in Campbell River but works on We Wai Kai Daycare on Quadra Island. She's down here in the gallery with her mother Barbara. I hope the House will make them very welcome too.

Dan Smith from the Campbell River band is also in the gallery. I'm very pleased to see him here, and he has been recognized earlier on. I would like to recognize him.

If I might indulge the House, yesterday Stephen Frame was here from Campbell River. He is the president of the Trial Lawyers Association. He was talking to our caucus about the severe restrictions that could be impacting our justice systems. He had a very healthy meeting with our caucus, and I know he's looking forward, with the Trial Lawyers Association, to meet the government caucus soon.

J. Horgan: I also have two introductions I'd like to make. Firstly, I echo the comments of the Minister of State for Childcare. I would like to introduce Raye Pinder, who received a lifetime achievement award at Majestic Cedars in Cobble Hill. I can't think of a more noble vocational undertaking than to shape young minds and care for the children of the Cowichan Valley. So my hat is certainly tipped to Raye Pinder.

I would also like to introduce in the gallery…. Hon. Speaker, as you're aware, I'm the most thoroughly briefed and well-prepared member in the House. I can't do that without Danielle Dalzell, who helps us in the opposition caucus.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I'm getting mixed reviews from the Minister of Forests.

Danielle has been helping us in the opposition caucus, particularly me, for the past number of months. In the evening, she's taking environmental studies and communications course in the heart of the Malahatians and "John" de Fucans at Royal Roads University. Would the House please make Danielle Dalzell very, very welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: I would like the House to join me in acknowledging Charmaine Wylie and her length of service and contribution to many in this building. Charmaine is currently my administrative coordinator until tomorrow, after which she will be moving on to actually take a position within the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1350]

Charmaine has served me very capably, keeping me organized and on track and getting to the right place at the right time for the most part. She did that previously for the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, as well as Christy Clark when she was Minister of Education. I suspect Charmaine's term of service may even stretch back to when members opposite filled some of the ministers' offices.

Charmaine has provided exemplary service. I am certainly very sorry to be losing her and would ask that all members of the House please join me in acknowledging and thanking her for her excellent service to the people of British Columbia.

D. Routley: I have two introductions to make, both of them heroes of mine. The first would be Chief Lisa Shaver of the Penelakut Nation on Kuper Island. She's joined us for the Aboriginal Day of Action. Chief Lisa Shaver is a regional representative to the AFN for the women's council. She just returned from the AFN environmental conference in Mexico on Chiapas territory.

I'd have to say that Lisa is a very inspirational young woman, a single mother of three who has taken on the role of Chief for the Penelakut. If people know about the Penelakut circumstances on Kuper Island, it's a great, great struggle. But great people are waging that struggle, and Lisa is chief among them. She has goals, and she has determination. I think of her as an absolute hero. So can we please welcome Lisa.

Then another Cowichan hero, Rick Doman, joins us. Rick was the CEO of Western Forest Products. His father Herb Doman is a legend in British Columbia known to all of us, but to those of us in Cowichan Valley and in Duncan, he's an absolute treasure, hero and figurehead of our community.

He came from India, as people know, and started his great company with one truck. He is an example to all of us of what British Columbia can be for immigrants, for all the people of the world who have chosen British Columbia as their home. Herb Doman stands as a statue to what we aspire to.

My father and I used to walk along the tracks in Duncan to go fishing, and he would tell me that that fleet of trucks was representative of everything that British Columbia could be — a great community, commitment, a tradition that Rick continues with great honour. Can you please help me welcome him.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Am Johal, who is my constituency assistant in my office. Am is, in his own right, a politician. He is an activist. He is an advocate for the community, and he is a strong believer in social and economic justice for folks in not just the Downtown Eastside but all across the province of British Columbia.

This will be the last session in which Am will be with my office. He's going to be venturing into new paths in July with Unite Here, a full-time position there. I would like the House to please make Am very welcome. Perhaps one day we'll see him down here as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.

H. Bains: I'd also like to join the Minister of Transportation in welcoming my good friend Tony Singh, who is not only a very good, successful businessman in our community — his office is located in my constituency — but also a very respected member of the community and serves as a very good role model for our youngsters. Please help me welcome him.

[ Page 13112 ]

N. Simons: I would like to introduce the entire west gallery. I know them by name, and they are as follows… No.

It's my pleasure to introduce Adam Friesen, who has worked with our caucus this entire session and has done an admirable job as gatekeeper and as a welcomer. Some refer to him as the new guy, but those are the ones among us who think more slowly. Will the House please make him welcome.

[1355]

H. Lali: Seeing as how three-quarters of the members present today have made introductions, and not to be outdone, I'm going to join the ranks and join the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in welcoming Am Johal, who is sitting up in the galleries here today. In the 1990s he served as my ministerial assistant for about a year before he moved on to other pastures. I am absolutely certain that one day you're going to see him as an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: Will the House please make Am Johal welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, they say that the Table and those that sit at the table are silent and invisible, but that is not true for those that support those people.

Louise MacMinn is here today to see what her husband does when he goes to work in the morning, and so is a very good friend of our Clerks, Jerry Sauder. I hope the House will make both of those individuals very welcome — and two friends of mine from Abbotsford, David and Lee Holmberg. I hope the House will make them welcome as well.

Speaker's Statement

RULES FOR PUBLIC BILLS

IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M220, Accountability Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Nanaimo. The bill would require expenditure of public funds contrary to Standing Order 67 and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to also review Bill M222, Home Inspection Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. The bill would require an expenditure of public funds contrary to Standing Order 67 and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to review Bill M219, Funding Stability for Boards of Education Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Saanich South This bill would impose an obligation on the Crown and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Hon. Members, I have had the opportunity to review Bill M218, Farm Workers Fairness Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for New Westminster. The bill would create an impost and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 2008

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Wildlife Protection Act, 2008.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: I move introduction of the Wildlife Protection Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to introduce the Wildlife Protection Act, 2008. The purpose of this legislation is to finally bring to British Columbia true species-at-risk legislation that is based on protection of habitat.

This is a law that is long overdue in our province, as British Columbia is one of only two jurisdictions in Canada without some form of species legislation. This bill would rectify that serious oversight in our laws.

The Wildlife Protection Act provides for species at risk to be designated as extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern. These designations would be determined through rigorous science conducted through a revitalized and strengthened species-at-risk coordinating office, an office that would have its staff selected based on their science background or their understanding of aboriginal traditional knowledge.

This bill would require that management or recovery plans be put in place for those species identified as at risk. This legislation would also ensure that necessary habitat is protected. It requires that this all occur in an open and transparent manner, something that we do not see today with species.

The legislation also recognizes the role for stewardship and allows for those plans to be put in place. It also gives the minister latitude through permits to allow other uses to be put in place for social and economic reasons including resource activities. What would occur in those instances is that the permitting would need to be done in an open and transparent manner and with public debate.

[1400]

[ Page 13113 ]

The conservation data centre has identified over 1,300 species in B.C. that are at some level of risk. This government provides little protection for those species, with only a handful that are actually getting attention. With the exception of the mountain caribou, none of those protection strategies are linked to habitat.

The Wildlife Protection Act, 2008, I am sure, will not pass this Legislative Assembly as it should. But I would encourage the government to do the right thing — take this bill away, make it your own if you need to and bring it back with your name on it in the fall session. We can finally get the protection for biodiversity and species that this government has consistently failed…

Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please.

S. Simpson: …for more than seven years.

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

Bill M223, Wildlife Protection 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.

GAMING CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

H. Lali presented a bill intituled Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008.

H. Lali: Since the government has been rejecting bills, surely they will not reject this one. I introduce Bill M224, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008, for first reading.

Motion approved.

H. Lali: The Gaming Control Amendment Act,

Section 2 of the Gaming Control Act, SBC 2002,

chapter 14, is amended by adding the following subsection to

section 7: "The minister assigned with responsibility for the British Columbia Lottery Corporation must not be simultaneously assigned with responsibility for the gaming policy and enforcement branch."

The Gaming Control Amendment Act ensures that the responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of gaming in British Columbia is not held by the same minister as the one responsible for the marketing and revenue collection associated with gaming activities. This amendment will eliminate the conflict of interest that exists when a single minister is responsible for both the promotion and the regulation of gaming activities in British Columbia.

Policing actually should be independent of any third-party intervention. The gaming policy and enforcement branch cannot be compromised and must be separated from the revenue agenda of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Policing must do its job effectively, and the only way to do that is if there's a separation of ministers responsible for these two elements.

What we've seen is scandal after scandal with record profits every year for British Columbia Lottery Corporation. As you also know, hon. Speaker, about a year and a half or two years back, when the issue was surfacing that retailers were in effect stealing profits that other folks had in terms of winning tickets, that could have been actually prevented had there been two different ministers responsible for the BCLC and the GPEB. This would eliminate all that.

