2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Penticton community fundraisers

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Doug Adair

R. Hawes

Agriculture on Vancouver Island

Routley

Langley Lawn Bowling Club

M. Polak

Cystic fibrosis

Simpson

Volunteers at Surrey community

associations

D. Hayer

View Royal reading centre

Karagianis

Oral Questions

Child protection services

Simons

Hon. T.

Christensen

Karagianis

Fraser

Child poverty in B.C.

J. Brar

Hon. C.

Richmond

A. Dix

Government action on forest

industry

Puchmayr

Hon. R.

Coleman

L. Krog

Standing Order 81.1

Adoption of government business

schedule

Hon. M.

de Jong

Motions without Notice

Legislative sitting hours

Hon. M.

de Jong

Standing Order 35

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills

Public Health Act (Bill 23)

(continued)

C. Wyse

Sather

Simons

Fleming

Simpson

Ralston

Gentner

J. Kwan

Horgan

Hon. G.

Abbott

Health Professions (Regulatory

Reform) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 25)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's

Ruling)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Fraser

Estimates:

Other appropriations

[ Page 12029 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I'd like to introduce Joe Matthews. Joe is

from Golden. He's here with the steelworkers. Joe and I were neighbours on

Alexander Drive for an awfully long time, and I'd like the House to join me in

making him feel welcome.

I'd like to make a second introduction. Kindy Gosal is also from

Golden. He is here with the Columbia Basin Trust, and I'd like the House to also

join me in making him feel welcome.

Tributes

PENTICTON COMMUNITY FUNDRAISERS

Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, last Saturday

you and I had the opportunity to attend a very interesting event in Penticton.

It focused around two great charities. One was the We Care program of Safeway

employees, and the other was Agur Lake Camp Society, which is focused on helping

children and families living with physical and development disabilities.

[1335]

I would just ask all members of this House to recognize these two

great organizations, the employees at Safeway and the Agur Lake volunteers, who

have raised over $30,000 for this very worthwhile community activity.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I had the pleasure today of hosting a luncheon for

three constituents of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Some might say the

lucky lady who was in charge of that delegation was lucky because she won lunch

with me. Others on the opposite side would disagree.

However, I would ask the House to make welcome Irene Leslie Blake

and Tony and Louise Yaremchuk, who are up in the gallery today.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 56 grade

5 students visiting from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Surrey,

British Columbia, from the riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are two

teachers, Mr. Rick Bath and Miss Nancy Bakken, as well as 30 parent volunteers

who are taking time away from their busy schedules to help these students out.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: Visiting us in this House today are many of my

good friends from the steelworkers, where I spent many of my years before I came

to this House: Kim Pollock, Kapel Koshio, Ed Pica and Alf Wilkins. They are here

to promote the issues that are important to the working people in the forest

industry and all the other issues to the steelworkers.

Please join me and extend them warm welcome.

C. Trevena: I noticed also with the Steelworkers is Leslie

McNabb, who as well as being a steelworker is the president of the Campbell

River, Courtenay and District Labour Council. I hope the House will make her

very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure today of

welcoming to this gallery Mr. David Hughes. He has served this province well on

a variety of different boards, and I would ask the House to please make him

welcome.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome four

steelworkers, Rita La Jeunesse, Joe Matthews, Dave Stole and my friend Chris

Sinkan from Local 180.

Local 180's president, as many will know, is Bill Routley — no

relation. But when people ask me, I usually ask them how they feel about him

before I answer the question. We're related through misadventure only.

I would like the House to help me make these steelworkers and

representative workers welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is my good friend the mayor

of Mission, James Atebe. He's here with Rick Bomhof, who is the engineer for the

district of Mission. They're here to talk to the Minister of Transportation on

some transportation issues. Could the House please make them welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I also have a couple of guests in the House

today, and they're steelworkers as well. I hear they are down here meeting with

the government today. Please make welcome Jeff Bromley and Alf Wilkins.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) DOUG ADAIR

R. Hawes: Volunteers are the backbone of many smaller

communities. They selflessly give of their time to make life better for

everyone, and my community of Mission is one of those blessed with a very large

contingent of generous volunteers.

As so often happens among volunteers, a few are standouts. They're

the ones seen over and over at all varieties of causes and community

undertakings. They never seek recognition, never complain, and are always

willing to roll up their sleeves and go to work just to get the job done.

