2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, October 19, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 7

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tabling Documents

Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2008 Electoral Boundary Redistribution

Office of the Ombudsman, Annual Report 2008/2009

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Diwali

D. Hayer

Famous Five and Persons Case

C. James

Margaret Evans and Rotary Hospice House

L. Reid

Issues for children and youth in B.C.

D. Routley

Communities in Bloom award for Kamloops

T. Lake

Food drives in Victoria and Regina

R. Fleming

Oral Questions

Funding for mental health services on Vancouver Island

C. James

Hon. K. Falcon

R. Fleming

A. Dix

Funding for crisis lines on Vancouver Island

S. Fraser

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Routley

Residential care funding

S. Hammell

Hon. K. Falcon

Access to residential care

L. Krog

Hon. K. Falcon

Ferry fares

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Labour Mobility Act (continued)

L. Krog

S. Herbert

Hon. M. Stilwell

Bill 12 — Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

L. Krog

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

L. Krog

M. Farnworth

V. Huntington

S. Herbert

N. Simons

Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Wood First Act

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

M. Farnworth

H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 9 — Wood First Act

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. G. Abbott

B. Simpson

C. Trevena

D. Donaldson

S. Fraser

N. Simons

G. Coons

D. Routley

V. Huntington

R. Austin

[ Page 1211 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It is my pleasure to welcome my dad, Henry McIntock, and my stepmom, Leanne McIntock, to the House today. Leanne has brought her mom and her friend, Rita Sigvardson and Powell Hansen. Please make them welcome.

I also have a class from my constituency from Claremont Secondary School here today. Mr. Dave Gardner has brought his 25 grade 10 students. Please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Polak: In the gallery today are three very special guests: Bev Batchelor, Jordan Batchelor and his partner, Matt. Bev is a highly esteemed foster parent who has cared for and served children across Canada since 1976. Bev and her family took Jordan into their home when he was an infant and later adopted him as another member of the Batchelor household, which includes five other siblings, two of whom are adopted like Jordan.

[1335]

Jordan is a shining example of a young person who has overcome great obstacles, including battling fetal alcohol syndrome, and is now an anthropology student at the University of Victoria. He is joined today by his partner, Matt.

Would the House join me in welcoming them and thanking them for the positive role they play in their community in serving B.C.'s vulnerable children and youth.

K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to introduce today three good friends and ex-colleagues from CUPE that are here today. Tania Jarzebiak, Bill Pegler and John Malcolmson. Make them welcome, please.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Just to add my welcome, as well, to the members of CUPE. I very much enjoyed meeting with them and having a constructive discussion earlier this morning — along with their president, who is not able to be here.

I'm delighted to also welcome Bill Pegler, Tania Jarzebiak and John Malcolmson. So again, will the House join me in welcoming them as well.

D. Black: I would like to introduce a couple of very dear friends of mine, Anne and Ed Nelson. They're visiting here today, and Anne has a very long lineage to some famous social democrats in this country. She is a cousin of Grace MacInnis, and she is a great-niece of J.S. Woodsworth. Her husband Ed is well known in athletic circles in Vancouver and was a member of many Mann Cup lacrosse teams in the '60s — and is well known in the athletic world.

I would ask the House to make both of them welcome today.

Hon. G. Abbott: Joining us in the House today are representatives from the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians Association of British Columbia. Those representatives include Tim Duerden, who is an applied science technologist and is a chair of the newly formed First Nations Careers Council. I had opportunity to meet with Mr. Duerden earlier today. They are doing some great work in building opportunities for first nations in the province, and I thank him for his good work.

Also joining Tim are the executive director of the association, John Leech, as well as Kerri Trace, who is the technologist today representing the association's TechGREEN program in the province of British Columbia.

Though I know that they have been meeting with other ministers as well today, I want to wish them well in their endeavours and, particularly, thank them for their work on behalf of first nations in the province of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: We have some guests today in the precinct from the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I would like the House to make welcome John Malcolmson, Bill Pegler and Tania Jarzebiak.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the following : Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 2008 Electoral Boundary Redistribution ; the Office of the Ombudsman Annual Report 2008/2009 .

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DIWALI

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, today I would ask you and all members in the House to join me in celebrating Diwali. Diwali, the festival of lights, is celebrated by people of South Asian origin in British Columbia and throughout the world.

Diwali signifies different things to people of British Columbia, as it celebrates Rama's homecoming from an exile of 14 years and his coronation as king. This festival honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, and it is associated with the goddess Kali. For everyone, however, it signifies the renewal of light.

[ Page 1212 ]

Diwali teaches us to end the ignorance that subdues humanity and to drive away the darkness that engulfs the light of knowledge — thus the term "festival of lights." Diwali also projects rich and glorious paths of the human kind, and teaches us to uphold the true values of life.

The Sikh community also celebrates Diwali in the memory of the Sikh's guru Hargobind Ji's contribution in the release of 52 Indian kings from the prison of Mughal emperor Jahangir.

[1340]

However, Surrey Diwali has always been a festival with more than religious connotations. Every year our city hall, with Mayor Dianne Watts and all councillors, host a big event in honour of Diwali. Our Surrey Foundation held a fundraising dinner in honour of Diwali on Saturday to raise funds to help many community organizations. Also, many business and community organizations and all Sikhs throughout the world and all Hindu temples hold events to celebrate Diwali.

The festival is truly people-oriented, where differences are forgotten and families and friends join to celebrate together. Diwali also brings together varying cultures and customs, making the celebration a happy occasion for all British Columbians.

Today I ask all members in the House and all British Columbians to celebrate the wonderful and exciting festival of lights, Diwali. Happy Diwali to everyone.

FAMOUS FIVE AND PERSONS CASE

C. James: Eighty years ago a group of five Canadian women achieved a landmark victory, a victory that would have a lasting impact on our nation's history. On October 18, 1929, after a campaign that lasted eight years, it was ruled that women were legally persons. The Persons Case ruling led to the first woman being appointed to Canada's Senate.

Today I'm honoured to reflect on the legacy of five iconic Canadian figures who were behind that achievement: Nellie McClung, Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby. The Famous Five from Alberta will always have a special place in our history not simply for the victory in the Persons Case but also for paving the way for women's future success and indeed the success for our entire society.

Together these women became torchbearers for women's future political achievements, like winning the right to vote and holding public office. But their example is also an inspiration for all Canadians to push our personal boundaries, to help ensure that everyone in our society has an opportunity to contribute.

I would ask the House today to please join me in remembering and honouring those five brave women who together changed the course of our history. Let us express our gratitude by committing ourselves to build on the legacy that they left.

MARGARET EVANS AND

ROTARY HOSPICE HOUSE

L. Reid: There is a place of hope for those at the end of life. In Richmond it's Rotary Hospice House, a community which honours life, values humility and shares hope. Margaret Evans has been the executive director of Rotary Hospice House since 2007. Her work with Rotary Hospice House, operated by the Salvation Army, continues a family tradition of service.

Born in Santiago, Chile, to Salvation Army parents, Margaret moved to Vancouver when she was seven years old and grew up in several places across Canada. She currently lives in Vancouver with her husband, George. Together they have three grown children and six beautiful grandchildren.

To quote Margaret: "I find it is a privilege to meet so many wonderful, courageous people who come through our doors. I learn so much from their stories and from their lives."

Rotary Hospice House is located at 6460 No. 4 Road. It is a community-based hospice created by the Rotary Club of Richmond and the Salvation Army. It is part of an integrated care program with Richmond Health Services. Their ten-bed facility provides end-of-life care for residents with a life expectancy of three months or less.

Since starting up in February of 2006, more than 273 residents and their families have been served. Funded through Vancouver Coastal Health and the Salvation Army, Rotary Hospice is a non-profit organization that welcomes donations and volunteers from across the land. As well, volunteers serve, and continue to serve, to add that special welcome. "Volunteers add additional supports to our residents," says Margaret.

I would ask this House to join me in recognizing one of Richmond's finest local heroes, Margaret Evans.

Issues for children and youth in B.C.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about youth in British Columbia. With our aging demographic in this province, youth become an ever more precious commodity in our communities. The value of youth has never been greater, particularly in our aboriginal communities, which have a reverse demography where so many in their population are under the age of 26. This is a great opportunity and, unfortunately, an opportunity that is quite often underutilized and underaccessed.

With child poverty rates soaring, we need a strategy to deal with the issue of child poverty. Nutrition for young people is important to their continued success in schools and their ability to access opportunity.

[1345]

[ Page 1213 ]

Local governments include young people on many of their advisory committees. School boards do the same. Youth outreach workers are an essential service to all of our communities.

It's time for British Columbians to make a reinvestment in early childhood education, in child care. Quebec has the best child care system in this country, and they have the highest participation rate of women in the skilled trades, and that has been directly linked by study. Taking care of children is essential to the success of all British Columbians.

I'd like to talk about a few young people. We often see young people through the lens of violence, drugs and gangs, but if you switch that lens around, you'll see optimism, renewal and hope.

Young people like Simon Schachner of the Popular Participation Movement in Nanaimo, a socially active, environmentally active group that challenges all of us to reassess how we live our lives.

Good people like Doug Creba, who is part of the Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society and works closely with young people in Nanaimo.

Steve Arnett, the Ladysmith councillor, is also the executive director of Nanaimo Youth Services Association — and young people like Simon Schachner.

It's our future. We should listen to our future.

COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM AWARD

FOR KAMLOOPS

T. Lake: As home to a wide array of first-class sports facilities, golf courses and as host of many provincial and international sporting events, the city of Kamloops is renowned as Canada's tournament capital. But after an amazing third Communities in Bloom championship, Kamloops can also lay claim to being Canada's flower capital.

In Vaughan, Ontario, earlier this month Kamloops was awarded five blooms and crowned as national Communities in Bloom champion, the second time the city has won the award. The trophy will sit next to the international championship awarded in 2006.

Communities in Bloom is a Canadian non-profit organization committed to fostering civic pride, environmental responsibility and beautification, and to improving quality of life through community participation and the challenge of a national program with focus on the protection and promotion of green spaces.

I know that in the distant past the semi-arid climate of the Thompson valleys led people to believe that Kamloops was a hot and dusty stop on the Trans-Canada Highway. But today we boast about hundreds of kilometres of urban and natural trails, spectacular flower beds and boulevards, the best sports fields in Canada, lush golf courses and parks, and a community that believes in environmental sustainability.

The Communities in Bloom competition is fierce but fun, with activities including the council pot competition — that's a flowerpot competition — in which mayor and council members are teamed up with a city gardener and a local business person to create the most impressive floral display in the major commercial areas of the city.