I'm looking forward to….

Mr. Speaker: Could the member put the question, please.

H. Lali: I would like to move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after today.

Bill M224, Gaming Control Amendment Act, 2008, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE POTATO

V. Roddick: The United Nations–designated International Year of the Potato is just one more reason for British Columbia to celebrate agriculture. All the gold and silver shipped by Spain from South America in the 1500s and 1600s, which in today's dollars would be worth hundreds of millions, is only a fraction of the value of the biggest jewel of them all, brought from Peru to Britain by Sir Walter Raleigh — the potato.

B.C. is fortunate to have one of the earliest potato harvests in the country, providing a great reason to launch the Year of the Potato at the front of the Legislature on Tuesday by Lower Mainland vegetable distributors BCfresh, and teachers, parents and students from Khowhemun Elementary School in Duncan. The children were brilliant — great fun, fabulous agriculture in the classrooms, Spuds in Tubs program display.

[1405]

There is nothing more delicious than fresh new potatoes steamed and slathered in butter — simply divine.

The students also helped unveil the Stanley Cup of agriculture. The incredible, magnificent Stillwell Cup, presented for the best potatoes grown on the North American continent, was won by British Columbia at Madison Square Garden, New York City, on November 4, 1911.

World potato production is expanding strongly in the developing countries, which now counts for more than half of the global harvest — a remarkable achievement. It is absolutely imperative that the awareness and the education efforts focus on the new

[ Page 13114 ]

generation of British Columbians, because we all still have to eat to live.

PORT ALBERNI TALL SHIPS CHALLENGE

S. Fraser: No doubt the noble potato arrived on a tall ship, so let's talk tall ships. I'm talking world-class tall ships, the best tall ships show on earth. Why do I say the best? Because once again, the Tall Ships Challenge will grace Port Alberni Harbour, providing a spectacular backdrop and an intimacy simply not possible in other locations.

I mean this with no disrespect to the city of Victoria, who are also putting on their own tall ship event. But there's no contest. The reason for this is that the best tall ship event on earth is going to be put on in Port Alberni. The Port Alberni Tall Ships Society is involved, the city of Port Alberni is involved, and the port authority is involved — the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district and the Port Alberni Spirit of B.C., along with hundreds of volunteers that will make this a welcoming experience par excellence.

This I heard loudly from the visitors to the last Tall Ships Challenge and also from the captains and crews of the various ships. I would like to quote from Capt. Nikolai Isivchenko. He said it best: "I wish on behalf of my officers, crew and cadets to express our sincere thanks for your warm hospitality and flawless organization behind Tall Ships Port Alberni. We were truly impressed by the friendliness of your community. You made us feel at home."

Again, mark on your calendars these dates: July 11, beginning at noon, and July 12, closing at 9 p.m. Plan on viewing an amazing array of historical international nautical wonders. But also grab the No. 7 Baldwin steam train for an exciting round trip from the harbour to the historic McLean mill, the only actual operating steam mill in Canada.

So July 11 and 12 in Port Alberni — for the experience of your lifetime.

CANADA LINE TO RICHMOND

J. Yap: In about a year Richmond will see the completion of the most significant infrastructure project in our city's recent history. That is the construction of the Canada line. But this is also a project that should be increasingly meaningful to residents of all of Metro Vancouver, indeed all British Columbians, as the Canada line works both ways.

Not only will the residents of Richmond be able to commute to Vancouver in a greener, more efficient manner, but residents of Vancouver will be able to hop on a train and zip out to Richmond to experience all we have to offer. Starting in 2009 when the Canada line is up and running, residents of Vancouver will be able to travel to Richmond in less than 30 minutes while never having to jump in a car, struggle with traffic or look for parking.

There is so much to do, see and experience in Richmond. Come and walk the scenic dikes of the Fraser River. Watch the seaplanes take off or, for that matter, the big jets at YVR. Or enjoy the UBC rowing sculls along the waters. Farther along, you will be at the new Spirit Square by the Richmond oval, on track to be opened in 2009, which is itself a true British Columbia showcase in ingenuity in both its design and its construction.

Or take a stroll through the Golden Village, a unique district of Richmond that features a wide array of ethnic shops and Asian dining, including Korean, Thai, Japanese, South Asian and Chinese to name a few. If you want a unique treat, buy one of the world-famous Japanese cream puffs made at Aberdeen Centre. You'll be hooked with one bite.

[1410]

A short bus ride will take you to my favourite community, Steveston, a picturesque working fishing village that has the distinction of being at one time the busiest fishing port in the world. Come and stop by the Gulf of Georgia Cannery national historic site or the Britannia Heritage Shipyard to get a sense of Steveston's past.

Richmond truly is a special place that everyone should visit. I welcome one and all — and members of this House when we leave this place — to take the opportunity to do so.

WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY

L. Krog: May 31 is World No Tobacco Day. It was created by the member states of the World Health Organization in 1987. It also happens to be my birthday, and I'm slightly older than World No Tobacco Day.

It is observed each year on May 31 to draw attention to the global epidemic of tobacco and to preventable disease and the deaths it causes. It is an occasion to inform the public about the dangers of smoking. It aims to reduce the 3.5 million yearly deaths from tobacco-related health problems.

Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the world. It is the only legal consumer product that kills one-third to one-half of those who use it as it is intended by the manufacturers, with its victims dying, on average, 15 years prematurely.

This year the theme for World No Tobacco Day is "A tobacco-free youth." What we know about the tobacco industry is that it works heavily through advertising and promotion, using all sorts of events. Most people start smoking before the age of 18 and a quarter of those before the age of ten. Many of those are in Third World countries. Nicotine is highly addictive. Child and adolescent experimentation can easily lead to a lifetime of dependence.

There is a strong link between advertising and smoking. The tobacco industry spends billions worldwide advertising its products. It accesses youth through movies, the Internet, fashion magazines, music concerts and sporting events. It uses these increasingly creative tactics to boost the sale of its products, including adverts on billboards, magazines and others.

Hon. Speaker, this year as we have spent so much of this session debating health bills, I ask all British Columbians, in particular the members of this assem-

[ Page 13115 ]

bly, to do what they can to ensure that we come to a time when no generation will be hooked on the use of tobacco.

DOUG PARKINSON

R. Hawes: Doug Parkinson is one of my heroes. In every community there are volunteers who give tirelessly of their time whenever there's a need. Doug is one of those volunteers. He has selflessly given of his time and expertise for years, making life in my community better for all of us. Although he has never sought recognition, Doug has fittingly been made a Freeman of the district of Mission, which is the highest honour a municipality can bestow.

I had the honour of serving on Mission council and at the Fraser Valley regional district from 1993 to 2001 with Doug. He was always the hardest-working and the best-prepared and dedicated of councillors. His deep caring for all of the citizens in my community and his love of the community were obvious in every task he undertook.

Doug has been my golfing buddy for almost 20 years. We've holidayed together, and Doug's wife Sharen has been one of my constituency assistants for the past seven years. I think of him as a brother.

A few years ago tragedy struck when Doug's kidneys failed, and a transplant donated by one of his daughters also failed. Heart and circulatory problems followed. Now a bone infection in a foot won't heal, and because of circulatory problems, there's no medical fix for this problem. A few days ago the decision was made to stop dialysis, and Doug has been moved into hospice care.

Doug is in every sense a great British Columbian. This quiet, unassuming man has spent his lifetime making our community better.

Rest now, my friend. Your work is done, and I won't forget our friendship and what you've done.

[1415]

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

C. Evans: I want to talk today about the practice of passing laws without serious debate — the process that we call closure, which will occur this evening in this room. I will do so through the medium of metaphor, lest anyone hear any partisan comment in my story.

Most citizens don't want to work here, but they don't like secrets either. So they want us to stand in for them and publicly consider the laws that will govern their lives. In that respect, this place is a little bit like a criminal court, because citizens hope to never go there either. Yet they want to believe that the rule of law will be there for them at need. Therein lies my metaphor.

Hon. Speaker, my dad worked in prisons and courtrooms as a public defender. Then one day my father found himself at the prison not to visit his client but to visit his child, my brother Andy. For the first time, instead of passing through the gates as a lawyer in a suit and recognized by the guards as part of their system, he waited in the visitors line with the wives and mothers of his clients, whose personal experience he had never shared.

When he got to the front of the line, my father was shocked to hear that he couldn't visit his son because the boy was in solitary confinement for the crime of singing at dinner and was denied access to his family. At that moment my dad realized that maybe he hadn't been doing the work of the angels all his life. Maybe, instead of guaranteeing people access to justice, he had been an actor in a play staged to create the illusion of justice that those in charge could then withdraw at whim. That experience in the lineup outside Santa Rita prison broke my father's faith, and he left his job and his country.