Doug Adair of Mission is one such volunteer. For over 50 years

Doug has served the families of Mission in whatever way help was needed. He

served as the chair of the school board, on the Mission Memorial Hospital board,

on the Community Services Society board and in the Mission Historical Society.

Doug recently worked on the documentation of Mission

[ Page 12030 ]

veterans lost in conflict and personally gave 3,000 hours to make this

project a success. His dedication and enthusiasm are obvious and infectious.

[1340]

For me, nothing surpasses Doug's service as a councillor on

Mission city council. When I was newly elected as a mayor, I can't stress enough

how much I valued his steadying influence and incredible work ethic. I'm forever

grateful for his support and wise counsel.

I'm thrilled that Doug Adair has been recognized with the British

Columbia Community Achievement Award. He exemplifies the reason for

acknowledging special volunteers through these awards. As a longtime Rotarian,

Doug Adair is a living example of service before self.

For Doug, congratulations. I can't think of anyone more deserving

of this award, and I'm proud to see you finally recognized for a half-century of

service. Thank you, Doug.

AGRICULTURE ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about agriculture on

Vancouver Island. On Vancouver Island our history and our current state of

innovation have given us a variety of production that's basically unmatched

throughout our country.

We have so many vegetable producers — organic, hothouse. We have

cranberry farms. We have the second-largest holly farm in the Cowichan Valley

that has been there for almost a hundred years. We have wine producers and grape

growers; many berry farms that have been there for many, many generations;

shellfish farms; meat producers — beef, pork, lamb — and lamb producers that

have also been there for many generations; many established dairy farms from our

noted Dutch heritage.

These farmers are entrepreneurs — multilevel marketers who add

value to the land through their bed-and-breakfasts, their farm-gate sales, local

markets, local retail, local restaurants. They have the support of the

community. Unfortunately, B.C. ranks seventh out of ten provinces in support for

agriculture, and there are great agricultural exclusions that threaten the

sustainability of agriculture on Vancouver Island. We need promotional

assistance.

The reality is that there is only three days' supply in the event

of an emergency — an alarming figure when we're told to prepare for five if

there's a major earthquake. We produced 80 percent of our produce only 20 years

ago, and now we produce only 3 percent.

The bright side is that 6 percent would be 100 percent more; 20

percent would be 700 percent more. We can do even better than that. All we need

is support. We have community support, local business support, farmers' support.

We need the support of farm-friendly public policy.

LANGLEY LAWN BOWLING CLUB

M. Polak: Well, the Canucks missed the playoffs once again,

the baseball season is just getting started, and football training camp is still

some weeks away. Ho-hum, one might say, not much going on. But there is an

answer to the lament of the sport enthusiast who is experiencing symptoms of

withdrawal.

The 2008 lawn bowling season has begun. On April 20, I joined the

Minister of Forests and Range, along with other local officials, for the

ceremonial first bowl at the Langley Lawn Bowling Club. For nearly three

decades, men and women of all ages have enjoyed the physical activity, friendly

competition and social interaction that lawn bowling provides.

The Langley Lawn Bowling Club has become a well-regarded volunteer

organization in Langley. They have built successful relationships with all

levels of government and with Kwantlen University College — soon to be

University — the students of which participate annually in planting trees and

shrubs donated by the city. The club's troupe of volunteers provide excellent

meals, exciting special events and free coaching for those needing supervision,

training or advice to improve their game.

For me, the opportunity to try a new sport was exciting, but the

opportunity to be humiliated publicly was daunting. Nevertheless, I took my

place on the green, took the ball gingerly in my right hand and rolled it toward

the small white jack in the centre of the green. As I opened my eyes and looked

toward the place where the shot from the Minister of Forests and Range had

landed — quite a distance from the jack, I might add — my shot was nowhere to be

seen. In a shocking case of beginner's luck and much to my surprise, I had shot

the best bowl of the day, landing a scant two feet from the jack.

As the cheering died down, I realized why, year in and year out,

the Langley Lawn Bowling Club and clubs around the province draw a committed

group of bowlers and continue to see their sport grow through school and

community outreach programs. Club member Marvyn Shore puts it best when he

writes: "You can have a great time bowling by just being out there with friends,

having a ball."

[1345]

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

S. Simpson: May is Cystic Fibrosis Month in Canada. CF is

the most common and fatal genetic disease facing young people in our country. It

causes a mucous buildup by damaging the lining of the lungs and blocking enzymes

from reaching the intestines to digest food. It affects about one in 3,600

children in British Columbia, including my seven-year-old nephew Liam.