As a past member of the Communities in Bloom committee, I know just how hard the city and volunteers have worked over the past year to achieve this remarkable success. I want to congratulate committee co-chairs Jen McKinney and Gay Pooler, along with parks manager Shawn Cook, and recognize Kamloops Mayor Peter Milobar and his council for supporting this tremendous effort.

FOOD DRIVES IN VICTORIA AND REGINA

R. Fleming: Over the weekend the city of Victoria had a food fight with the city of Regina. It was not a bun toss; it was not an interprovincial dispute in a cafeteria. It was something that began with the Victoria Mustard Seed Food Bank's executive director, Brent Palmer, when he was at a Food Banks Canada annual general meeting challenging his counterpart in Regina to what was called the first Great Canadian Food Fight.

It was a challenge that both the mayors of Victoria and Regina rallied behind, to get their citizens engaged in a friendly competition for an emergency food drive in their communities to help those who are in great need in our community.

The food fight, as these things can do, did get a little personal. Victoria Mayor Dean Fortin said that he would shovel the snow out of the driveway of the mayor of Regina if his community didn't raise as much tonnage of food as Regina. In return, the mayor of Regina, Mr. Fiacco, promised he would come to mow Mayor Fortin's lawn if his community lost the challenge. Of course, you can mow your lawn in Victoria year-round, so that was an offer that could be redeemed at any time.

[1350]

There is huge growth faced by both food banks. The city of Victoria has seen food bank usage rise by 40 percent this year over last. This was done in a spirit of fun and friendly competition, but it is because the communities must restock their shelves. In my community we now have 7,200 families that rely on the food bank every month. This was, in fact, a very serious manner. Among that number, 80 percent of single mothers in this community, in greater Victoria, who have children under seven are estimated to be food bank users.

That is the challenge of poverty in our community, and I want to thank all of the volunteers and the donors in particular, who came out and worked for 36 hours on this food bank drive. I would like to mention a few of the sponsors, if I could: Save-On Foods, Dodd's Furniture and the Victoria fire department.

[ Page 1214 ]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

C. James: Devastating — that's how the families of mental health patients and experts are describing last week's cuts to mental health services on Vancouver Island. So my question is to the Minister of Health. Why is he ignoring expert advice, and why is he betraying people on Vancouver Island with mental illness?

Hon. K. Falcon: It might be helpful for the member to know that since 2001, the investment in mental health and addictions on the Island has actually increased by 50 percent. It might also be helpful for the member to know that over the next three years, mental health and addictions spending will go up 10 percent on Vancouver Island.

The fact of the matter is that there are still going to be changes. Even with a 23 percent budget increase for the Vancouver Island Health Authority over the next three years — 23 percent increase — there still need to be changes made to ensure fair services across the Island, not just in the southern part of the Island but the central and northern parts of the Island. They are making changes. It is appropriate to make the changes. We will be delivering first-rate mental health and addiction services on the Island.

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

C. James: The minister can call them changes all he wants. These are cuts in mental health services that will hurt people in British Columbia.

The minister is going against all of the evidence that's out there. Report after report has shown that B.C. is failing those who have mental illness: housing and support for adults with mental illness, 2008 report; Victoria mayor's task force 2007 report; the Kirby report, Out of the Shadows , of 2006. All of those reports are clear proof that the B.C. Liberal policies have put more people on the streets.

Again, to the Minister of Health. Taking away supports from mental health patients costs everyone more. Why is this government ignoring the evidence, and why are they putting more mental health patients onto the street?

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that we're not ignoring it. The fact of the matter is that just as recently as March of this year, we added 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria alone. We have assertive community treatment teams that go out into the community, identify those with mental health and addictions, and make sure they are tied into services — not waiting for them to show up in a bed in a hospital. That's actually getting out ahead of the problem and making sure we're dealing with the problem proactively.

Now, I recognize that in the NDP world, any change is apparently devastating. Well, let me tell you that the communities on the central and north Island that are seeing $1.2 million of new services to help mental health and addictions don't view that as devastating. They view that as an important change for equity right across Vancouver Island. That's what we're delivering.

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

C. James: I'd suggest the minister take a little bit of time to listen to the police chief here in Victoria. Here's what he had to say about these cuts: "Our workload will increase. We will see an increase of people on the streets in crisis and in need of care."

[1355]

He's not the only one speaking out. Renowned psychiatrist Dr. Donald Milliken said these cuts are nothing but "short-term political expediency." He said: "There is no clinical justification for these service reductions."

Even VIHA's own officials are admitting that these cuts are damaging. Here's what VIHA's director of mental health and addiction services has to say: "We are raising the bar for entry into acute care services. This will make it harder to obtain services."

My question, again, is to the Minister of Health. Is he saying that these experts are wrong? Why is he knowingly taking an axe to supports for people with mental illness and putting more people out on our streets?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'll tell you what's devastating, and I hope the listeners in TV world hear this too. What is devastating….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll tell you what is devastating for mental health and addictions. When you're an NDP government that promises a $125 million mental health plan and doesn't deliver a penny — zero. Zero. That was devastating.

We have increased, as I mentioned, on the Island the mental health and addictions budget by 50 percent since

[ Page 1215 ]

2001. Those are real dollars, real new services. That's a lot different from the empty promises your party delivered in the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair, please.

R. Fleming: People in my community are entitled to have a Minister of Health who takes it very seriously when our police chief raises concerns about the impact of these cuts on the homeless population, which has doubled under this government. When the former chief of psychiatry says that these cuts could actually cost lives in our community, and when the province's own top doctor, Dr. Perry Kendall, recommends more psychiatric acute care beds and outpatient services, the Minister of Health should listen to them, and he should act.

The province's best medical advice is saying: "Don't do this." The Schizophrenia Society is saying: "Don't do this." Law enforcement, downtown business, the mayor's office — all of them are saying this is not only cruel, but this is economically stupid to do.

So will the Minister of Health listen to them? Will he listen to them, sit down with them and order his CEO at VIHA to revisit these cuts now?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, what I will do is remind them of the changes that have taken place even in the last number of months — 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria.

I will be interested if some of the MLAs from the central and north Island stand up to complain about the increased services they'll be receiving as a result of VIHA making sure that those services are delivered fairly and equitably across the Island. I know that in the NDP world, any change is a cut. Every change must be devastating.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. There are real, additional dollars. They are being spent equitably across the Island, and we will continue to invest in our assertive community teams to reach out to people in the communities, giving them support where they need it and when they need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The Minister of Health knows, or ought to know, that before he made these cuts to mental health services in Vancouver Island…. They are already 100 percent oversubscribed. They are already connected to emergency room supports that cannot handle the flow of mentally ill people in our community using hospital services. This government has cut acute care psychiatric beds in this community by 30 percent since they took office. This makes those situations worse.

[1400]

I asked the minister a simple question — if he will listen to our police chief, if he will listen to community mental health organizations, if he will listen to the top clinicians in our community — and I got that answer. So I will ask him again. Instead of telling them the answer that we just got, will he sit down and listen to people working in the health care system, to people working with the mentally ill in our community, and will he have that conversation and reconsider this decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: Maybe the member should try and listen to the answer and understand why things are changing. I know that in the NDP world, nothing should ever change. Doesn't matter what evidence, doesn't matter what best practices you discover, doesn't matter what you learn, you should never change anything. That's the NDP world.

In the real world…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: …as you learn things, you need to change and adapt the system of delivery. For example, the member should know that assertive community teams go out into the community. They don't wait for them to show up at a psychiatric ward. They go out into the community, identify those with challenges, hook them up with the assistance and support they need, and get them the care they need and the housing they need. That's what an assertive community team is all about.

Also, when we recognize that there is an imbalance between services south of the Island and the central and northern part of the Island, it is appropriate to make sure that you've got services equally accessible across the Island.

I know that the members from Victoria, in their little world, think everything has to happen around their little world. There is a larger island. There is a larger group of people that need services. Vancouver Island Health Authority is making sure that they deliver those services fairly and equitably. That's exactly what they're doing.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Health is engaging in a sad and dangerous experiment here. Every bit of evidence-based research says that there's a lack of mental health services on Vancouver Island, and he's cutting acute care services here.

Now, the minister gets all angry, and he gets all political. His own staff person…. He gets all political….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 1216 ]

A. Dix: His own staff person, his own director of mental health services says…. He talks about evidence-based: "We are raising the bar for entry into acute care services."

Can the minister cite one study that defends this decision, one study that defends the fact that it will make it harder — not easier — to defend services? Can he name one such study today — just one?

Hon. K. Falcon: This from the chief of staff to the former government that delivered zero dollars for their mental health plan.

Imagine if you will, Mr. Speaker, that they announce a $125 million mental health plan and fund it with nothing. That was the chief of staff who signed off on that nonsense.

What we are doing is making sure we've got teams that can go into the community, provide the care, identify the people in the community and make sure they get attached to support services in the community. Yes, that is a change. A change is difficult in the NDP world. It is the right thing to do. That's what the best evidence tells us. That's exactly what they're going to continue to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: All of the experts say that the minister's plan will be a failure for mental health patients on Vancouver Island — all of them.

Now, failure for this minister may mean that he gets to move on to wreck another ministry, but failure for patients means the difference between a life of hope and a life of despair, sometimes between life and death itself.

When will the minister listen to all of the experts, including the people who report directly to him — including Dr. Perry Kendall, the chief medical officer of health for the province — and reverse these irresponsible cuts?

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, let me remind the member again. A 50 percent budget increase since 2001 is actually not a cut; that's actually an increase. A 10 percent increase in mental health and addictions over the next three years is an increase, Member.

Now, according to this member, even with record increases, we mustn't change anything. The fact of the matter is I didn't hear that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, I didn't hear these members jump up and complain when we added 21 new addiction and detox beds in Victoria. I didn't hear these members complain when we put into place assertive community teams to go out and identify those with mental health in the area. That is actually a change.

The reason why they are able to reduce the number of beds is because you can reduce demand as a result of going out into the community, providing supports to people you identify and making sure you hook them up with the services they need. That's exactly what they're doing, and that is the right thing to keep doing.

FUNDING FOR CRISIS LINES

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: Our local crisis lines save lives on Vancouver Island. With no consultation, with no warning, all six community crisis lines on Vancouver Island have been told that as of March their funding is gone. All of the VIHA-accredited organizations have developed trust locally. They know the local issues, they know the local resources, and they save lives. These crisis lines, these life lines, are to be replaced by a generic 1-800 number raffled off to the lowest bidder.