Metaphorically speaking, I'm wondering if we, in the passing of laws this afternoon without due process, are not turning our profession, too, into a kind of theatre intended to create the illusion of parliamentary democracy in substitute for its fact. If that be true, I wonder who will do this work in future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Standing Order 35

RECOGNITION OF E. GEORGE MacMINN'S

SERVICE TO LEGISLATURE

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35. Members will know that Standing Order 35 is the mechanism by which the House may adjourn its usual business to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. The threshold that we have to meet, of course, to satisfy the test under Standing Order 35 is very, very high before we can embark upon such a discussion.

I've discussed the matter with the Opposition House Leader, and he shares my view that for the reasons I'll lay out very briefly, that test has been met. We agree that this matter demands action by this House, for the story that concerns us today began a long time ago, 50 years ago — in fact, just over 50 years ago — in 1957, when a young Clerk Assistant named George MacMinn entered this chamber for the very first time.

A mere juridical seedling, he took his place at the table amidst a forest of political giants — the Bennetts, the Gaglardis, the Willistons. But he was of sturdy stock, and his legal training served him well. For the next 50 years he would serve not governments but this institution.

In the 1980s he was appointed Queen's Counsel. He served at Westminster Parliament in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. In 1993 he was appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, a position he holds today. In 2005 he was awarded the Order of British Columbia. He is now the longest-serving Table Officer in the entire Commonwealth. [Applause.]

[1420]

[ Page 13116 ]

Earlier this year he received the personal congratulations of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He has been recognized by virtually every parliamentary agency or association that we know of. I have detected in my research no evidence whatsoever of any bias or favouritism — with the noted exception of a certain lawn tennis tournament that he holds religiously once a year.

With Louise, their seven children and their 12 grandchildren, he has served this province and this institution with distinction. He is the don, the dean, the Godfather of Clerks and Table Officers. He stands like a colossus, armed with a pen in the place of a sword and, in place of a shield, a copy of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition.

He has served with distinction, and I, seconded by the hon. Opposition House Leader, would move as follows:

[That the House congratulate Mr. E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on his 50th anniversary as a Table Officer; and recognize his outstanding service to this Legislature and his many contributions to parliaments and legislatures throughout the Commonwealth and the United States and thank him on behalf of all members and all British Columbians.]

M. Farnworth: In rising to speak to this motion and to state why all members of this House should support this motion, it's my pleasure to pick up on some of the comments of the Government House Leader and to remind members of the House just how long the journey is that our esteemed Clerk has taken.

The Government House Leader referred to a juridical stripling.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Seedling. Seedling. [Laughter.]

That was because back then he had just learned and mastered the art of the quill pen. That is how long ago we are talking about — when cars had fins, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: And Clerks had hair.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: House Leaders too.

It is a remarkable achievement that we are celebrating — 50 years of dedicated service to the members of this chamber, to the institution of parliament, through nine Premiers of this province. That is no mean feat, knowing the political landscape of British Columbia.

To have been recognized by legislatures across this country and around the Commonwealth and to be recognized at last year's Global Commonwealth Conference, in the Mother of Parliaments in Westminster, by Her Majesty the Queen truly reflects the respect that our Clerk has — a global respect. That is something that we here in British Columbia truly should appreciate — and, as we celebrate our sesquicentennial of 150 years,

that one-third of those years have been served by the Clerk of the House of the province of British Columbia.

So I am happy, along with my colleagues, to second the motion and fully support it. [Applause.]

Motion approved.

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to hear some Latin from the Clerk.

Clerk of the House: Nemine contradicente . [Applause.]

Hon. K. Krueger: Best Clerk on earth.

Oral Questions

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

C. James: In December 2003 the ER chief at Royal Columbian warned the Minister of Health that his emergency room was the worst in Canada. Let's move forward to March 2008 and a letter from Royal Columbian surgeon Dr. Granger to health officials. He said in that letter: "At present we are truly in a crisis."

For five years this government and this Minister of Health have ignored and denied the crisis at Royal Columbian. For five years this minister did absolutely nothing. Now, after years of denial, I'd like to ask: is the Minister of Health proud that his much-belated response to the crisis is parking lot medicine?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'd like to advise the member, first of all, that both government and the Fraser Health Authority have identified Royal Columbian Hospital as a priority for redevelopment. Fraser Health is working on the master site plan for Royal Columbian, and they will also be producing a detailed development plan.

There is an existing development plan. It's from 1992, but it does require some upgrading. Unfortunately, none of the 12 NDP Health Ministers of the 1990s would give a moment's time to Royal Columbian Hospital to deal with their issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: The response from that Health Minister, from that government, was to tear down a hospital that addressed the problems that are now at Royal Columbian. This minister was told over and over again what kind of a problem was going on. In April 2006 the ER doctors issued a public letter warning of a severe bed shortage.

Two years after that the fire marshal had to be brought in to deal with overcrowding. And what did the Minister of Health say? He said that everyone was

[ Page 13117 ]

alarmist — that the doctors were alarmists in saying there was a problem.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he stop denying the problem, stop attacking the health care professionals at Royal Columbian and actually fix the crisis today?

Hon. G. Abbott: Interestingly, in the Vision for the '90s and Beyond , the document from March 1992, there was certainly no disparagement…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …by the NDP Health Ministers of the day. What they did was ignore them, just as they ignored Abbotsford for a decade. They ignored Royal Columbian; they ignored Surrey Memorial Hospital. They are a group that talks. When it comes to action, they are incapable. Our government acts; their opposition talks.

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

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that it's very clear to everyone in British Columbia that this minister talks, doesn't listen and denies and ignores that health care is in a crisis because of his direction and his government.

[1430]

I'd like to read another letter. In February 2007 all 24 emergency room doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital sent a letter directly to the minister. They wrote: "We have to declare a complete lack of confidence in Royal Columbian Hospital's ability to provide safe, timely and caring emergency room treatment at all times." That's from emergency room doctors, who care deeply about their patients and about providing safe care, and they felt they had to write to the Minister of Health to try and get action.

Three months after that the chief of surgery called the crisis a disaster situation. And what did the minister do? He attacked the health care professionals. He accused those people of fearmongering. He denied there was any problem at all with hallway medicine, no problem whatsoever, and his response now is parking lot medicine.

When is the Minister of Health going to admit, after years of denial, that patients at Royal Columbian have been at risk because of his government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know what we often will hear from the opposition is more beds, more beds — notwithstanding the fact that during the 1990s they closed some 3,300 hospital beds in the province of British Columbia. But a bed is a steel frame and a mattress, unless there's a health professional to take care of the patient in the bed.

One of the biggest challenges at Royal Columbian and right across the province of British Columbia is that during the 1990s the NDP not only failed to reinvest; they actually cut the number of nursing spaces in colleges and universities across this province. In 1993, 839 nurses graduate. In 1999, 574 graduate — a reduction of 32 percent in the number of nurses being educated in B.C.

I'd like to hear the Leader of the Opposition get up and apologize on behalf of that former NDP government for cutting nursing resources at a time when we most needed it in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Puchmayr: I think it's this Health Minister that needs to apologize to the people in the Fraser Health region and the people of British Columbia and all the doctors and nurses that he continues to attack.

Royal Columbian Hospital has gone from hallway medicine to parking lot medicine under the reckless mismanagement of this government and this Health Minister. To put portables in a parking lot to address shortages of acute care beds will further affect the acuity of patients that need emergency treatment in this very busy regional trauma centre.

When will the minister admit that the B.C. Liberal decision to demolish St. Mary's Hospital and its acute care capacity has thrown the Fraser Health Authority into a code chaos?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the major challenge facing Royal Columbian Hospital is nursing vacancies. If the members opposite need to understand why that has occurred, they need only look in the mirror — a cut of 32 percent in the number of nurses that we were educating in the 1990s, when that government knew full well that we were going to be facing a demographic crisis both in health human resources and in the general population in this decade.

They did nothing. Worse than nothing, they actually cut resources to British Columbia's universities and colleges and graduated fewer nurses than had been the case for decades. They believed that they could control health care costs by limiting health human resources. They were wrong.

I want to hear this member…. The Leader of the Opposition wouldn't apologize. Let's hear this member apologize on behalf of that former government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Deny, deny, deny — that's all we get from this minister. He talks about nurses. He talks about extra nurses and colleges. They can't retain those nurses.

[1435]

We have met with the nurses. They cannot be retained because of the trauma and what they're exposed to…

[ Page 13118 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Puchmayr: …in those emergency rooms today.

Here's how respectful he is to those nurses and doctors, who are so overworked. When they speak out, he calls them alarmist. When the patients speak out, he says: "Get used to it."

When will the minister extract his head from the sand and come up with a concrete solution for Royal Columbian Hospital and eliminate the parking lot medicine that he is creating throughout this province?

Hon. G. Abbott: Imagine that rhetoric from that opposition, which was prepared to hang out Penticton Regional Hospital's emergency department without any kind of opportunity for them to get the record straight.