Liam is a happy-go-lucky child who is full of life and energy.

However, if this was 1960, he would likely not be alive. In those days CF kids

seldom celebrated their fifth birthday. Today most live into their late 30s, and

in 2006 for the first time, more than 50 percent of people with CF were over 18.

We are making progress, but we still have a long way to go. I know

how Liam's diagnosis radically changed my sister and her partner's life focus

and everyday routines; how it added significant cost, even

[ Page 12031 ]

with government support; how every time Liam is hospitalized to deal with

mucous buildup, it results in further damage to his lungs; how it has affected

Liam's older brother Kyle, a wonderful young man who understands why he is often

the second consideration in the family because of his younger brother's needs.

The day is coming soon when Liam will begin to understand the

consequences of CF in terms of limits on his own life, and I know how my sister

struggles with that inevitable conversation with her son. These types of

pressures have too often led to family breakups, as parents find it increasingly

difficult to deal with the realities of CF and the fallout on other aspects of

their relationships.

This is what makes Cystic Fibrosis Month so important. I am

hopeful Liam will live to collect his old age pension, but it will require more

support from governments and individuals, including funding for medical research

and increased support for CF families.

What can be more important than giving young people who are having

their lives stolen from them by cystic fibrosis a better chance? What can be

more important than saying to Liam and the other young people just like him that

together we will beat this disease?

VOLUNTEERS AT SURREY

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

D. Hayer: Last week was National Volunteer Week, and

nowhere in the province are there more active volunteers than in the city of

Surrey and my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead. In the past weeks I have saluted

such groups at Tynehead, Guildford and Port Kells Community Association.

Today I want to talk about Fleetwood Community Association and

their very hard-working board of directors, who include president Rick Hart,

vice-president Jane-Anne Anderson, secretary Joy Hart, treasurer Johanne Poirier

and directors Deb Hughes, Bob Beacom, Carol Adams, Mark Lenglet and Roy Yorke.

Fleetwood Community Association has served the community for over

85 years. The association is celebrating this milestone with the tenth annual

Fleetwood Festival on September 6. As a part of the celebration it has

commissioned the life-size sculpture of Lance Cpl. Arthur Thomas Fleetwood, to

whom the Fleetwood Community Association owes its name.

Another very important group of volunteers in my community is the

Fleetwood planning committee, which is led by chairperson Heather Renko,

vice-chair Mildred Davies, secretary Gay Calestagne and treasurer Bonnie Wright,

along with activities directors Julie Smith, Barb Fletcher, Pat Madden, Lil

Elliot, Mary Frolick, Edith Bamford and Jim Rowland.

Another important group in Surrey-Tynehead is Fraser Heights

Community Association, which embodies a sense of community in the northern part

of my riding. Fraser Heights has almost 20,000 people living within it, a

population greater than many cities in our province.

I would ask the House to join me in saluting its members and

directors, including Rob Langford, president; Ian MacPherson, past president;

Frank Russell, vice-president; Heather Nelson, treasurer; Liane McMahon,

secretary; and directors Kash Kang and Joanna Whittingstall, along with all the

other volunteers in British Columbia who make our province a great province and

great community to live in.

VIEW ROYAL READING CENTRE

M. Karagianis: It's my pleasure to stand in the House today

and share with members the story of the little library that could. Next week the

View Royal reading centre will open at its new home in the Admirals Walk

Shopping Centre. The reading centre is sponsored by the View Royal Community

Association and is the new incarnation of the former volunteer-run View Royal

Public Library.

The library was started in 1971 and has operated from the lower

level of the town hall since 1997. Now the new location will continue a long

record of providing much-needed library services to View Royal and to the

residents of the first nation lands in my constituency.

[1350]

Getting the new location and the new lease on life was no easy

task. Three years ago I was approached by Jim Powell of the library board to

assist with their urgent request for funding from the province. The dollars

eventually came — much thanks — and the doors were kept open. But the town of

View Royal needed the space, so two years ago a search began for a new home for

the library.

The opening of the new location is a triumph for View Royal. It is

a triumph for the enormously dedicated volunteers led by Jim Powell. It is a

triumph for the exceptional leadership of Mayor Graham Hill and the View Royal

council, and it's a tribute to the generosity and foresight of the View Royal

Community Association.

I look forward to attending the opening ceremony later this month,

and I hope members will join me in recognizing the dedication and achievement of

those who have made it possible. This month View Royal turns a new page.