To the minister: why is he abandoning people in crisis on Vancouver Island, and how can he justify risking their lives by shutting down our local crisis centres?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, if you listen to that question, it is quite incredible when we think that we are increasing a budget for the Vancouver Island Health Authority by 23 percent, and we are asking them, as these members apparently support, to make sure they do more with the dollars that are available.

The argument this member is making is that it makes sense to have six different crisis lines as opposed to one that could deal with the entire Island. It is unbelievable. That is exactly what they should be doing at a time when a 23 percent budget increase still has calls for people that want to do more. We are challenging the health authority to be smart with the dollars they deliver. Of course they shouldn't have six different crisis lines. They should have one. I support them. It's the right thing to do, and they'll continue to look for savings and innovation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister's response is appalling. You can yell into the abyss of Liberal duplicity as loud as you want and never get an echo. It's bottomless. The minis-

[ Page 1217 ]

ter's priority should be saving lives, not trying to save a buck.

Hon. Speaker, these crisis lines save lives. They are already established. They've been developed, and they have the necessary trust and the trust of the people of Vancouver Island. They track and monitor those people. They are community-based organizations. They save lives because they are local.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Fraser: And the minister is going to throw that all away for some experimental generic 1-800 line.

Again to the minister: will he immediately reverse these damaging cuts and ensure that our tried-and-true crisis centres, our crisis lines, can continue to do the good work that they do — save lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: There you have it. That's the NDP. Never change anything. The very thought of change is so frightening to those folks. It is unbelievable.

[1410]

He asked why we would engage in a process like this, what examples. Well, let me give him an example. We've actually got a very good example for the members opposite. It's called the 811 HealthLink line, where British Columbians from every part of this province can call a line — 811 — and can speak to nurses in over 120 languages to find out issues associated with health care or H1N1 or whatever the case may be. It's been a great success.

Oh, my goodness. How dare we think about replicating a model like that on the Island? To think that we might go from six providers to one and provide better, more comprehensive service across the Island. That may be hard for them to understand, but it is easy for us to understand because we want to continue better service for the province of British Columbia and Victoria and the Island.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Routley: This minister is ignoring the importance of this local service. The relationship with local mental health providers has saved lives. The fact that these crisis line workers, local workers, know the people that they're tracking…. They build relationships. They build trust. That trust has saved lives.

Is the minister saying that the doctors are wrong? Is the minister saying that those who say that their lives have been saved by that trust relationship are wrong? Is he prepared to increase the risk to those lives by moving to this generic 1-800 number system without consultation?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Actually, what I'm saying is that the member is wrong. The member is wrong because this is exactly the kind of change that we would challenge our health authorities in an era where a 23 percent budget increase — 23 percent….

I am proud to be part of a government, actually, that in the worst economic environment is increasing our health care budget on the Island by 23 percent. But you know, even with a 23 percent record funding increase for Vancouver Island Health Authority, it doesn't mean there aren't more challenges out there.

So they are looking at every service they deliver to ensure that they are delivering it to the fullest extent of their ability to do so. That means that when you have six different crisis lines, it might actually make more sense to have one providing a service across the Island.

The members doubt that. The members opposite doubt that — because any change, of course, they get hysterical. But the 811 NurseLine is a very good example of how that has worked across the province — over 120 different languages — to great success and aplomb recognized across the country.

That's what we're going to be doing with the crisis lines on the Island. That is appropriate.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FUNDING

S. Hammell: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can he explain why he feels that a senior whose income is $22,000 a year qualifies as rich and can afford to pay up to $1,900 more a year for residential care?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is referencing changes we announced two weeks ago. The changes that we announced to the funding for residential care will see 25 percent of low-income seniors see a reduction in the rates that they're paying towards care, and 75 percent will see an increase dependent upon what their income level is.

What we have said is that all seniors in residential care…. That's not supported. That's not assisted. It's residential care.

[1415]

The complex care in residential, what used to be known as nurse homes, will see an adjustment where 80 percent of their after-tax income will go towards their care, with a guarantee that all of them will have a minimum of $275 a month in retained income available. That's the highest in the country — the highest in the country.

But there's one more very important point to do with it, and that is every dollar raised will go back towards providing increased staffing and increased care within

[ Page 1218 ]

those residential care locations to ensure that they continue to have the highest and the best possible care in the country right here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The top daily rate for residential care is the highest in the country. We are charging the highest in the country for our top daily rate. This government's version of making things equal increases hardship on frail seniors with limited income. A fee of close to 10 percent of one's income does not meet British Columbia's definition of fair and equitable.

Will you revisit your decision to target seniors for a $54 million revenue grab?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is completely wrong to characterize it that way. The member is wrong to characterize it that way because as I pointed out in my previous answer, every dollar raised is going right back into the residential care system — every dollar — for increased support, increased staffing, to all of those folks in the residential care system.

Now, apparently the member opposite has a problem with a system that has people paying in accordance with their income. It is interesting to me that in 1993 and 1997 when the NDP increased the rates 47 percent on both occasions….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: On both occasions when the NDP raised the rates in the 1990s, 47 percent each time, the one thing they didn't do that we did is they never reduced them for low-income seniors. We did. It was the right thing to do. It's fairness, and it's equitable, and that's why we did it.

ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL CARE

L. Krog: Now 91-year-old Violet Ferguson languishes in NRGH because there isn't a bed for her at the facility she used to occupy at The Gardens at Qualicum Beach. She's in the early stages of dementia. She's living now in a 90-square-foot room at a cost to the taxpayers arguably of close to a thousand dollars a day, when if she were in the facility that she deserves to be in, it would cost a fifth of that amount.

She wants to go home. It's not unreasonable. My question to the minister, who's so proud of the budgetary increase that doesn't seem to result in any improvement whatsoever in health care on Vancouver Island: can he answer today Violet Ferguson's family and tell them what he's going to do for her in her situation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm actually glad the member raised that, because I can. The good news is that when we — when I, in fact — first got elected in 2001, the average wait time for a residential care bed in the province of British Columbia was one year. That was your record, Member. Today the average wait is between 15 and 90 days, depending on what part of the province you're in.

There's a reason for that. The reason is that we've added over 6,000 new beds to the portfolio for seniors — 6,000 private rooms, better equipment, safer for those that are there — plus another 6,000 that were rehabilitated and renovated completely to make sure that we've got more options for seniors. That's exactly what we've done — over a billion dollars invested to make sure that we have more options for seniors.

[1420]

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The rush to grab more taxpayer money through this government's deceptive HST has once again pushed B.C. Ferries to pile more fare increases onto ferry riders in ferry-dependent communities. B.C. Ferries have said that they need a fare increase to recover the added HST cost. The Victoria Chamber of Commerce recently said that the HST, the increased costs, will put approximately $6 million of upwards pressure on ferry fares.

So my question is to the minister. Fares have increased over 150 percent on some routes since 2003. How high is the minister going to let the fares get, and how many service cuts are on the way for ferry-dependent communities?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's be clear. B.C. Ferries is one of the largest and most successful ferry companies in the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to remind the member opposite that in fact, this government is investing record numbers of dollars — $171 million — to support ferry service in British Columbia, far beyond what that member opposite's government ever did.

I can assure the member opposite that the last group we're going to take advice from about how to run ferries in British Columbia is the members opposite. The last time we saw their work, their boats were being floated on a barge out of the harbour in Vancouver.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 1219 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Petitions

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise to present a petition from residents of Moberly Lake, near Chetwynd, regarding their Moberly Lake Elementary School.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations — and in

Section B, this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 11, Labour Mobility Act.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — labour mobility act

(continued)

L. Krog: I'm delighted to carry on with debate on Bill 11, interrupted as I was by the passage of the lovely Thanksgiving weekend, which I'm sure all the members enjoyed and took an opportunity to visit with their family and their constituents.

As I said in closing debate on this matter on Thursday before that weekend, my sense was that as much as one loves the concept of labour mobility, one has to step back and look at what this bill is talking about in terms of government's ability, particularly with respect to regulations. That is a concern I have raised over and over again in this chamber with respect to this government's almost, I will say, chronic addiction to passing legislation that essentially turns over debate in this province to the cabinet chamber and takes it out of this chamber.

[1425]

The provisions of the Labour Mobility Act include such things as, in

section 5, "A regulatory authority's ability under an authorizing enactment to make a mobility provision includes the power to (

a) amend the mobility provision," etc.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

What we're really talking about here is placing even further down the chain the ability of regulations to be made and changed, which will have the potential impact, notwithstanding the government's protestations, of in fact potentially reducing the level of qualification — and therefore workplace safety — all across the jurisdictions where this act will apply.

Essentially, this act is going to allow the government to designate occupations where workers will almost automatically be granted authority to work in B.C. and use professional designations. It'll allow the government, as well, to order regulatory authorities to change their certification requirements, and without any debate in this chamber.

That debate, such as it might be, will take place behind closed cabinet doors. It's not as if we have the great advantage of that much talked-about supposed liberalization of British Columbia procedure and politics when this government came in, when they promised open cabinet meetings where we'd all get to see what went on. Well, that was fashionable for a little while, but like many things with this government, that fashion soon fell very much out of fashion and is no longer with us.

What we instead have is legislation now before us around labour mobility that will give exclusively to cabinet, without further debate here, the right to make any regulations it thinks, to make orders requiring regulatory bodies to change their certification requirements.

I'm not imputing to this government any impure or wrongful motives. I'm not suggesting for a moment that they won't be working in the best interests of British Columbians or of safety in the workplace or anything of that nature.

What we're really talking about…. Where this bill really has an impact is in the workplace, in the construction industry, in the business of this province. All of that is not going to be debated in this chamber.

I'm not going to have an opportunity to say anything on behalf of my constituents. The member for Skeena isn't going to have that opportunity. The member for Cowichan Valley isn't going to have that opportunity.

But cabinet will — this government, which has through its eight years in power demonstrated an anti-labour bias throughout. We have heard it over and over again from their members in various debates on many topics. This is not the workers-friendly party over there on the other side of this chamber. This is anything but.

This is a government that without fail, wherever the interest of business versus labour comes before this chamber on any occasion — whether by way of bill, debate, policy or public comment…. You can be assured of one thing only. The voice of business will be heard, and the voice of labour will be ignored.

That is the concern of the people I represent in my constituency. The vast majority of them are workers. Yes, they appreciate the opportunity to be fluid — to be able to shift from province to province, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to work — to be recognized for their skills and their abilities in order to support their families, particularly in difficult economic circumstances as we all find ourselves in now.