One of the members asked: "What have you done?" Well, I'll tell you what we've done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, sit down.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. G. Abbott: A 93 percent increase in the number of nursing spaces in B.C. colleges and universities — 93 percent. Close to 4,000 incremental nursing spaces in B.C.'s colleges and universities, and further, we have doubled — a 100 percent increase — the number of physicians that we are educating in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: I think the people in British Columbia know that a Minister of Health is nothing but an empty suit and a paycheque unless he's willing to stand up for public health care in British Columbia.

No one agrees with the minister's position that it was the right decision to close St. Mary's. No one agrees with him — not the chair of the Fraser Health Authority, not the former chair of the Fraser Health Authority, not the patients sitting in hallways, not the patients waiting in emergency so they can go and be in hallways. Nobody agrees with the minister, hon. Speaker.

When will this minister, after years of denial and disrespect, acknowledge that resorting to parking lot medicine is not the right response? When will he take the action necessary to resolve the acute care crisis in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: For just a moment there I thought perhaps the opposition Health critic was going to offer us up that apology on behalf of the former government that he was chief adviser for. But I guess not even on a belated or retroactive or backdated basis are we going to get that apology, even from the opposition Health critic.

Earlier I heard the opposition Health critic going on about the Fraser Health Authority and about MRIs at Fraser Health Authority, and I just thought the House should be aware of this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: In 2001 there was one MRI in Fraser Health Authority, one MRI serving that entire health authority at Royal Columbian Hospital. Today there are two at Royal Columbian Hospital, there are three in Fraser Health Authority, and in August in that facility, which the residents of Abbotsford and region waited ten years for when that NDP government was in office, the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre, a fourth MRI.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the members opposite….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: The members opposite talk about swinging again. They swung and swung and swung and tore St. Mary's down. They tore it down. There's a shortage of acute care beds, and they tore a hospital down.

[1440]

When will that minister apologize for that outrageous decision — 71 acute care beds? Everyone told them not to — the people of New Westminster told them not to; the doctors told them not to; the nurses told them not to — and he and his colleague the Minister for Economic Development swung the axe. They got rid of St. Mary's Hospital. When will he apologize for that outrageous decision that's damaged health care in the Fraser Health Authority?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member appears to be suffering from a form of political amnesia. Perhaps he will remember the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital under the former NDP government. Maybe he will remember the closure of the Armstrong hospital. Maybe he'll remember the closure of Enderby Hospital. Maybe he'll remember the 3,000 other hospital beds that they closed across the province of British Columbia in the 1990s. They talk a good game; they talk a great game.

The fact of the matter is that the operating rooms at St. Mary's are now open at Eagle Ridge, and they have been since the closure of St. Mary's. We also know that

[ Page 13119 ]

St. Mary's did not have an emergency department. This opposition suffers from selective vision, selective memory and collective amnesia when it comes to their record of the 1990s.

FUNDING FOR L'ARCHE FOUNDATION

IN BURNABY

R. Chouhan: I'm afraid, I think, the Minister of Health has sprained his neck for answering those questions or not answering those questions, but he can relax. It's not for him.

For 34 years L'Arche home in Burnaby has been home to adults with developmental disabilities. During funding negotiations, CLBC has admitted that L'Arche is chronically underfunded. The needs of the aging population that L'Arche is serving have put additional cost pressures on the organization. These needs cannot be met with the current funding level.

With no wage increase for eight years, it is difficult to retain staff. Unless L'Arche receives the necessary funding, it will no longer be able to continue to provide this current high level of quality service and care for 24 adults with disabilities who rely on it.

So my question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will the minister promise to provide the equitable funding, in comparison with other agencies, to keep L'Arche open?

Hon. T. Christensen: I appreciate the member's question. L'Arche has been a service provider in the Burnaby community for a number of years. They have done a very able job of providing services to persons with developmental disabilities. They have approached CLBC, seeking, I believe, a 75 percent increase in their funding, by virtue of a change in how they are wishing to deliver service.

CLBC continues to work with L'Arche to look at how it is that they can continue to ably serve the many people that are residing at L'Arche in a way, on a go-forward basis. CLBC is doing that work with them today. I think most members would recognize that a 75 percent increase in terms of the contract price is something that will be difficult to deal with, but CLBC is committing to continue to work with L'Arche.

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE

RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

S. Fraser: The Canadian government has now voted to support the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, even though the Harper government, shamefully, voted no. Aboriginal leaders across the country are asking all provincial and territorial governments to adopt motions of support for the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. We on the opposition side have been in support of the declaration all along. It's a human rights issue.

[1445]

On this day of action across the country, will the minister finally agree to endorse and support the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising the issue on a day when we should all pause and reflect upon the circumstances confronted by so many aboriginal peoples right across Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: So the member is aware of our support for the declaration. If he isn't, I hope he is now. And on this day when aboriginal peoples are gathering, I hope that all members and all British Columbians will reflect on the fact that, despite all of the progress that we have made with respect to the establishment of a new relationship, bridging that socioeconomic gap and meeting the needs of aboriginal people and communities is a work-in-progress and there is much work to be done.

PROPOSED POWER PROJECT

FOR KLINAKLINI RIVER

S. Simpson: Klina power currently has a private power project application on the Klinaklini River. While there are two conservancies in that area, they're separated by the river, and that's where this application is being considered.

This is of great concern for a number of reasons, including the historic and cultural importance of this river to first nations. The Klinaklini is one of British Columbia's key rivers for the oolichan, a small fish which is integral to first nations culture and food. We know that in the Lower Mainland we had extensive consultation, including a series of public meetings related to the Pitt River project. In the case of this project, 30 days to respond to a website. That's totally unacceptable.

Will the government commit today to real consultation with communities and first nations before this project is allowed to proceed?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member should know, the environmental process does call for public consultation and public meetings. That's exactly what took place with respect to another project that received attention earlier this year. But I'm very concerned, particularly given the last question from the member for Port Alberni, that the opposition continues to denigrate efforts by first nations and others to see economic opportunities in their homelands.

Specifically, I'm referring to an

article in the Campbell River Mirror from April 30. The headline is "Chief Sees Red Over 'Green Power' Criticism," and there the chief of the Klahoose is quoted as saying that the NDP…

[ Page 13120 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Penner: …who hosted a meeting in Campbell River perpetuated more myths. "It was appalling, and there was no reference to first nations," he told the Mirror on Friday. "Ultimately, they — NDP — are trying to compromise our economic opportunities."

When will the opposition realize that we need sustainable energy in British Columbia, and first nations should not be held back because of their ideological hostility to green power projects?

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Some 30 days to respond to a website. That's this minister and this government's notion of what consultation is. They know nothing about consultation.

What do the first nations say about this? Well, they got a few responses on their website, and what did they say? "Failure to adequately consult with those affected by this project is a slap in the face to the Kwakiutl people, stewards of this area from time immemorial, and raises doubts about the government of B.C.'s sincerity in dealings with first nations people."

That's what the first nations think about this government. This minister, this government, is concerned only about filling the pockets of their friends who own those private power projects with no concern for first nations.

[1450]

What will it take for this government to quit ignoring the first nations in British Columbia?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: What will it take for this government to quit ignoring communities, stop hiding behind this inadequate process and actually talk to people about this — talk to the first nations, respect the first nations?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. B. Penner: We can see now why major environmental leaders like Dr. David Suzuki went on a CTV national program last weekend to say that he was shocked at the NDP's opposition to carbon tax and other environmental policies.

It's not just environmental leaders who are concerned; it's first nations leaders. Chief Judith Sayers had this to say about the China Creek project, which the NDP are opposed to: "These projects are not only bringing revenue but pride, capacity and hope to a community that had absolutely nothing ten years ago."

There were other projects too that first nations are partnering in, in terms of run-of-river projects, such as the Ashlu project, supported by the Squamish First Nation, which the NDP is steadfastly opposed to; Kwalsa Energy has got a project; the Upper Stave; and near my constituency, the upper Harrison is now going to be receiving clean energy for the Douglas band at the top end of Harrison Lake.

The NDP would have those people deprived — those first nations deprived — not only of the jobs and economic activity, where today 280 people are working, but of clean, renewable electricity that the rest of us take for granted. That's a shame.

TREE FARM LICENCE LAND REMOVALS

IN REVELSTOKE AREA

N. Macdonald: On Tuesday the Minister of Forests…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …had a supposed consultation in Revelstoke on the sale of the Pope and Talbot

section A lands. No official notice to the MLA was given, no official notice to the city, no official notice to the Community Forest Corp., no official notice to Downie Mill — all, coincidentally, opposed to the sale and clearly so.