Oral Questions

CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

N. Simons: Today the Auditor General released a scathing

report on the Ministry of Children and Families and its handling of child

protection services for aboriginal children in this province. It identified

significant flaws and underfunding and identified no sense of where services or

funding are needed the most. It also went on to say that standards can't be met

within the existing allocation of resources and, further, that there's a

disconnect between management and the overworked social workers.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

How can he protect these

[ Page 12032 ]

vulnerable children, and how can he ensure that their lives will be improved,

when his ministry doesn't know how well his services are being delivered?

Hon. T. Christensen: We certainly appreciate the work

that's been done by the Auditor General's office. His report does acknowledge

the complexity of better serving aboriginal children and families across the

province, given the need to provide culturally appropriate services and the

reality that effective services do require significant collaboration between

first nations, aboriginal organizations, MCFD and INAC.

That is the work that we are committed to doing. It's the work we

are doing, and I'm confident that we are seeing improvement in services to

aboriginal children and families across our province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: In 2001, 42 percent of the children in care were

aboriginal children. In 2008, 52 percent are aboriginal children. The minister

refers to doing what they're doing well. I fail to see any evidence that this

ministry is addressing the issues at hand.

This report simply confirms that. It says that the ministry does

not report on how well aboriginal children or child protection services are

being delivered. What is this minister going to do to convince this House and

the people of British Columbia that his ministry is taking this issue seriously

and that careful monitoring needs to be in place?

Hon. T. Christensen: We recognize, as a government, that

there are gaps in services between aboriginal and non-aboriginal British

Columbians. This year this government was the first and so far only provincial

government in the country to commit to Jordan's principle, to ensure that

aboriginal children have access to equitable services.

We have recognized that those gaps exist. We want to ensure that

culturally appropriate services are available to aboriginal children and

families. The ministry's operational plan includes actions to better identify

and address those gaps. I am expecting significant progress in the coming months

on that front.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

N. Simons: Jordan's principle is simply a principle if

there are no resources in place to ensure that it can be applied. The Auditor

General identified serious flaws. What is striking is that this ministry is

deciding only now to consult with first nations and the federal government on

this issue.

They've been telling the ministry for many, many months — if not

years — what the solutions are, and it's only now that he's starting to hear it.

It's probably because of successive reports that seem to indicate to everyone in

this province that this minister is not handling his file.

Again to the minister: how is he going to convince people in this

province that enough attention is being paid to this issue so that tragedies

that we've seen time and time again aren't repeated?

[1355]

Hon. T. Christensen: The member obviously hasn't been

paying attention to the last number of years. This is the government that was

instrumental in the Kelowna accord, through the first ministers meeting, to

ensure that we established a positive path forward in health outcomes, education

outcomes and other social outcomes to close the gaps between aboriginal and

non-aboriginal British Columbians.

This is a government that has undertaken unprecedented

consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations across our province

to try and find better paths forward to serve aboriginal children and families.

We admit that there is still significant work to do, but let's

look at some of the progress. Since 2001 the number of aboriginal children

served by a delegated agency has increased by 300 percent. In the last year the

delegated agency that serves the Cowichan Tribes became only the second

aboriginal agency in Canada to take on adoption services — the second in Canada.

M. Karagianis: Well, I'll tell you who's not paying

attention in this Legislature. It is the Minister of Children and Families. The

minister cannot claim progress here. The Auditor General's report is scathing.

The Auditor General's report says that this minister is not even measuring good

outcomes for children.

The report found that nearly 21 percent of families involved in

the ministry saw a recurrence of abuse or neglect — 21 percent, one in five.

That is nowhere near the goal that the minister had set, and that's up from the

year before. That's exactly what happened to the little girl in Prince George

who was beaten and neglected by her grandmother. This report shows that the

minister is failing these children and their families.

When is the minister going to put real resources into the system

so that front-line workers can actually check on children and their outcomes?

Hon. T. Christensen: The budget for child and family

services today is 30 percent higher than it was when we became government. We've

added resources, but we know that resources alone aren't the solution here. We

need to be working closely with first nations, with aboriginal service providers

and with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to ensure that we're working in

collaboration to better serve aboriginal children and families.

We've made progress. For the first time ever, we know that in the

last year we have convinced INAC to start to fund out-of-care options so that

there is an option for delegated agencies beyond taking a child into care in

order for them to get the funding to care for that child.