[ Page 1220 ]

In difficult times my constituents — my workers, if you will; the people I represent; the people whose voice is collectively represented by the official opposition — look to government to protect their interests. They look to government to ensure that standards won't be lowered.

You know, I have no idea how many of the other members have worked in a mill situation or worked in a construction site or been involved with heavy physical labour or worked on sites where there is an element of danger all the time. You rely on your fellow workers. You rely on them to perform their tasks with diligence.

I see the Solicitor General looking up with interest. He gets it. He comes from a long career in policing. If you can't rely on the people around you to watch your back, if you can't rely on their judgment and their skill to protect you in the workplace, to save your life, to be acutely aware of the situation they're in, there is genuine and real danger.

[1430]

Every year I attend a remembrance ceremony to honour injured and deceased workers in my constituency — every year — and I'm conscious of it. I'm very conscious of it.

I've worked in those kinds of situations. I've worked in a sawmill and a pulp mill. I've worked in construction. I understand what it means. The fact is there are no guarantees as I see it here in this bill — no guarantees whatsoever that workers are going to be truly protected; that they will be able to rely on this government to do the right thing by labour standards; that they can rely on this government who, after all, when it came into office engaged in such a dramatic restructuring of worker safety in this province and the diminution of workers' rights.

We all know that employment standards in this province, with great respect to those dedicated public servants who continue to work in that field, essentially are so weakened as to be almost useless.

When you have a problem in the workplace, you go to them, and you're sent back to try and work it out with your employer. Then you can come back and talk to employment standards. That to me represents most clearly why, when it comes to this kind of legislation, I have no trust whatsoever in this government.

When it comes to passing regulations pursuant to this statute, am I going to trust that they'll be consulting around those regulations and around that regulatory power with the construction labour unions, with unions generally, with organizations and groups that represent workers or worker safety? No.

They'll be talking to the captains of industry, as they always do. They'll be talking to people to ensure that the interests of the corporations and the big money interests in this province that fund the Liberal Party…. They're going to ensure that their voices get heard.

But I am not at all convinced that the voices of those who represent their constituents are going to be heard. With great respect, it's not like the opposition will be sitting around that cabinet table. It's not like the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour or the safety officers of various unions or the shop stewards or the people who understand what it means will be around that table, considering what's going to happen as a result of this.

The regulatory powers are dramatic, to say the least. In

section 9 it prescribes: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in

section 41 of the

Interpretation Act ." Sub (2) goes on to say: "without limiting subsection (1)." As a lawyer, I know what that subsection means. The door is not cracked open. The door is pushed fully open until it backs up against the wall. It's as wide as it possibly can go.

"Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (

a) prescribing regulatory authorities for the purposes of one or both of (

i) the definition of 'regulatory authority' in

section 1, and (ii)

section 3 (2) (a)."

Now

section 3(2)(

a) talks about "the applicable BC regulator for the BC equivalent occupation is a prescribed regulatory authority." I don't expect the average person listening to this debate to understand what that means, but I can tell them in general terms what it means. What it means is that, again, this government gets to make all the decisions without any reference to this chamber or the interests of workers.

Subsection (b): "prescribing occupations and classes of occupations for the purposes of

section 3 (2) (b)." In other words, we get to decide to whom this legislation actually applies. So it's not like the member for Nanaimo gets to stand here and get another kick at it. When I'm finished second reading debate on this, and once we've gone through committee stage, I'm done. I don't get to speak for my workers any more on this.

The Solicitor General does, the Attorney General does, the Minister of Environment does, and the Minister of Health does. Are they going to be listening to the opposition? Are they going to be phoning up the member for Nanaimo or the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan and saying: "What do you think about this? Do you really think we should include this prescribed class? Is this a good idea?" I rather doubt it.

[1435]

When we talk in 3(2)(b), it makes reference to 3(2):

"A worker who holds a certification in relation to an extraprovincial occupation may, if there is a BC equivalent occupation, practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia without obtaining the certification referred to in subsection (1) (b) (i), but only if…(

b) the BC equivalent occupation is a prescribed occupation or an occupation within a prescribed class of occupations, or (

c) certification is not required to practise the BC equivalent occupation in British Columbia."

Subsection 9(2)(c): "respecting the form and content of applications…." That's fairly innocuous. Of course

[ Page 1221 ]

the government is going to want to know what goes in its forms. It's just that we don't get to see what goes in those forms.

Subsection (d): "respecting information that must be collected and maintained by each applicable BC regulator respecting applications for certification under this Act." What we know happened under George Bush in the United States is that he didn't take on interests opposed to the Republican Party head-on. He just stepped quietly back — regulatory changes, presidential directives or, even better, just didn't do anything, just stopped funding.

There's nothing here that requires the government to take the steps necessary to ensure that standards for workers are in fact maintained and — indeed, I would argue — enhanced to ensure that in British Columbia we not only have high standards, but we should have the highest standards.

We know that in particular in a number of industries in this province, there's a high risk rate. The death rate is quite extraordinary. So when I stand here, I want to be assured, and I'm not assured by anything I see here. I want to be assured that people are protected.

Section 9 goes on to provide that the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations as follows:

"(

f) respecting the information that an applicable BC regulator must provide to an applicant referred to in

section 3 (1) (

a) in relation to the application, including regulations respecting the timing within which and the format by which that information must be provided; (

g) respecting any rules, orders, forms and directions that may be desirable for carrying out the provisions of this Act or for regulating procedure or establishing practice under this Act."

Hon. Speaker, I suspect you are getting the picture. I've got in front of me a bill that runs to a total, not including the cover page, of 14 pages. I can't begin to imagine what the regulations under this act will look like if it's passed in its current form. I can't begin to imagine what the government may do or — even more importantly, arguably — what the government may fail to do because of its incredible bias against working people as I referred to in other examples earlier in my remarks today.

They can even prescribe, under (h): "if the parties to the Agreement have agreed to attempt to arrive at common certification requirements for an occupation, exempting that occupation from the application of this Act." So where's the commitment?

"We've passed the act. We want everyone to comply. Oh, and by the way, if we can't agree on certification, then we're going to exempt it." So some workers get to travel, and others don't — if the purpose of the bill is in fact to make it easier for workers; if this is designed for protecting workers; if this is designed to enhance the rights of workers; if this is designed to make it better for workers. That's certainly the cloth in which this government has clothed this statute. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Then there is always that lovely catch-all, the one that lawyers love to hear: can make "(

i) regulations considered necessary or advisable for the purpose of more effectively bringing into operation this Act and to avoid or remedy any transitional difficulties encountered in doing so." This is handing over to government virtually everything. This bill becomes, with these regulations, almost a bit of a joke.

Subsection (3) provides: "In making a regulation under this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make different regulations in respect of different occupations or classes of occupations or in respect of different regulatory authorities or classes of regulatory authorities."

And it even goes on further in (4): "Regulations under subsection (2) (

i) may, for a period the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies, suspend the operation of a provision of an enactment if that provision would impede the effective operation of this Act."

[1440]

I'm just a simple guy. I read this section, and I look at it, and I look at it, and I read it over again. I just want to repeat. It provides that "regulations under subsection (2) (

i) may, for a period the Lieutenant Governor in Council specifies, suspend the operation of a provision of an enactment if that provision would impede the effective operation of this Act."

In other words, if we've got a complaint from the province of Alberta that this act is somehow hurting their workers, notwithstanding that we've got good legislation in the province of British Columbia that may be designed to protect workers, this government, under this specific provision in this act gets to say: "No, it doesn't matter. No, we're going to suspend it. We can do that. Do we have to come back to the Legislature and ask for permission? No, that's a cabinet decision. It's all regulatory. It's all regulations. It's all orders-in-council. No, we don't have to ask for anything."

That's because this bill is so utterly consistent with the contempt which modern parliaments and legislatures in this country show for not only the parliamentary traditions of our political system but also the people of the country and the people of this province. It is this belief structure that says: "We want the general permission, and then just trust us. We'll go in, and we'll make all the regulations. We assure you, trust us, that they'll be in everyone's best interests, that this will just be fine, that this won't hurt anything. Trust us. We'd never do anything like that. Goodness gracious, no. We're the government."

You know, my dear friend Charlie Wyse, who used to sit in this chamber…. It's a bit of a joke. The other side may find it surprising. He said that the most frightening statement in the world was: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you."

Well, hon. Speaker, it puts me in mind of what this bill says. "We're the government, and we're here to pro-

[ Page 1222 ]

tect you. We're here to assist you. We're here to ensure that you can move across the jurisdictions covered by this agreement and that everything will be fine, that you'll be just as safe in British Columbia as you will be in Alberta."

All of us know and understand that the trend of modern government and particularly right-wing governments…. I think it's fair to say that this government could be characterized as right-wing. I don't think even they would wish to disagree with that. It's an appellation I suspect they're rather proud of. They want to be associated with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They want to be associated with the opening-up of the marketplace and the destruction of regulation, the freeing of the forces of the market to look after everybody.

You've heard the phrase, hon. Speaker: a rising tide raises all boats. Of course, they never have any comment about the people who aren't actually in the boats or those who fall out or those who have no chance of getting in the boat, whether through disability or age or infirmity or other problems. They never talk about that.

What this act continues is this pervasive view that we just want to open it all up. We want to give up control of our institutions and our regulations and our public safety, if you will, to a marketplace that's supposed to protect all of us.

I would have thought that after the last provincial election, after the fiasco of being told over and over again that the deficit was only going to be — do the members have to hear it again? — $495 million and not a penny more, which instead turned out to be, well, $2.8 billion…. There's another zero and a little multiplication involved in there. Of course, that doesn't begin to take into account the fact that if we weren't getting the HST bribe in this year's budget, it would be $3.5 billion.

I would have thought that in light of the economic crisis, which even right-wing commentators agree now was a result of a failure of regulation, notwithstanding that intelligent, capable public servants in the western world generally and most particularly in the United States advised their governments and warned their governments in congressional hearings about what was going to happen…. Notwithstanding all that, in pursuit of an ideological agenda the United States continued to deregulate.

[1445]

Here we're just part of that great scheme with Bill 11. We're carrying on. We want to talk about labour mobility. Great, hon. Speaker, but I got no guarantees in this legislation — none whatsoever, nada — that say that workers are genuinely going to be better off as a result of this.

I'm not entirely sure that the next step will make business better off, necessarily. I mean, where do the standards go? Where, in that lovely long list of regulatory powers that I've read out in this chamber today, is it that there's some promise of a better British Columbia? Apart from the opening remarks of the minister, where's the promise?