The consultation process has all the appearance of another B.C. Liberal farce. So that there can be no misunderstanding in this House, Revelstoke rejects completely the sale of the TFL

section 8…. Rejects it completely. Will the minister reflect and respect Revelstoke's wishes, or is the land already sold and the backroom deal already done?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The public meeting in Revelstoke was advertised in the Revelstoke Times Review . I would assume the member has a constituency assistant who actually reads a newspaper and the actual mayor and council can look at their newspaper when a meeting is called in the community. It was held six days later, so there was six days' notice for the meeting. We think that was sufficient, because people did show up, and they did form an opinion.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

FOR FOREST WORKERS

C. Evans: This has been going on for a year. I was standing here a year ago, and I was asking the Minister of Forests to stop the sale of British Columbia lands until we paid the British Columbia workers, until the loggers were paid the two million bucks they were owed and given back their security deposit.

The minister said at the time: "Oh, you're just a socialist. We Liberals believe in private land rights. So that means Wells Fargo bank can do anything it wants,

[ Page 13121 ]

Pope and Talbot can do anything it wants, and you British Columbians can go suck eggs."

Let me make a prophecy.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: Let me make a prophecy for those folks. I'll bet you that the following question is the last question the gentleman that sits right over there ever answers as Minister of Forests.

[1455]

Never again. The people up there know. His own party knows. You know. They know. Everybody knows that's the first Minister of Forests in the history of British Columbia to sell out British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: My question to the minister is: when you're gone, will your government go back to standing up for British Columbians and see to it that we get paid and the land is respected? Or is selling this place in the interest of American banks now Liberal policy forever?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's remind the member opposite of all the great things that this government has done for forestry in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't blow $500 million on a failed pulp mill. We invested $642 million in mountain pine beetle. While you people ignored an epidemic in the Interior of the province of British Columbia, we put money on the ground to fix it. We, this government, solved the softwood lumber deal, something they couldn't do for ten years. We do more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

One more comment, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, 150 first nation communities have had over 33 million cubic metres and $200 million in timber from this government.

And there's one other thing. Next year at this time we'll be sitting here as government, and they'll be sitting there as the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: In accordance with

section 18 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I have the honour to present the British Columbia Railway Co.'s annual report for 2007 and the audited financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2007.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Forest Appeals Commission.

[1500]

Petitions

B. Ralston: I rise to present a petition signed by 1,123 citizens asking that transit fares be made more affordable for working families in the Lower Mainland.

C. Evans: I ask leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

C. Evans: I have a petition here from ranchers in the Quesnel area asking the government to please assist them to get affordable abattoirs in place before they are made criminals for the sale of their meat.

Mr. Speaker: The member has another petition.

C. Evans: I would like to table a petition from citizens and truckers of the Creston area asking for a truck stop with bathrooms at the Creston side of the Salmo-Creston pass so that truckers can pull off the road in a safe manner.

S. Hammell: I rise to submit a petition from 1,038 people who signed the petition requesting affordable, accessible public transportation and to make transit fares more affordable.

D. Thorne: I, too, wish to table a petition to make transit fares more affordable for working families from 350 people in my constituency.

I. Black: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

I. Black: Mr. Speaker, it is my son's birthday today.

Happy birthday, Jordy. I'll be home for dinner. Save me some cake.

[ Page 13122 ]

Petitions

G. Robertson: I rise to table a petition with over 1,500 people calling for strong regulation of toxins in B.C., including right-to-know labelling and, most importantly, protecting our children from the toxins that are poisoning them.

Mr. Speaker: You have another petition.

G. Robertson: I have another petition here from several hundred people in Vancouver calling for fair compensation to the small business owners devastatingly impacted by construction along the Canada line corridor from downtown through Cambie village and out to Richmond.

J. McIntyre: I also ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. McIntyre: Coincidentally enough, it is my daughter's birthday today too. Unfortunately, I won't see her tonight for cake because she's in London, England. I wish her the best and hope the House wishes her the best too.

Petitions

G. Coons: I table a petition with 146 signatures from Prince Rupert expressing their concern, in conjunction with the local school board, that the Minister of Education is not funding labour settlements outside the total aggregate funding amount and that school districts be funded to 99 percent of the previous year's funding.

N. Simons: I present a petition from residents of Gabriola, Galiano, Bowen, Courtenay and Victoria who are concerned about the rising cost of the ferry system and call for its return to reflect the public interest.

As well, I have a number of residents in the Sechelt–Sunshine Coast–Gibsons area also expressing concern about the loss of the ferry system from the public highway system.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Kwan: Visiting us in the precincts today are 27 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's School, along with their teacher and five adults. They were meant to be here and for me to greet them outside on the front steps at about 2:30. Of course, that was when question period was just underway, and I was unable to do that.

With that, I'd like to welcome them. They are here to learn about the history of the Parliament Buildings, the work of MLAs and, of course, the importance of democracy in British Columbia. I ask all members of the House to please make them feel welcome.

A. Dix: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

A. Dix: I would like to welcome to the precincts 40 grade 5 students and ten parents and teachers from Vancouver Christian School in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. They're here to learn about what we do here in the Legislature and to tour all the great sites in Victoria. On behalf of everyone here, I wish to give them the fondest welcome.

[1505]

Motions without Notice

MEMBERSHIP CHANGE FOR

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT

A POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[That Mr. Harry Bloy be substituted for Mr. Dennis MacKay as a Member of the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of the Whole House

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:07 p.m.

section 1.

A. Dix: This amendment, as I understand it, changes some of the approval procedures. I just want to be clear. It grants the approval procedure for the purchase of real property by the commission and the appointment of executive officers of the commission to the minister, another minister — presumably the acting minister or something — and then the deputy or associate deputy to the minister.

[ Page 13123 ]

What's the present situation, and what's being remedied here? Is it the case, as we've seen in some previous statute amendments this week, that there was some delay or problem with going through…? I'm not even sure if it ordinarily goes through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council now. Is that the change? Is it simply to streamline what has become a cumbersome regulatory process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of the amendment is to be consistent with other processes and acts. As an example, members of the commission would be appointed by ministerial appointment. Hence, other processes or actions consistently would be done by the minister as well.

A. Dix: I apologize to the minister. But what is the status quo? What is being changed here? I understand it's being made consistent with other arrangements. What's being changed here?

Hon. G. Abbott: Currently it is an order-in-council, or a decision by cabinet versus a decision by minister.

[1510]

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

A. Dix: My understanding of this

section of the act is that it allows for the power to waive ambulance fees, essentially. I'm wondering if the minister can point to this. I just have a couple of detailed questions.

What is the approximate cost of this process to the taxpayers? I presume what's happening here is that, really, we're just saving the regulatory process. In the case of premium assistance clients, by being able to waive the fee, you're actually saving a bureaucratic process.

How many premium assistance clients pay or have to deal with ambulance fees now? What's the scope of the problem that the government is trying to address? Presumably, there aren't actually any cost implications of this, but maybe the minister could speak to that.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have the number with us, but it would be all of those, I think, who have premium assistance available to them. The effect of this amendment is to relieve them of the obligation to apply for remission. We were finding that there were cases when individuals who qualified either weren't aware that they could apply for remission or they applied for remission too late. There were all kinds of ongoing processes with that group. So this change will do away with the necessity to apply for remission.

A. Dix: It's obviously a very good change. I understand that the minister doesn't know how many cases. Presumably, if it's the case that sometimes people don't apply for remittance, even the estimates of the ministry, in fact, wouldn't be there. How would they actually be identified? Can you just briefly take me through the process? Presumably, they would be identified in the billing process under the Emergency and Health Services Act. So how would they be identified once this system is put into place?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the process of annually distributing MSP premium notices, individuals who fall below the income threshold for MSP premium assistance will make application for that assistance. That would form part of the record in terms of their membership in MSP. If they were then to use an ambulance at some point during that year, the system would flag that, in the sense that a bill would not go out to that individual because they were within the system as a premium assistance client.

[1515]

A. Dix: So the system currently has the capacity to identify all of these cases. Does it have the capacity to identify those cases retroactively to see who has missed receiving, essentially, a rebate or not? Or is this a new aspect of the system?

What I mean is, if you've got the capacity now to do this, and what we're asking now is the legal…. We're authorizing it, and we're providing the legal framework here, but if the minister has the capacity to do it now, based on the system that's in place, for the people who are eligible and receive the premium assistance, would we be able to go back and see who didn't apply, who didn't get the remittance?

It seems to me that if there are a number of those people, it would be a good thing to do. There may be some people…. All of these people would be below the income threshold, so presumably, all of these people would need the money. Is it possible to go back and see if there are a number of these cases where people maybe have paid and could be rebated from the past year or so? Would that be possible from a system perspective?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try this. Up until the passage of this bill and an OIC a few months earlier that made it possible not to bill those on premium assistance…. Prior to that, people would have to self-identify as being candidates for remission of the ambulance bill. They would have to make application for that remission. They will not have to do that in the future.