At the beginning of April the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and

Family Services Society became fully delegated. They are now the largest urban

aboriginal

[ Page 12033 ]

agency in the country to be serving aboriginal children and families.

That's the type of progress we want to see. We're seeing it. We

going to continue to work on those initiatives, and we're going to see

additional progress.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I think the minister better reread the

Auditor General's report — again and again and again. In this report what comes

forward is lack of resources, lack of funding and lack of planning. One in five

families involved with the ministry experiences recurrences of abuse and

neglect.

Despite years of the internal transformation that this government

undertook and millions of dollars, the Auditor General's recommendations talk

about the basics: consultation on needs, better measurement for outcomes, better

resources, effective funding, an effective change management strategy. Those

should have been the very first steps taken many years ago, not five years down

the road as we see today.

Will the minister admit his failure and admit that his government

has wasted six years and that aboriginal children have paid the price for that?

Hon. T. Christensen: I would respectfully suggest to the

member that she read the report once.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: The Auditor General has made a number

of observations, which we appreciate. He also observes in the report where the

ministry's operational plan is starting to address those concerns. So we are

certainly on the right track.

[1400]

We appreciate the recommendations that have been made. We will

continue to look at how we can be working in collaboration with first nations,

with aboriginal organizations, with the First Nations Leadership Council and

with INAC to ensure that collectively we can see the types of improvements we

all want to see in terms of aboriginal children and families' lives.

S. Fraser: Twenty-one percent — that's how often abuse and

neglect recur. This is not a good-news story to the minister.

The report also found that the ministry has failed to develop

culturally appropriate services — something else the minister referred to, but

not in the sense that the Auditor General did. Considering the lack of supports

from this government, the Auditor General questioned the viability of

transferring these services.

That's tragic — these reminders of abject failure of this minister

only one week after the minister was humiliated in trying to bring forward

legislation on aboriginal children without even consulting with first nations.

It shows he hasn't done his work. He hasn't put the resources in place, and his

plan will not meet the needs of aboriginal children.

When is the minister going to put children first and put the

resources in place to protect children in care in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, significant resources

have been added to child and family services across the province. But it's

important to note that the incidence of recidivism, a recurrence of abuse or

neglect, actually dropped last year to 721 incidents from 962 the previous year.

That's a 25 percent reduction.

We also found that the number of children found to be in need of

protection last year dropped significantly from the previous year. That is an

indication of progress in terms of how children and families are doing across

this province. It's part of the work that we're committed to continuing to do to

ensure that we do see better outcomes for aboriginal children and families right

across British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister is pretty good at throwing

statistics out. It's a bit of a shell game. We saw that increase in the budget

of 30 percent. That was a lateral move from child care. That did nothing to help

aboriginal children in care, and the minister should be ashamed of himself.

The minister tried to move ahead with legislation before

communities were ready, before his own ministry was ready. He doesn't even know

how much it will cost to ensure that the agencies can meet the needs of the

children needing protection.

Now, the Auditor General is clear. There's a quote here. The

report showed that the minister has no sense of "the real cost of having staff

and delegated aboriginal authorities deliver effective, culturally appropriate

aboriginal child protection services." That's pretty unequivocal.

Will the minister admit that after six years and millions of

dollars, he and his ministry have not even done the basic work to ensure that

aboriginal children are actually getting the services they need and they

deserve?

Hon. T. Christensen: Since 2001 a 300 percent increase in

the number of aboriginal children being served by delegated agencies, six

additional aboriginal delegated agencies, only the second agency in Canada to

take on adoption services, the largest urban aboriginal delegated agency in

Canada. Since 2004 more than 1,500 aboriginal children in care of MCFD have been

reconnected to their culture and community through the Roots Are Forever

program. So we are making progress on a number of fronts.

Today we have 41 aboriginal early childhood development programs

working in concert with aboriginal communities on the prevention end, the front

end, of an appropriate child welfare program. So progress is being made.

[1405]

[ Page 12034 ]

It's interesting. What is the NDP's view of success in serving

aboriginal children and families? Is it apprehending more children, as happened

in the 1990s when we had the highest numbers ever?

CHILD POVERTY IN B.C.

J. Brar: Seven years — no improvements. Clearly, aboriginal

children are not a priority for this government. Last week a new Statistics

Canada report revealed that even though people in British Columbia are working

hard, they're earning less. Now we learn that for the fifth year in a row, B.C.

has the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada.