We've heard a lot of promises in this chamber in the last eight years. I can't even remember all of the golden goals, but I can tell you this much, hon. Speaker. I think, by general agreement, we haven't reached one of them yet.

For starters, they've spent all the gold, and now we're so deep in hock in this province that it's beginning to get to the point where I think even the ministers, when they stand up and talk about the dismal decade, are feeling just a tiny bit embarrassed by their dismal record of fiscal management.

The three biggest deficits in the history of the province — two of them fall on this government's shoulders, and the other was a Social Credit government, their political predecessors. My gosh, until the last election we even had some of those political predecessors, who were Socreds, sitting in this House as Liberal members.

So what do I smell, and what do I see? I see something I don't trust. I see a concept of labour mobility that I like, but I don't see a guarantee of standards that will protect workers and will also ensure that when the businessman in Calgary hires someone from British Columbia, a worker from B.C. — or the protection for the businessman in Chetwynd who hires somebody from Swift Current or from north Edmonton…. I don't see the guarantee that when they hire that worker and look at that certification, they're going to get the same thing.

You know, when I go into a Save-On store and buy margarine or butter, and it's got a brand label on it, I'm relatively confident that if I went up to Parksville to a Save-On there or down to Victoria, I'd get the same quality. I'm relatively assured of that. I'm relatively comfortable in that concept. But I'm not comfortable in that concept under this bill before this House that that's, in fact, what we're going to get.

I suspect — and workers quite rightly fear, and people who work in industry, generally, quite rightly fear — that we may see a diminution of standards. If there is one thing that we are learning today, as our businesses try and compete with China and India — the growing powers on the planet — it is that we cannot win with weaker standards.

We cannot win with lower labour standards; we can only win with skills and knowledge and technology working in conjunction. We can only win if workers and business get together, as they have at Harmac in Nanaimo. They can only win if they get together, cooperate and drive it forward for the benefit of all of us.

I come back to it. There is nothing in this act that satisfies me or satisfies the opposition that we are going to move to a higher standard, that we are going to ensure a consistency so that you know that when you hire that

[ Page 1223 ]

carpenter in Edmonton, they'll be able to deliver the same high-quality product that they do in Nanaimo, when you hire that electrician in Swift Current or Red Deer, they'll deliver the same high-quality work they did a month ago in Fort St. John.

I would have thought, particularly with reference to the construction industry…. When you look at the disaster of leaky condos in this province, thousands — indeed, tens of thousands — of British Columbians have seen their savings, their homes rot away in front of them with no recourse. Now, as a result of this government's actions — no recourse even to a loan program, no recourse whatsoever — we are going to suggest that what workers do isn't important, that having skilled people working on projects isn't important.

[1450]

Hon. Speaker, you don't have to look far around this planet to see what happens when there's a lack of standards and certification in education of the people who put up buildings, for instance. We have seen, with numerous natural disasters within the last few years, the consequences of that — fast-growing economies where it's all about the buck; children, elderly dying in collapsed buildings.

That isn't just some engineer's fault. It isn't just some contractor's fault. It also reflects on the quality of the people who are working. It reflects on the workers as well. Most of the working people I know, the people who work in trades and in professions, take pride in what they do. They want to be assured that when they go home, they've done a good job; that whatever they construct is going to stand; that whatever service they delivered will in fact be the service that someone required and needed. They want to be assured that there's pride in their profession or their calling or their trade. They want to be assured that it means something.

You know, for years we've talked in this country about the enormous respect given to trades in Europe, as an example. Yet somehow here there's still this prejudice that if you've got some sort of professional certification, you're somehow better than a worker. Somehow the electrician isn't up there with a naturopath or a doctor or a lawyer. They're different qualifications, but never doubt for a moment that they don't each contribute something important to society.

When I see this bill, what I see is legislation that doesn't speak to that higher calling, if you will — that doesn't speak to ensuring that we get the best in every jurisdiction to which this bill, arguably, is going to apply, in the sense that our workers will be going to other jurisdictions looking for qualification and will be given, presumably, qualification.

My plea today, I think, by now is pretty clear. We want good standards. We want standards we can trust. We want standards that are debated here in this House, not in the cabinet chamber. We in the opposition are tired of seeing this government consistently ask us to pass bill after bill after bill that tosses all the decisions over to their side, where they can meet behind closed doors with their political friends and make decisions that impact on the lives of thousands of British Columbians who work in various professions and occupations and the tens of thousands of British Columbians who are going to need the services or buy the goods and products produced by those workers.

I think that in the 21st century we can do better in British Columbia. I would have expected something more. I would have expected this government to show the respect to the people who will be covered by this statute that those people deserve. That, it is apparent to me, is not being shown by this government. They will consistently try, until they are tossed out of office, to pass regulation after regulation pursuant to statutes in a power given to them that is unreasonable.

Hon. Speaker, I am delighted to have had this opportunity to speak to this debate.

S. Herbert: I rise today to speak about Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act. I want to talk just a moment about the title. Labour mobility — certainly something that I'm a fan of.

Many of my constituents receive jobs all across this country, and a number have moved into Vancouver to follow jobs and have set up shop in the West End because they love the constituency so much. They love the neighbourhood so much. We certainly want to ensure that we can help as legislators to ensure that it's easy enough to move from one jurisdiction to another. I think that's something we need to do.

Now, the other possible title for this bill, I guess, could be, though — and this is where I have concerns — the "Qualifications might not be necessary" act.

That's the concern that I know my colleague from Nanaimo raised, which is that when you're doing the labour mobility with these regulations, which we can't see because cabinet is going to decide upon them behind closed doors, you might end up in a situation where in one jurisdiction the bar is set so low for you to become qualified in that career, in that occupation….

Then you want to come to B.C. You come to B.C., and they have to accept the very low standards that might exist in another jurisdiction, which lowers the bar for all B.C. workers who've put in the time in university, in trades colleges, etc., to gain the skills so that they can do their jobs in a way that builds the business they're working in — or the non-profit or the social service agency — but also builds the confidence of their colleagues so that they know they're speaking a similar language in terms of what the trade might be and that they can work together.

[1455]

Now, I certainly think this bill addresses an issue which has come up a few times. I haven't had constituents

[ Page 1224 ]

clamouring at my doorstep to get these changes brought in. When I've raised it with them — a number who work in the regulatory fields, which this bill applies to — they were surprised to hear about it because consultation has not been done with a large sector of the population that this bill will affect, and that is concerning.

I think that oftentimes with laws there are unintended consequences. Now, some people I know say that there will be an intended consequence of this bill, which is a lowering of standards so that you have to pay less money to ensure standards are regulated because the standards will have lowered so much in a race-to-the-bottom kind of approach.

As government, I think it's our duty to be doing what we can in a race to the top, so to speak, where we work together with colleagues across the country to raise the standards so that we all have similar standards which work for workers, which work for employers and which work for the provinces, because we all are affected.

We all are hurt when a worker is hurt. It's a figure of speech. But I believe it is very important that we recognize that the rules we set up in this place affect all of our constituents, affect all of this province, so we need to treat these debates and these discussions with the due diligence that is required. That's why I'm so concerned about the amount of regulations which are going to be left to the cabinet behind closed doors.

That makes it very difficult for the job of the opposition, which is to pick them apart, look at them — and for the public, who also want that involvement and want that ability — to actually see what's going on and be able to point out where there are problems, where there might be unintended consequences. That leads to the suspicion — when you hold the public out, when you keep them out from being involved — that we might believe there could be intended consequences, which is a lowering of standards.

Government behind closed doors doesn't lead to good decisions — generally does not lead to good decisions. Once in a while there'll be one that comes through which you can look at and go, "Okay, they needed to make this decision for a very specific reason" — for safety of an individual or something. There are reasons for some of this discussion.

But regulations which determine who gets to work where in the country, to me, seem like something that should be debated in the open, so that we know if we're going to be seeing a lowering of standards for social workers, for example, so we know whether or not we're going to see a raising of standards in some sectors. I would hope that this bill could lead to that, but with the way it's structured and how it's so unclear, it very well could lead to a lowering of labour standards.

That's also a lowering of standards in terms of what an employer can hope from a worker. In the goal of labour mobility, we may be actually throwing away some of the best things that we've got in terms of qualifications required in our province, but we also may be harming businesses and harming the average worker as well.

That's something that concerns me greatly. I would hope it would concern the government enough that they would actually show us what they planned on doing in terms of these regulations and that they would be done in an open and accountable way so we could all debate them.

The Finance Minister in his budget in February said one thing, which I think sticks with me, about the role of government. He said it all comes down to one thing, and that is confidence. Do you have the confidence that you can move forward and that government will fulfil its promises?

After the election I would bet it's very hard to find a British Columbian who has confidence in this government's ability to follow through on its word, whether or not that's the HST, the budget deficit, protecting health care and education — all these things which they said that either they wouldn't do, in terms of the HST or the massive deficit, or that they would do in terms of protecting education and health care. All those promises have been broken. We've seen the outrage and the feelings of betrayal.

Now, with

an act like this, the government isn't — and I give them the credit — promising that they will have higher labour standards, because I guess they know that would be a big stretch for them. Nobody would believe them at that point.

[1500]

I say that as somebody who's watched this for a good long period of time in terms of how this government operates but also just speaking to my constituents, who generally provide me with a good barometer of where the government stands on certain issues. That's not one that they're remembered for, except remembered for betrayal of torn-up contracts and that kind of thing.

It does make it hard for me to have confidence — that one word, "confidence" — in this bill, that it will lead to greater mobility but will actually lead to greater standards and more safety for workers, more skilled labour, more skilled workers in professions, as I would hope a bill such as this would do.

I come back to: do you call it the Labour Mobility Act, or do you call it the "Qualifications might not be required act"? They're both possible readings based on what's contained in the legislation.

I look forward to the committee process, so we can get some of these answers, hopefully, on the table to have that discussion.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I also would ask government, when it's bringing more legislation to this House, to actually bring substantive

[ Page 1225 ]

legislation which tells us what they're going to do, which opens the door, which provides the opportunity for British Columbians to have that debate, to have that discussion, to have that second look. As we all know, when we open the door to the people of B.C. for their ideas and their support and their suggestions, we're all stronger for it.

I would hope the government would recognize that finally. We shall see, as more bills are introduced in this session.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Advanced Education closes debate.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 11, the Labour Mobility Act.