[1520]

Anyone, though, who has an apprehension that they may have paid inappropriately should identify that to the B.C. Ambulance Service or to the Ministry of Health, and we will make sure that we take a look at their application for remission. If they have missed a benefit that they might have got, then we can advise them of that.

A. Dix: I understand what the law is and what the law will be. I guess my question is…. If we have the means, from a systems perspective, to identify the people eligible for premium assistance, who have paid fees that they could have been rebated for, essentially…. So we have the process, and this is what the bill is improving. The process is: you pay the fee; then you get reimbursed.

[ Page 13124 ]

Now the process is that we identify you as on premium assistance, and the fee is waived. So what I'm wondering is that if we have the capacity…. Has there been a systems change in addition to a legislative change that's required?

It seems to me that if the ministry…. I mean, I appreciate that it's if someone self-identifies, but presumably, if they were self-identifying, they would have self-identified already. If there were a number of people, be it tens or hundreds of people, who are on premium assistance who would benefit from a ministry audit of ambulance fees to get the reimbursement that they should in fact get, would the minister consider doing that in order to ensure that people who paid the fees — who ultimately shouldn't have paid the fees or should have got a rebate for the fees — get their rebate?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is no. B.C. Ambulance Service is in the process of moving from a paper-based billing system to an electronic billing system, and it is not possible to go back through an interface of BCAS electronic system and MSP billing system and identify those who might be candidates because, as I say, BCAS is currently making that transition between those.

However, as I said in my earlier answer, anyone who used ambulance services and who has premium assistance for their MSP should contact either B.C. Ambulance Service or the Ministry of Health or health information B.C. — any one of those organizations — and we could process an application for remission.

I also could note, in response to the earlier question, that an estimated 68,000 individuals and families of low and modest income should benefit from this policy.

A. Dix: I don't want to dwell on the point too much. But I guess that was the question I was asking, really. Is there a systems change that needs to be in place? I guess I wanted to ask when that systems change will be in place, because the minister talked about moving from a paper-based system to an electronic-based system — which is necessary to do. Otherwise, it would be highly labour-intensive.

When is that change going to be in place and fully implemented? Presumably, that would accompany the bringing into force of the legislation. That's the first question.

Secondly, has the Ambulance Service ever done any kind of audit to find out how many people have fallen through the cracks? Would it be worthwhile, in fact, even with a small audit, to provide some estimate of the extent of the problem to see if there are, in fact, a lot of people who might be eligible for a rebate and who didn't get one?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think some of the questions are beginning to go beyond the scope of the bill here. We don't have B.C. Ambulance Service officials here, as we would in an estimates process, to handle those kinds of questions.

[1525]

It's our understanding that there has never been an audit of that character by BCAS. We're certainly not aware of it. I guess in terms of what this bill does, from this point forward — and, in fact, from the point of the OIC, which made provision for this — we are systematically ensuring that anyone on premium assistance doesn't have those bills processed.

It would be difficult to go back in time and be able to identify everyone who could potentially have benefited from this in the past. Again, the best we can do is say that if anyone had that apprehension, they should advise us, and we would process an application for remission.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

A. Dix: The subsequent several sections, essentially, I think, repeal what are called "spent provisions." They are provisions that were addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of June 8, 2007, with respect to the case of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. I don't want to dwell on this too much.

This

section to do with bumping, I think, as I understand it…. The court ruled in the case of bumping provisions. This captures it here: "Viewing the act's interference with these essential rights in the context of the case as a whole, we conclude that its interference with collective bargaining over matters pertaining to contracting out, layoff conditions and bumping constitutes substantial interference with the

section 2(

d) right of freedom of association."

These provisions we're dealing with, so that we understand —

section 5 and subsequently sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 — will have to do with implementing that Supreme Court decision.

In terms of the repealing of the definition of bumping, just very briefly, can the minister explain what the effect of this particular provision is — essentially, the Supreme Court decision that we are bringing the legislation up to date with, which said that this provision violated the freedom-of-association rights of members of the Facilities Bargaining Association?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Supreme Court of Canada, as the member knows, found

section 9 of Bill 29 unconstitutional. This

section on bumping as well as two others were the impugned sections of Bill

Section 9 regulated the bumping process, but was in fact sunsetted as of December 31, 2005.

At that time the government had the opportunity to extend the provision but chose not to. Hence, this

section is no longer relevant in any event for any purpose in the act. It should be noted that the parties in January 2008 negotiated bumping provisions in a new collective agreement.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

[ Page 13125 ]

A. Dix: In this case, again, this is subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that ruled that certain provisions of what was known as Bill 29 — at least in that year — the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act — are repealed.

This particular section, as I understand it, repeals the prohibition against provisions in the health sector collective agreements which restrict, limit or regulate the contracting out of non-clinical services, and it repeals a subsection that voids provision and collective agreements which require consultation with trade unions prior to contracting out those non-clinical services.

We'll just go through these sections fairly quickly. I wanted to ask the minister again what the effect of this

section would be on the current health and social services delivery in British Columbia.

[1530]

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's understanding of

section 6 is correct. To his question, "What of the current agreements?" new arrangements are in place in the current collective agreements.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

A. Dix: Really, it's just the same question here. This is a spent provision, and this is an amendment to a different act, the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act. Perhaps the minister can explain, because this is a 2003 amendment, what's being repealed here and why.

Hon. G. Abbott:

Section 7 applies to the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. It repeals a spent provision, but of the HSSDIA.

A. Dix: Yes, I was looking at

section 8. My apologies to the minister.

Can the minister tell us, though, what the provision did?

Hon. G. Abbott: The original

section 9 of the HSSDIA pertained to layoff and bumping, and it said:

"For the period ending December 31, 2005, a collective agreement must not contain a provision that (

a) restricts or limits a health sector employer from laying off an employee, (

b) subject to paragraph (c), requires a health sector employer to meet conditions before giving layoff notice, (

c) requires a health sector employer to provide more than 60 days' notice of layoff to an employee directly or indirectly affected and to the trade union representing the employee, or (

d) provides an employee with bumping options other than the bumping options set out in the regulations."

A. Dix: These are the sections that essentially gave rights to the employer and took away rights from workers, and they were all presumably dealt with and are spent due to the Supreme Court decision. It isn't the case, as it was with the bumping provisions earlier, that they were already spent. These were in force until the Supreme Court intervened to overturn the government's decision to restrict the freedom-of-association rights or — let's take that out of it — the rights of workers.

Hon. G. Abbott: As noted earlier, these were provisions that were spent, as per the provisions of this section, as of December 31,

Section 7 approved.

[1535]

section 8.

A. Dix: Just briefly, then, on this section. What was it, and what is it? Is this a provision that was dealt with by the Supreme Court or a provision that was dealt with because the particular provision was sunsetted?

Hon. G. Abbott:

Section 8 is a consequential amendment, because the statutory basis for this provision no longer exists.

A. Dix: Well, it's interesting. The statutory basis no longer exists, and it's consequential, but that doesn't explain what it is. So just very briefly, what was it?

Hon. G. Abbott: The original

section 5 set time limitations and other parameters for bumping.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

A. Dix: This particular amendment has to do with the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, which is a different act, but it is, I think, tied up in some of the same decisions.

It repeals "the prohibitions against provisions in designated private sector partners' collective agreements and contractors' collective agreements which restrict, limit or regulate the contracting out of non-clinical services provided at or for designated health care facilities under the Act, and repeals subsections that void provisions in those collective agreements which require consultation with trade unions prior to contracting out those non-clinical services."

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Essentially, one of the things it's voiding, as I understand it here…. The subsection voided the right of trade unions or workers in a particular workplace to receive their rights to consult, in fact. This was presumably further to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which said amongst other things that this represented a virtual denial of the

section 2(

d) right to a process of good-faith bargaining and consultation.

Am I correct in this instance that this decision is a consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada deci-

[ Page 13126 ]

sion, or is it a decision further to other decisions by government?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not sure what document the member is quoting from in the latter portions of his comments. I can advise the member that while the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act was not mentioned in the Supreme Court of Canada decision, nevertheless this Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act does contain a couple of similar provisions or sections to those in Bill 29 that were impugned by the Supreme Court. Hence, out of an abundance of caution, the government has chosen to repeal these two sections as well.

A. Dix: It'll be clear in Hansard that I was quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada decision, but this is not Bill 29. It's Bill 92. Is that right — from a subsequent year? Okay.

Hon. G. Abbott: Bill

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

A. Dix:

Section 10 is an amendment to the Health Statutes Amendment Act. As I understand it, we're going into a somewhat different area from where we've been. We've got three areas to go in this bill. I think the more substantive debate will take place over the enacting of

section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act. But can the minister tell us what this change to the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 — or this amendment — does?

[1540]

This presumably repeals one set of decisions, and I'm just trying to follow through my acts this morning and didn't quite get to it. Maybe the minister could tell us what it is.

Hon. G. Abbott: The impact of

section 10 is that it repeals or corrects an error. This repeal corrects an error in the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, which inadvertently disallowed the disclosure of health-related information to law enforcement agencies when authorized by other statutes such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Medicare Protection Act.

A. Dix: Just as a matter of interest, because I clearly completely misread the intent of the section.... Presumably, it was a mistake. Has the mistake had any effect, or is this just part of a general cleanup of legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: More on the general cleanup side of things. This

section has never been brought into force, so this cleans it up.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

The Chair: Minister, you have an amendment.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll move the amendment standing in my name to

section 11.

SECTION 11,

by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 286, is repealed and the following substituted:

Duty to keep information confidential

(1) In this section, "person engaged in the administration of this Act" includes the following persons:

(

a) each member or former member of the commission;

(

b) each former member of the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board;

(

c) each employee or former employee of the ministry employed in the administration of this Act;

(

d) each inspector or former inspector appointed under this Act;

(

e) each member or former member of an advisory committee;

(

f) any person engaged or previously engaged in the administration of this Act.

(2) A person engaged in the administration of this Act must keep confidential matters respecting an individual beneficiary or practitioner that come to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her employment or duties, and must not communicate any of those matters except as follows:

(

a) in the course of the administration of this Act or another Act or program administered by the minister;

(

b) to communicate prescribed information to a person who

(

i) is a beneficiary and is, or whose personal information is, identified in a hearing under

section 15 or 37,

(ii) provides information to the commission that leads to an audit or inspection under

section 36, or to a determination that no audit or inspection is required under that section, or

(iii) provides information to the commission that leads to an application for an injunction under

section 45.1, or to a determination that no injunction is required under that section;

(

c) to communicate prescribed information to one or more persons if a person is the subject of

(

i) a notice of hearing under

section 15 or 37,

(ii) an audit or inspection under

section 36, or

(iii) an application for an injunction under

section 45.1, and if, in the opinion of the minister or the chair, there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of that information;

(

d) in accordance with

section 33.2 (

i) of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ;

( e

d) for a purpose listed in

section 5 or 18 of the

E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act .]

[ Page 13127 ]

On the amendment.

A. Dix: We're speaking on the amendment, and perhaps the minister can just assist us by explaining the purpose of the amendment. Then we can perhaps vote on that and get through to the main discussion on this section.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that this amendment corrects a drafting error.

A. Dix: Just to understand what the drafting error was. I think what it does is substitute the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Just to understand what it does, I wanted to ask the minister, because that strikes me….

It may well be a drafting error, though you're substituting one act for the other. I just want to make sure I understand what the effect of the amendment is.

[1545]

Hon. G. Abbott: There's a fascinating level of complexity to this. So to satisfy the first question or the most prominent question posed by the member — is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act under the old

section (

d) being substituted for the Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy Act? — that is not a substitution, and I'll explain why.

The old (d) — which reads: "in accordance with subsection 33.2(

i) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act" — is a

section which has been removed on the advice of the commissioner because that

section related to the sharing of information with law enforcement officials.

The member would have to refer back to 49(2)(

a) to read "in the course of the administration of this Act or another Act or program administered by the minister." The advice from the commissioner, as I understand it, is that the law enforcement officials can access that information for purposes of the administration of this act. So once that (

d) was removed at the request of the commissioner, the new (d), which was the former (e), is a drafting error being corrected.

[1550]

Amendment approved.

section 11 as amended.

A. Dix: It does make one wonder whether you should just accept the answer "drafting error," really. Anyway, thank you to the minister for that answer. I'm quite impressed with his ability to get it out.

This

section as amended obviously is a significant

section of the amendment bill the minister is putting forward. We can mention, I guess, the Copeman case, but it deals with a number of really high-profile cases where the commission has recently been making decisions around extra billing.

I think it's fair to say, just reading the commission's report and speaking to people at the commission, that really these investigations into billing practices and their investigations into the billing practices of clinics are fairly new. The case of the decision on the Copeman clinic was one of these moments of absurdity that one sometimes comes up with.

Often, even though everyone knew it was the Copeman clinic, the minutes and the annual reports and so on — be it Copeman or False Creek — don't reflect the fact that the clinics that everyone knows you're talking about are in fact those clinics.

What he's establishing here is a public interest test. Can the minister tell us, first of all…? You can't make these things retroactive. But would the minister contemplate using the provisions of the new

section 49 to let the public know the reasons for the decision in the Copeman case? But more to the point of the legislation, what is the compelling public interest test as far as he and the ministry are concerned — the compelling public interest test that will guide either the chair of the commission or the minister in future to release information about cases?

As the minister will know, I know a number of people who have written letters complaining about extra billing to the commission. As I understand it, under the present policy they're not even allowed to know the disposition of their cases. I guess my question is: what is the standard that the minister intends to use? And would he use the existence of the new legislation, the new openness provided by these amendments to

section 49…? Would he use those provisions to allow the public to understand the Copeman decision?

I think it's important to do because, of course, there are a number of other clinics around British Columbia which are thinking of operating under similar business models to the Copeman model, where you apply a membership fee and get access to both MSP-insured and presumably MSP non-insured services. The argument is that the fee is all about the non-insured services.

I think it would probably be useful in a sense, if only as guidance to the public — there's a lot of public interest in that particular case — but also as guidance in all these other cases, for the public and the profession to understand what the reasons for decision were in the Copeman case.

I guess my first question is: is there an intention ever to publish the reasons for the Copeman decision? Second, and more directly to the point of this legislation: what does the minister see as the compelling public interest?

[1555]

Hon. G. Abbott: First, it's important to note that these amendments are not retroactive. The member references as an example the Copeman clinic and the issues around that. The MSP drew its conclusions some months ago on the Copeman clinic. It was a matter of considerable media interest.

I suspect a shrewd lawyer reviewing my comments at that time would have said that I went well beyond the parameters of the then existing

section 49 in my

[ Page 13128 ]

comments, because I was quite transparent in relaying the reasons for the MSC decision on Copeman at that time.

But because the Copeman decision precedes this change to

section 49, I don't believe there would be publication of any materials beyond what is available in the public record from my comments and perhaps from the comments of the chair of the Medical Services Commission at the time. In fact, I know he made some comments on the record as well. So that would form the record in terms of the Copeman clinic decision.

We will in the weeks ahead be developing the regulations, which will describe the parameters for releasing information. At that point we'll be able to decide which cases meet the test of a compelling public interest to release that information.

A. Dix: So would extra-billing cases — there are presumably a number of extra-billing cases before the commission — or cases that deal with what you would call the protection of medicare principles in the broad sense, which is in the act…? Would those cases, in all cases, represent a compelling public interest in the view of the minister?

[1600]

Hon. G. Abbott: With the passage of this bill in the form currently contained, the changes to

section 49 would provide for disclosure in every case to the complainant, disclosure to the beneficiary and disclosure to those who may have provided information to the commission on the issue but who may not have been the complainant. It would also provide disclosure of prescribed information, prescribed by regulation consistent with a public interest test.

A. Dix: So disclosure to the complainant is prescribed. Would it be the case, then…? Presumably, there would be no constraints on a complainant in releasing information about a particular case. Is that right? Essentially, there wouldn't be any kind of signed agreement between a complainant and the commission with respect to information.

Hon. G. Abbott: I may have lost the member's question here. The information that would be provided to the complainant would be: was there a basis for investigation; does it remain under investigation; and if the investigation has been concluded with findings, what those findings were.

[1605]

A. Dix: In terms of what the minister views as the public interest test, then, and what the ministry would…. We had a little discussion in second reading debate. Although it's always good to relive these discussions, I don't think this is the right moment for it. We were discussing the novelty of extra-billing cases. I talked about it a little at second reading, and the minister did. Really, it's the commission that has said, particularly in the Copeman case…. In fact, one of the reasons why they said it took so long in the Copeman case….

As the minister will know, there was a special meeting of the commission on March 14, 2006, with the Ministry of Health, where they made a presentation regarding the Copeman case. The decision and that issue have been, of course, before the Ministry of Health. There's a lengthy correspondence between Mr. Craig Knight and Mr. Copeman in the nine months preceding the referral, but there was this meeting with the Ministry of Health.

One of the reasons the commission said it took this long in this kind of extra-billing case was that it was kind of a new thing for them. Just reading the annual report, this is further buttressed in 2006-2007: "The…commission has made the pursuit of extra-billing cases its primary strategic goal for 2006-2007 and has developed protocols, including a flow chart and ongoing status report, for dealing with cases that come to its knowledge where extra billing appears to have taken place." In fact, the commission has confirmed that it's a new priority in '06-07.