I've already spoken to the many benefits that this bill offers, not only to British Columbians but to all Canadians. Our province and our country are part of the international marketplace. To be successful, we need to be able to maximize our most important resources — our human resources, and specifically our skilled trades and professions.

Labour mobility is not, as some have asserted, a race to the bottom. In fact, all employers know that highly skilled and trained employees are vital to their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. Mobility is a truly democratic ideal, one that enables each and every skilled worker with the choices essential for their success.

When I introduced Bill 11, I spoke about the need to support British Columbians, to help them succeed through difficult economic times. I would like to quote the current Secretary General of the UN: "Human mobility makes our economies more efficient, even when they are not growing, by ensuring that the right skills can reach the right places at the right time."

It was also encouraging to hear others in this House speak to the benefits of this bill. The remarks of one member, in particular, resonated with the principles that we considered when we drafted this legislation. Here's what the member for Surrey-Newton said: "Labour mobility within the provinces and territories — who could disagree with that? I fully agree that labour mobility makes sense across provinces. There's no question about that."

Those strong words of support for what we are trying to achieve with this bill…. It is clear that labour mobility is a concept that people of all political stripes can get behind.

Across Canada, other jurisdictions have been adopting their own labour mobility legislation, ensuring their residents are given this opportunity. B.C. has been a leader, a champion of labour mobility, while the new national agreement was forged. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce acknowledged our efforts, calling our legislation "yet another proactive step for the provincial government, who continues to show national leadership on the issue of labour mobility in Canada."

Labour mobility is also gaining strength internationally. Just a few weeks ago, India and Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding on labour mobility. This is just the most recent sign of a global cultural shift where people are able to take their skills and talents to those places where they want to be and where their abilities are needed. This is the wave of the future.

If countries in different continents with vastly different cultures, languages and educational systems can reach agreement on labour mobility, then we can certainly do this across Canada.

In closing, I'd like to quote Paul Hoffman, who founded the Committee for Economic Development back in 1942. What he said then still rings true today: "The full potential of labour can be utilized only if there is mobility in labour."

To that I would add that it is our responsibility to ensure every British Columbian and every B.C. business has the opportunity to find the best match of skills and talents necessary to succeed.

[1505]

Now is the time for us to act for our province. Now is the time to move forward with this legislation. With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Labour Mobility Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 12, Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

bill 12 — ombudsman

amendment act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: It's called the Ombudsman Amendment Act, but with its passage we will see the passage of the use of that term.

This is a short piece of legislation, but I suppose and would suggest, in a certain way, somewhat historic. Technically, what this bill does is amend the Ombudsman Act by changing all references to the position of Ombudsman from Ombudsman to ombudsperson. That includes numerous changes to the act itself and changes to the title as well as consequential amendments where the term exists in other pieces of legislation — other statutes.

There are transitional provisions included in this short bill that will ensure that other documents or legal instru-

[ Page 1226 ]

ments that refer to the old position of Ombudsman are deemed to refer to the new act and the new title and the position.

We heard earlier in the House today — from, I think it was, the Leader of the Opposition — a private member's statement referencing the anniversary of the Persons Case. That is a relevant reference when we are embarking upon a change of this sort.

Also, I am mindful of the fact that the position of Ombudsman, soon to be ombudsperson, has existed in British Columbia for 30 years. Indeed, this is the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the office of the provincial Ombudsman. It is also, I am told, the 200th anniversary of the creation of the first Ombudsman position in Sweden.

I am grateful to the present Ombudsman, soon to be ombudsperson, Ms. Kim Carter, for calling the government's attention to both the anniversary and this very appropriate way to commemorate that anniversary by making the change that this bill purports to make, or would make upon passage.

Ms. Carter, as the present Ombudsman, has made, I think, a compelling case for modernizing the title of the act and the title of the position. The term "ombudsman" is a Swedish term — not, I am told, gender-specific in that language.

I was thinking of that old commercial that used to apply to a well-known Swedish company, Swedish for common sense. Much of what the ombudsperson does and will continue to do is rooted in the principles of common sense, ensuring that procedural fairness exists for all citizens; where there has been a failure — as we sometimes say, someone has fallen through the cracks — of the large organizations that exist, that at the governmental level there is an agency and a specific person to whom they can apply, to whom they can make a case for subsequent investigation to ensure that they have, in fact, been dealt with fairly at every stage of the way.

I think that my sense is that in this House there is widespread support for the change that is proposed here. I am grateful to members who have articulated that support to me privately and grateful to Ms. Carter for calling attention to the anniversary and the opportunity that it presents to present this legislation and this change for consideration by the House.

[1510]

L. Krog: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

Lest the Attorney General start to quake in his boots, I don't intend to debate this very long, but I do think there are some points that need to be made with respect to this.

First off, I will support the bill, brief as it is — which raises the first question. Why, when we have a misc bill before the Legislature, is it not included in that?

I can understand, having missed some of the Attorney General's earlier comments, that perhaps the reason is to do honour to the office and the importance of it and the anniversary of it. I can understand that. But in difficult financial times the average taxpayer might well take a different view of it.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't point out that for most British Columbians…. I doubt very much that they took the term "ombudsman" as a term carrying any gender bias, prejudice or comment within it. I think most British Columbians who are familiar with the office and appreciate its enormous importance understand that the term in the native language from which it comes was in fact non-gender-specific.

Having had the great honour to sit on the committee that recommended to this assembly that Ms. Carter be selected as the Ombudsman for British Columbia, I am acutely aware of the skill, the talent, the ability that she brings to this office and her significant personal achievements in her previous career. She is a woman who has broken the glass ceiling on several occasions during the course of her career and is to be honoured by this province.

But I do want to make the point, as I said, that I'm not entirely sure this is going to improve British Columbia. I'm not entirely sure it's worthy of a separate act. I'm not entirely sure that it is going to add much to the language, because with great respect, the term ombudsman just has a nicer ring in the ear.

I'm afraid to say it. Ombudsperson sounds, frankly, awkward. We can pretend it doesn't, but it doesn't roll trippingly off the tongue. One can't imagine Percy Shelley coming up with this term. One can't imagine Margaret Atwood coming up with this term. Nevertheless, it is the term that from henceforth…. Assuming this bill passes — and I suspect it will — that's the language we're going to use in British Columbia.

Assuming that it's consistent with what's happening in other jurisdictions, there's no need to delay its passage. But I must say, as someone who represents the constituents of Nanaimo, where Pat Barron waged a great battle some years ago and was a strong supporter of the creation of this particular office in this province, there will be some who will look back with a certain sense of affinity and nostalgia on the passage into history of the term ombudsman.

Particularly speaking for myself, as a Norwegian — and the well-known love that exists between the Norwegian and Swedish peoples, of course — I nevertheless will on a personal level miss the passage into history of the term ombudsman.

As some of the members earlier in question period…. I believe it was the Minister of Health who said: "The NDP is always opposed to change." I found that quite shocking. I thought we were always the supposed engine of change. We were always on the cutting edge of change.

[ Page 1227 ]

We were always the people who were calling for change, and now we're being accused of being opposed to change. I just wish the government benches would get it straight. I mean, are we, or aren't we? Are they, or aren't they?

On this particular occasion I'm going to go with the change. So concluding my remarks speaking to Bill 12, I will support the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, then history is being made in more ways than one, as the hon. member embraces change — on this occasion, at least. I am grateful for his remarks. I appreciate him sharing candidly some of his observations about the change that this represents but do commend to all members these provisions and the change that they represent.

[1515]

It's always a little bit challenging for people to embrace new terms, but this is one that I suspect British Columbians will embrace enthusiastically and wholeheartedly, understanding, as they do, the important symbolic value that this change represents.

With that, I will move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 12, Ombudsman Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: As is customary at second reading — and I call second reading and move second reading of Bill 13 — I will provide a rather technical description of the provisions that are contained within the bill, recognizing that some of these provisions have attracted a measure of attention and will undoubtedly be the subject of further conversation at some point in the debate process.

For the purpose of completeness and as is the custom in this chamber, if I can take a moment to list what the bill purports to do and what statutes are purported to be amended here. They are as follows.

Amendments to the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. Those provisions enable the incapacity-planning provisions of that act relating to advance directives, enduring powers of attorney and representation agreements to be brought into force independently of the adult guardianship provisions.

There are amendments to the Assessment Act that will ensure that new strata accommodation properties are split-classified where applicable to reflect actual use for both residential and commercial purposes. Those same amendments, or amendments to the Assessment Act, also broaden the definition of "eligible supportive housing property" to include those funded by regional health authorities.

There is an amendment to the College of Applied Biology Act which will give the Minister of Environment authority to ensure rules of the College of Applied Biology are not in conflict with the labour mobility objectives set out in the B.C.-Alberta Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement.

There are, as well, amendments to the Health Professions Act that will do a number of things. First, they will serve to clarify that forms established by a health profession's college registrar for use under college bylaws are subject to the same ministerial oversight as bylaws made by the college board.

Secondly, these amendments will clarify the authority of the Minister of Health Services to disallow bylaws relating to the renewal, suspension, cancellation and reinstatement of the certification of certified non-registrants.

Thirdly, they will amend a provision related to the disclosure of personal information, which is, I am advised, redundant due to the protections provided in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which will continue to provide the necessary level of protection related to the disclosure of information to third parties under information-sharing agreements with health professions colleges.

There are amendments to the Judicial Compensation Act. Those amendments change the composition of the triennial Judges Compensation Commission and the Judicial Justices Compensation Commission to increase lay representation on both commissions. Those changes support and strengthen the independence of the commissions and broaden the participation to members of the public unconnected in the traditional way with either the bench or bar.

An amendment to the Ministry of Environment Act will authorize the continued publication of personal information, such as the names of individuals and circumstances of violations, in the ministry's compliance-and-enforcement summaries to ensure that the public is provided with timely information about the compliance-and-enforcement activities undertaken by the Ministry of Environment.

[1520]

An amendment to the Medicare Protection Act clarifies the definition of "prescribed agency" to ensure the

[ Page 1228 ]

Medical Services Commission has clear authority to continue to audit doctors and health care practitioners for claims made against a corporation such as ICBC or WorkSafe B.C.

There are amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which will provide the municipalities of Vancouver, Richmond and Whistler with temporary enforcement powers during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The legislation gives them the authority to act quickly to remove signs and graffiti that violate their current and existing bylaws during the short duration of the winter games.

I am aware that there has been considerable public interest in at least this provision of the bill, and I want to take advantage of the opportunity in the chamber to ensure that the opposition, in particular the opposition critic or critics, as the case may be, are aware that an opportunity exists, if they wish to avail themselves of it, for a full briefing relating to the provisions and how they are intended to operate. The members, on the basis of that, can decide whether or not they agree. That's how they derive any measure of comfort from that information.

There are provisions relating to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act which will clarify the authority of the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia to act as trustee by statute or agreement and will also ensure that there is clear authority for the collection of fees for acting in these capacities to remove any lingering ambiguity on that front.

An amendment to the Sheriff Act clarifies the roles and responsibility of sheriffs as peace officers in the justice system.

There are amendments to the Treaty First Nation Taxation Act, the Manufactured Home Act and Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act which ensure that the Tsawwassen First Nation, as a taxing treaty first nation, is treated in a manner consistent with municipalities when it comes to property taxation powers and exemptions. The amendments will also be applicable to the Maa-nulth First Nations and other taxing treaty first nations after their final agreements take effect.

There are amendments to the University Act, Royal Roads University Act, Thompson Rivers University Act and College and Institute Act which recognize and authorize clearly the existing practices used by those institutions to regulate vehicle traffic and parking on their property and campuses. The amendments involve authority that government and the institutions themselves had previously understood the institutions to have.

Finally, amendments to the Vancouver Charter respond to a request from the city of Vancouver in preparation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. These changes will clarify Vancouver's authority to manage various issues and operational requirements for the games — things like traffic flow, street entertainment, noise, and provision of temporary parking and structures. Those legislative provisions will help ensure that the city of Vancouver can provide a safe and enjoyable environment for residents, athletes and visitors.

It is important to recognize, with respect to amendments to the Vancouver Charter, that far from creating any new powers at the local level, the amendments are consistent with the authorities that all other municipalities have operating under the Community Charter.

That is a brief synopsis, a technical synopsis of what is included in the bill. I am certain that several of the provisions I have alerted to will be the subject of specific interest and discussion and explanation during committee stage of the debate and will look forward to participating further in the discussion at that time.

[1525]

L. Krog: Firstly, I want to extend my thanks to the Attorney General for the offer of a briefing. Having said that, and no disrespect intended to the Attorney General, when I hear him speaking in dulcet tones about how there may be some questions and a lot of explanation required around this bill, what I sense is that perhaps he has as many concerns as the opposition does, particularly with respect to changes to the Vancouver Charter and the enabling provisions, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act as well, because those are certainly going to be the focus of the opposition.

I can't help but have a slight smile on my face. We're, after all, covering amendments to a number of pieces of legislation in this act, and the concluding one is the Wildlife Act. It would appear to me that the changes proposed to the Vancouver Charter and other legislation means we're really opposed to a little wildlife in Vancouver. By that, I'm not referring to the four-legged kind. I'm talking about the ability of people to actually demonstrate and express, in a democratic fashion, their views on any number of things.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

The fact that the Attorney General feels compelled to speak as he did of this legislation — being prepared to answer questions and so willing and cooperative — and also the comments that have been made by officials of the city of Vancouver and councillors there, again, raises for me significant concern. Sometimes the fact that people feel compelled to talk about something tells you that there's more to it than meets the eye.

I don't accuse the government or the city of Vancouver of any untoward intentions here, because I appreciate fully that there are obligations, contractual obligations, considerations around claims that could be brought against the city arising out of this legislation.

Given that the games are obviously costing a great deal, that we're spending $900 million on security

[ Page 1229 ]

alone…. It's a staggering figure, one that falls far out of the contemplation of the average British Columbian in terms of its amount. Given that we're spending that kind of money, one can appreciate that at the end of the day the last thing anyone wants to do is have to pay out, under contractual obligations to the IOC, to sponsors who have paid big bucks for the right to be sponsors. One can understand the concern about being stuck with further expenditure at the end of this.

So you really want to ensure that all of the obligations that are in place for the Olympics will, in fact, be met. One can understand that. But I remember a story some years ago about a conference that was in the United States. It brought to that conference, an international conference, peoples from around the world, particularly an African country. I can't even remember what part.

These delegates' vision of the United States was one created by television. They were astonished to discover that in the United States, there were people who lived in ghettos, there were people who slept in the streets, and there were people who were poor. That wasn't their vision of the United States.

Many of the participants in the Olympic Games will come from countries governed by regimes that are anything but truly democratic, where dissent is dealt with harshly, where sometimes the elected leader of the nation will be imprisoned year after year after year, where people will be suppressed.

So my immediate reaction is that I understand the concerns around the commercial side. But I'm just not convinced that given the investigation, if you will, that has already taken place of a university professor of ophthalmology, of a 73-year-old inveterate letter writer from Surrey, B.C., visited by two members of the RCMP…. I'm not going to go over the top in this debate, but I must say that it raises real concerns in my mind, as someone who believes absolutely in civil liberties.

I'm not quite out there with Ezra Levant, but my view has always been that wherever people speak ill, wherever they hold views that are repugnant to democratic ideals, to the rights of free speech, to the rights of liberty that we're all guaranteed under the Charter, to the right to practise our religion without interference, all of those rights…. If people are really opposed to that and speak vile of other groups or nationalities or faiths, the best thing in the world is to let them have their voice.

[1530]

So anything that, for me, offends the basic principles of free speech, that places some restriction on it — whether intended or not — is just wrong.

I come back to my point about the delegates from Africa and the United States. Would it really be so dreadfully awful? Would it put in jeopardy the success of the games if, during the course of television coverage of the games, people in other parts of the world saw demonstrations, saw signs, heard things said that in their own country would constitute criminal behaviour and would result in beatings or jailings or suppression? Would it be so bad for them to see it?

I'm not going to take a side in the debate around "Free Tibet" today, for instance, for the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination. That would clearly be offensive to the Chinese government because they regard Tibet as an integral part of their nation. But isn't it a good thing?

Isn't it a good thing if the world saw, in Vancouver and Whistler and Richmond, people peaceably, freely demonstrating views that are contrary? Would it be so wrong? Would it damage the games? Would it hurt for the world to see what a functioning democracy looks like? I suspect not.

I think the opportunity for people to view the kind of vigorous debate that is absolutely essential to not only the preservation but the well-being of democratic institutions — for people to see that — is a very good thing.

Again, I understand and am sympathetic to the position the city of Vancouver finds itself in. But I am not convinced by what I've seen and what I've heard — by what has happened with respect to the investigation of people who are opposed to the Olympic games — that really, we aren't using a baseball bat when a fly swatter might have sufficed.

As a lawyer, I completely understand the difficulty around getting injunctions. But the prospect that you can stick up a sign that might offend the overall Olympic agreement and the city of Vancouver sign bylaw, that you can be given a warning and that officers of the state, in the broadest sense, will be able to enter your domain and take down that sign without a hearing — without a hearing — I think most of us find quite repugnant.

It is one thing to take away something after a hearing. Even in this chamber we passed legislation that gave the government the right to seize property that appeared to be the result of proceeds of crime or related to criminal activity, even if there was no crime. We passed that legislation. But even that legislation contemplates that there will be a hearing.

I see the former Solicitor General looking at me, and he understands my point. You have to go to court. You have to get an order. You have to give someone an opportunity to defend themselves and to state their case. It is a fundamental principle of our justice system that you hear both sides, except in the most extraordinary and unusual of circumstances.

You're in a custody case, and the child is being kidnapped. You run into court and get an ex parte order restraining your spouse from taking the child out of the country. Not unreasonable. We accept that.

But in this case, the sign I stick up, if I choose to do so, will be subject to being taken down on 24 hours' notice without benefit of a hearing by officers of the state who will be able to come in and do it.

[ Page 1230 ]

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will be used unreasonably or that it's the intention of the city of Vancouver and its officials, elected or otherwise, or indeed the intention of this chamber — or the government or the people who work in government — to unreasonably interfere with the rights of free speech.

[1535]

But the concept that you can come busting, literally, into somebody's private dwelling place — come busting into their private dwelling place — to take down a sign that may be a breach of a commercial contract, for heaven's sake, or alternatively might represent something that flies in the face of the right to demonstrate, because we want to control where you can express your democratic opinion…. That is over the top. That goes beyond what we expect in a democratic society.

Democracy is messy. It isn't pretty. It can be quite glorious when it results in a great movement forward, some great shift, but the road to oppression, to the tyranny from which we have escaped after generations of bloodshed — and I don't want to be overly dramatic — to fight to win the precious right to express ourselves on any matter freely and openly is not one to be blemished in any way, shape or form at any time — particularly when this is aimed at commercial enterprise and may well reflect on the right to free speech as well.

When one looks at law, you have to consider what is the evil or the wrong you're attempting to prevent, if you will. And is the approach responsive and appropriate? We understand that if you're shoved in the street by someone, if you turn around and shoot them, it's not a reasonable response. It has to be proportionate. So if you do shoot someone or you violently attack them after you've merely been shoved, chances are you may well be convicted of assault. You'll be sued civilly, and quite probably successfully, if injury results.

I look at the principle of proportionality in this legislation. I understand that what's being asked for here is that the Vancouver Charter be amended to allow for a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for six months, which is consistent with provisions of the Community Charter for other municipal governments across the province. I understand that, and I know that will be part of the Attorney General's response at some point and maybe the Solicitor General's, if he chooses to speak.

I understand that; I accept that. But Vancouver has managed to survive without those provisions for, I think, roughly a decade now or something like that. I could be wrong. If my advice is wrong, I apologize for misleading the House. It's not my intention to do so.

But it's very clear this bill and these provisions that relate are all designed to deal with the Olympics. We want to put the shiniest face we can on good old British Columbia — three municipalities in particular, Richmond, Vancouver and Whistler — and ensure that the games, which have now become a substantial commercial enterprise, won't be tarnished by anyone who might seek to make some money off it when they're not footing the bill, when they're not a sponsor.

We understand the literally millions and millions and millions of dollars that sponsors invest in these games now and the $900 million that taxpayers, both federal and provincial, are going to pay to ensure security in these games, and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that British Columbia has put into building infrastructure for these projects in order to support and allow the games to proceed.

I understand all of that, and I appreciate that. I have no doubt that the games will be a great success because when British Columbians put their mind to something, they can accomplish great things.

[1540]

But as we approach Remembrance Day and I look at that tiny crew of veterans who are left in my constituency, who will stand as best they can in the cold and wet that often characterizes that day…. When I think of the sacrifices that generation made in the fight against fascism, when I think of the sacrifices their families made, when I think of the parents who saw their sons and daughters go off and never saw them return, when I think of children who weren't old enough to remember their fathers who disappeared into the great maw of war…. When I think of those people we honour on Remembrance Day, I am moved by that.