Further, in terms of strategic planning for the 2007-2008 year, the commission talks about "a primary focus on the development of a comprehensive integrated strategy regarding extra billing to ensure full compliance." This is particularly important since there will be, presumably, cases that parallel the Copeman case, so the reasons and the background of these decisions would be important and in the public interest.

I guess I'm asking the minister: since the complainant will receive some answers as to what happened but surely not a comprehensive answer as to what happened in a particular case, does the minister agree with me that, especially in the initial stages, some of these extra-billing cases and what the ministry or what the commission decides is extra billing will be important in guiding lots of people in British Columbia? Does he agree with me that that class of cases seems to, in his view, meet the public interest test as contained in the new

section 49 and in

section 11 of this bill?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member stated during his discourse something along the lines of extra billing being new in relation to the Copeman clinic issue. Extra billing certainly is not new. Extra-billing issues go back at least until the time of the creation of the Medical Services Commission. I'm sure that pretty much since the advent of medicare there have been issues around extra billing, which at least in more recent times have been dealt with by the Medical Services Commission. So they're nothing new in extra billing. That existed in the 21st century, it existed in the 1990s, and it existed in the 1980s.

What was new with the Copeman clinic was both its corporate and service delivery structure. The member referenced the exchange of information between Mr. Knight, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health responsible for this area, and Mr. Copeman. Much of that correspondence was related to trying to understand how that corporate and service delivery structure existed and whether it existed within the bounds of the

[ Page 13129 ]

Medicare Protection Act. So that's all quite straightforward.

[1610]

We had a long period in which I think the Medical Services Commission focused on audit and on attempting to understand the corporate and service structure of the Copeman clinic. At the time, I said that I wished I could be more fulsome in the information that I could provide but was constrained by

section 49. After the decision was produced, I gave as fulsome a description as I could, notwithstanding the constraints that existed with respect to the then

section 49.

What the member should really contrast this bill with is the very limiting character of the

section 49 disclosure provisions that were put in place by the government in 1995 and were reconfirmed in the Medicare Protection Act amendments of 1996. The final extent to which information will be released will be defined in those regulations.

We didn't go to the trouble of undertaking this legislation so that we could say less. I believe we should say more. I believe that the

section 49 disclosure of 1995 is inconsistent with the expectations around transparency in the 21st century, and that's why we will be moving to the more expansive release of information embodied in this regulation.

A. Dix: What we're on is

section 11 here, just to zero in. The minister talked about the Copeman process, and indeed, the matter was referred to the commission in March 2006, subsequent to a lengthy exchange between Mr. Copeman and Mr. Knight — on behalf of the government of British Columbia, of course, not in his own regard.

What Mr. Knight concluded — and he sent a letter to Mr. Copeman — was that he should cease and desist the practice. Mr. Copeman didn't cease and desist the practice. The case was referred. It took 18 months. As I understand — and I'm sure the minister will correct me if he disagrees — the case was prolonged somewhat, I guess in a good way, by the proclamation of provisions of Bill 92 following the False Creek urgent emergency room fiasco of December of that same year.

Some provisions of Bill 92 were enacted, and that enabled the commission, in fact, to act on that. I guess what I'm asking the minister, though, in a very straightforward way — because public interest exists here; it's the key test in terms of the minister's release of information or the commission's release of information — is whether he can provide the Legislature with any guidance with respect to what that means. That's the question.

He said that there should be more, but does he think, especially in the short term, that extra-billing cases as a group of cases should be the reasons for decision and that those cases should be released? That seems to me to meet a public interest test. Really, that's what I'm asking the minister. Does he agree with that? I'm trying to explore with him, because it's the key element of the provision, how he would define the public interest test.

Hon. G. Abbott: The purpose of this bill is to provide additional transparency in all cases, not just extra-billing cases.

A. Dix: I agree. What the provision of this bill sets out in

section 49(2)(

c) is: "…if, in the opinion of the minister or the chair, there is a compelling public interest in the disclosure of that information." That's one of the provisions of the act.

I guess we should try again just to say…. Does the minister agree with extra-billing cases meeting that public interest test, and how would he describe the "compelling public interest" test?

He's the minister now. There will be other ministers who will, presumably, as these things are, be guided by his actions and his government's actions as minister, once this bill comes into force.

[1615]

Obviously, Mr. Vincent is chair of the commission now, and others will be guided by his definition of what it is. But often in this Legislature we provide guidance to people as to what that public interest is or what a definition means during the course of committee stage debate.

I'm asking a very straightforward question. If the minister doesn't want to answer it in the context of extra billing — which is, I guess, fair enough — can he give us a little bit more information on how he sees that public interest test?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, as we are going to be working through regulation here and as we attempt to describe the parameters for releasing information — we'll be putting regulations in place that will describe the parameters for releasing information — we will be working through that process to decide which cases meet the test of compelling public interest and to release that information.

Beyond that, it is difficult to add a lot more here. What I think we attempt to do, through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and related statutes, is always to strike a careful balance between what should be disclosed to the public through the freedom-of-information side of that equation and what should be protected in the legitimate interests of personal privacy in relation to any given matter.

I've said previously that this bill doesn't just apply to extra-billing cases. It will apply to all cases, and the aim is to have enhanced transparency around these cases. It is difficult to prejudge what we will see in any specific case, but obviously, it is our intent with this bill to add transparency in every case.

I could have simply said: "I'm entirely happy living with the

section 49 of 1995, which really severely limits my opportunity to say anything, because I don't have to say anything." But I wasn't happy with that, so I asked staff to work through a process that ultimately came to statutory life in this bill. The aim here is to add that additional transparency — again, based on all of what we have discussed earlier.

A. Dix: Not to be too circular here, but is it the minister's intent, then, to provide the public with guidance

[ Page 13130 ]

through the regulation on a definition or a framework for compelling public interest? Or in fact, is all we're going to know is that that's the test the chair and the minister will provide?

Really, this is what we're exploring. It's an opportunity for the minister to tell us what compelling public interest is and what it isn't. But if he says we should wait for the regulations, then I just want to ask him whether the public might reasonably expect to get more guidance on what compelling public interest is when the regulations come?

[1620]

Hon. G. Abbott: Our aim in this legislation is to make it possible to release as much information as possible — always again subject to the privacy constraints that exist in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Policy will be developed, along with the regulations, to guide both the minister and the ministry in respect of what can be released and why, and also as a guide to the chair of the Medical Services Commission in terms of the appropriate degree of transparency under this act.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

A. Dix: Just very briefly. To the minister on

section 12: does the minister have any time frame in terms of the bringing into force of

section 11 of this bill — the changes to

section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act?

Hon. G. Abbott: These regulations will have to be developed to bring these provisions into effect, and it will be a high priority for the ministry to develop those.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:24 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. G. Abbott: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 41, the Patient Care Quality Review Board Act.

Committee of the Whole House

PATIENT CARE QUALITY

REVIEW BOARD ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 41; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:25 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:26 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

A. Dix: All of the health authorities have complaint processes in place now. Some of them are a little bit different, but this will essentially, I would guess, set them up in the same standard.

Is it the sense of the minister that these new patient care quality offices set up by the health authorities…? We're not talking about the review side of it but the complaint side of it.

Is it his sense that there will be new staff required and that essentially what will happen is that there will be a new framework but that they'll be largely the same staff who are currently dealing with these issues? Is it the expectation of health authorities that there are cost implications to the legislation that will mean this part of the complaint process will be more robust?

Hon. G. Abbott: We think the difference in staffing between the existing care quality offices and the patient care quality offices anticipated in this legislation will be modest. There will probably be some additional staffing, though, required around the administration of the patient care quality review boards.

A. Dix: I would guess that as the boards need to be in place by October under the legislation, it would be unlikely that a significant change would happen. Is it the sense that the establishment of this process…? Is it the minister's belief…? I guess it's not the minister's belief, if there's a view that there won't be too much incremental cost. This process will in fact initially

[ Page 13131 ]

increase the number of complaints, especially if the process is better advertised.

I think sometimes today it's fair to say that these are very large bureaucracies in the health authorities and that people sometimes feel discouraged about putting complaints forward, which is presumably one of the purposes of establishing this process. As they transform their current offices to receive public complaints, will it be the intent of the health authorities to promote these new structures?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct that one of the things we hope to do through this bill and in conjunction with this bill is enhance education and awareness of the public of their opportunity to not only file complaints but bring forward suggestions with respect to patient care.

[1635]

Every year hundreds of thousands of British Columbians experience care. In some cases, at least, they have advice to provide on how they think that care might be enhanced. So we will want to — through, I'm sure, things like signage and brochures and other information — make the public aware of their opportunity to do that.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

A. Dix: Maybe the minister can just describe what this reporting process will look like. Presumably, we're talking about an annual reporting, or we might not be. We could be talking about a regular reporting.

In terms of care and quality combined, one of the things that strikes you…. We frequently receive complaints of t