What they fought for, fundamentally, was the right to be free, to express themselves whenever and wherever they wanted on whatever topic they wished to and chose, and to do so without fear of oppression, without the worry of being fined or imprisoned, and they did that.

They made that sacrifice for all of us so that we can all stand in this chamber and speak freely, so that if we choose to go out on the lawns of this Legislature, we can speak freely there. We can speak freely in the conference centre of Nanaimo, and we can stand in the streets of Golden and speak freely. I can go down to the West End and express my views, no matter how repugnant or repulsive they may be, on any issue. They fought for that, and we should cherish it.

As a member of this opposition, I will not support anything that tarnishes that great freedom. This is a serious debate. I understand we are caught up in the Olympic fever, and I understand that many will say: "The member for Nanaimo is way over the mark on this one." But there is a time to recognize that if you're going to do it in order to protect commercial rights and potentially seek to not have anyone offended who is a strong supporter of the games, it's the first step — might even be the second; I don't know.

Everything that I have learned in my life and everything I respect and value tells me that what is being proposed — how innocuous it may seem — is just wrong. It is not consistent with the best ideals of British Columbians.

[ Page 1231 ]

As much as I understand the councillors of the great city of Vancouver believe that what they are doing is necessary and commercially required of them, it is not sufficient for this government to stand up in this House and say: "We're doing what the city has requested. We're just giving them the opportunity." Then to wash the government's collective hands of this…. So if something offensive to those things I hold dear should occur, the government will be able to step back and say: "That's not what we intended. It's the city of Vancouver's fault. That's not what was thought of when we passed this legislation. It's not our problem."

What we're being asked to do is give enforcement provisions and indeed special powers to the cities of Richmond and Whistler and Vancouver for a limited period in order to allow them to enter on private property without the consent of the owner for the purposes of removing or covering up signs or graffiti — graffiti — that contravenes the bylaws.

You know, it reminds me of the typical excuse that you always heard from South American dictators when the military took over. "It's just for a limited period of time. We'll get back to votes as soon as we possibly can." I'm not suggesting for a moment that the legislation won't pass in that form and that it won't cease on March 31, 2010, but matters of principle are not to be compromised. Matters of principle are to be always respected.

I look back, as a young man, when Pierre Trudeau — in what I think was one of the most repugnant acts of a government in this country's history, at a time when there was no such thing that even resembled a national crisis — imposed the War Measures Act on the people of Quebec.

[1545]

I remember that at that time there were two kids in my law 11 class — myself, the lefty, and the son of the local mayor of Parksville, who was a righty — and you know, hon. Speaker, we agreed.

We stood in our little class, and we argued against all of our classmates that what the Prime Minister of Canada was doing was wrong. T.C. Douglas stood in the House of Commons and told the Prime Minister of Canada that what he was doing was wrong. Yet the commentators and the majority of Canadians pounded their desks and said it was the right thing. We were going to teach those people a lesson.

What has history taught us some years later? There was no real insurrection. There was no necessity. And the damage done to the fabric of democracy of this nation put us in a situation where nearly half the people of the province of Quebec voted to take Quebec out of Confederation. That was the result of a little bit of blemish, if you will, on the ideal of the right to free speech and the right to express your views.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that this will result in the same kind of thing, but it is exactly the same offensive thing to me in principle. You are saying that on this occasion, for the purposes of honouring commercial contracts, we are going to give special powers that wouldn't otherwise exist. The very fact that both government in this chamber and the city of Vancouver are so utterly apologetic about this tells me everything I need to know.

They know it's wrong. They sense it's wrong. They sense it's too far. I haven't heard one excuse from anyone in this province — one explanation as to why it's necessary to satisfy VANOC even. In other words, it is much like Mr. Trudeau saying that there was a real threat when it turned out there wasn't.

I haven't seen the evidence. I haven't heard of the contravention or the damages that were sustained by corporations in previous Olympics because somebody held up a Coke sign when Pepsi held the rights to the games, or whatever. I haven't heard of that, I haven't heard the evidence, and I haven't seen the evidence. Even if I did, I could not and would not, nor would I ever support legislation that allows someone to enter your property under the terms of a city sign bylaw.

We're not talking about busting down the doors of a grow operation. We're not talking about breaking into a house where there's a possibility that violence or criminal activities are taking place. We're talking about busting down the doors of citizens who might be contravening an agreement that'll lead to a little commercial loss somewhere. That's what we're talking about — someone who's got some obnoxious graffiti in their window, busting down their door without a hearing, without an opportunity for them to stand up and say: "I have my Charter rights. I am a Canadian."

There is nothing more touching, as most of the members in this chamber know, than attending a citizenship ceremony. When you see the faces of those new citizens who have come from countries around the world that don't begin to enjoy the rights we do in this country, that don't begin to have the sense of security and safety, that often don't even have the right to vote…. When you see the looks on their faces, it is for me the most touching aspect.

When I stand here in this House and am being asked to pass legislation and approve it — not for my national government, not even for my provincial government, arguably, but for a municipal government to exercise the right to knock down doors and remove graffiti and signs…. I'm asking the Attorney General now to step back for a moment and ask himself: is this right?

[1550]

Municipal government only exists because we in this chamber and our predecessors created it. It does not have an inherent right to exist under the constitution of this country. It does not exist except by virtue that we pass law.

Here in this chamber today I'm being asked to pass down to a government, a level of government, munici-

[ Page 1232 ]

pal government — three of them, in fact — the right to do things that no federal or provincial government would ever think of doing without due process, without the right to a hearing. I'm being asked to give that power to municipal government?

I cannot in good conscience do that. I cannot in good conscience allow that to happen. I cannot abdicate my responsibilities as a member of this assembly democratically elected to express the views of my constituents. I cannot stand back and say that it's okay just because it's the Olympics and that we promise never to abuse it.

The very abuse is not in whether it is employed. The abuse is in the passage itself of legislation enabling the abuse to occur. We recognize in criminal law extenuating circumstances — the example I used earlier of someone shoving you and you responding in an inherently aggressive manner. We recognize that passion plays a role, that the opportunity to think carefully about what you're doing doesn't exist in that situation. We recognize mitigating factors.

We are months from the Olympic Games. We are being asked in a cold and calculating manner in this chamber to support legislation that gives authority to municipal government to break into people's houses, all for the sake of commercial activity, graffiti and things related to that.

Now, if this is such a good idea, if this enjoys such public support, if this is so necessary, why don't I hear the chair of the IOC saying that this has to happen? Why don't I see the leading editorialists in this province, the leading columnists and commentators, standing up and saying: "This is a good thing. We need to do this"?

Ensuring that the Olympic Games go off without a hitch is paramount to the rights and precious freedoms we enjoy — as I said earlier, the deliverers of which, the protectors of which we will honour on Remembrance Day. We will honour them.

As a designated speaker, I can't sit idly by and let this legislation pass. There is no evidence it is required. If the War Measures Act was a mistake — and it was — if the packing up of Japanese-Canadian citizens in the Second World War was right, tell me.

It wasn't. We know it wasn't. The War Measures Act — the implementation under Prime Minister Trudeau was wrong. The transportation of citizens of British Columbia, dispossessed of their property and shoved in internment camps, was wrong. It was wrong, wrong, wrong, and this legislation is wrong.

It is no answer and no excuse whatsoever for any member of this chamber to stand up and say that it's necessary in order to comply with some Olympic agreement. It is no excuse or answer for anyone to suggest that somehow, by doing it just on a temporary basis, it's okay.

[1555]

It's wrong to hit somebody ten times, and it's wrong to hit them once. It's not the amount of time. It's not the frequency. It is the very act itself, and the act of enabling municipal government to have its bylaws enforced in this way without benefit of hearing is wrong. It was wrong to be proposed as such, it is wrong for this Legislature to consider it, and it will be wrong if this Legislature passes it.

There are other aspects of this legislation. I certainly appreciate the problems that universities find themselves in with respect to something now as pedestrian as enforcing the payment of fines. I understand why the government feels it has to pass retroactive legislation, notwithstanding that it flies in the face of a court decision that is at this moment, as I understand it, under appeal. I understand why the government might want to proceed retroactively on that, why it might wish to protect the finances of public institutions.

But those matters are going to be dealt with, I suspect, at great length during the course of committee stage of this bill, because as a miscellaneous statutes amendment act it may be a misc bill, but it doesn't get a pass from the opposition.

The opposition is going to consider carefully all of the provisions of this act. Much of it is quite pedestrian. It will be of no concern or great moment to British Columbians generally. It will, if you will, improve the management of government, particularly with respect to a number of the proposals around the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, Judicial Compensation Act, Medicare Protection Act.

But around the issue of parking tickets and essentially defeating a class action — in other words, overriding the courts of the province and making it retroactive…. That's a matter of no small concern. It's certainly not equivalent to what I've spoken at length about today, the most repugnant sections of this bill, but it nevertheless isn't pleasant.

I've appreciated the opportunity to speak to this debate today, because I think that for once we have before us something where we really will be separating those who believe in the right to free speech from those who don't.

The government and the city of Vancouver and whoever else may try and colour it as something innocuous and suggest that it was all about the intent — that they wouldn't intend to do anything awful or nasty. But it is ultimately a dramatic step and a step that has ramifications if we truly believe in the principles of free speech, if we truly expect to honour appropriately on Remembrance Day those who fought and literally died for our freedoms, those who fought against fascism and tyranny.

I look forward to the Attorney General in this House explaining to the opposition and to this member in particular why the citizens of Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond — not even all British Columbians, just these specific communities, in addition — are going to be

[ Page 1233 ]

singled out so that if they exercise their rights, they in particular, in contrast to other citizens across the province, are going to be subject to penalties that no one else will face.

I look forward to hearing some explanation, because if I'm wrong, I am one of those people who will happily admit it. But I must say that I will be astonished if I'm forced to stand up in this House and say I was wrong, because everything surrounding this legislation tells me that I'm right — tells me that what the government intends to do with this legislation is to give authority to the city of Vancouver that is just wrong.

As a joke in caucus, sometimes I talk about my Magna Carta speech. The barons ran King John down at Runnymede, arguably for the same principles. You didn't get to get away with anything you wanted to just because you were the divine monarch. Here we're being asked to cede to municipal government the authority to do something that the Charter recognizes is wrong.

[1600]

You're not subject to unreasonable search and seizure. You're not. The Charter says you're not. The law says you're not. You're entitled to be free. That is the presumption of our very existence. We're entitled to our freedom, and mo