This government should be ashamed of that. So my question is to

the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Why does a rich province once

again have the worst child poverty rate in all of Canada?

Hon. C. Richmond: We are always concerned when we see a

report such as this from Stats Canada, and we…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: …examined the report very carefully to

make sure that we know exactly what it contains. One of the things that jumped

right out at us is that Stats Canada themselves say that their statistic for

2005, on which the report is based, should be used with caution. Their own

statistic, as they say, should be used with caution because the numbers from

2003 to 2006 show a definite downward trend in the low-income situation — a drop

from 159,000 in 2003 to 133,000, a drop of more than 15 percent. The trend in

the past four years is fewer children living in low-income situations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: It's very clear that this minister is completely

out of touch with reality. This is the fifth wake-up call for this minister, and

this minister still needs to review the report. Every year this minister stands

up and defends against the reports provided by professionals. The fact is that

181,000 children in B.C. are living in poverty. It's tragic. It's a crisis.

It's clear that the priorities of this government are all wrong.

The government is giving $220 million in tax breaks to big banks only this year

and $327 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies. It's time. This minister

needs to get up and start working for the voiceless and the most vulnerable kids

of this province.

So my question, again, to the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance is this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Brar: When will the minister stop denying the crisis of

child poverty and start developing a comprehensive strategy to address child

poverty in the province of British Columbia, starting with a raise to the

minimum wage?

Hon. C. Richmond: When we examine the report from Stats

Canada, we find they do not take into account the many programs we have in place

for those below the low-income cut-off line. For example….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: This is right from the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. C. Richmond: We find the statistic that British

Columbia is leading the country in the reduction of poverty. These are not….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: These are from Stats Canada. These are

the statistics that you're quoting.

British Columbia is moving people out of low-income situations

almost three times faster than the national average, from 2002 to 2006 declining

by 3 percent and accounting for over 50 percent of the national reduction.

A. Dix: One thing we can say about these two ministers is

that they may be humiliated, but they're not easily humiliated. Last Wednesday….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Members, listen to the question, and listen to the answer.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: So let's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Start again, Member.

A. Dix: So let's review. Last Wednesday the Minister of

Children and Families, after six years and $39 million, has to withdraw at the

last second a bill he presented before the Legislature. Then the Auditor General

condemns the performance of the government.

[ Page 12035 ]

Yesterday in this House we learned of the case of a child who went

from the responsibility of that minister to the responsibility of that minister

and back to this minister. Now Statistics Canada says again No. 1 in child

poverty — again. The Minister of Employment and Income Assistance prefers to

deny the facts than to take action.

The Auditor General is wrong, Statistics Canada is wrong, and the

child representative is wrong, according to the government. The only people who

seem to be right are the public affairs bureau.

My question to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance

is…. Surely as minister, when he sees that we're No. 1 in Canada in child

poverty, his answer shouldn't be to deny the facts. What action is he going to

take? What concrete action is he going to take today to deal with the growing

tragedy of income inequality in Canada?

Hon. C. Richmond: As of February 2008 there were

approximately 51,000 fewer children living in families on income assistance

compared to June….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're not continuing.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me repeat that, unless they didn't

quite get it — 51,000 fewer children in families on income assistance compared

to June 2001, a 60 percent reduction.

These people have some 400,000 new jobs to go to in British

Columbia. We know that when these people leave income assistance and start their

employment, they don't start at the top end of the income scale.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. C. Richmond: That's why we have programs in place for

them.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, I say to the minister that I think it's a

particularly…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …shameful performance by the government today.

Report after report…. You know, they can take shots. They can do whatever they

want. The Auditor General has condemned them. Statistics Canada has condemned

them. The child representative has condemned them.

Real children are suffering. To the minister: these people are our

friends, our neighbours, people in our community. They're not "these people."

They're us.

Will this Minister of Employment and Income Assistance stand up in

this House and announce a plan to do something about the fact that we're No. 1 —

the worst record of child poverty in the country — or will he step aside and let

someone else who will take action take over?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Richmond: Here's another sentence right out of the

report from Stats Canada. Statistics Canada emphasizes that these low-income

rates should not be construed as poverty rates.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: It's not my quote. It's right out of the

report…

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Richmond: …from Statistics Canada. It's the report.

Mr. Speaker, just as an example that the report does not take into

consideration….

We know that in British Columbia, for example, rent is expensive

here. We know that. That is why we have the rental supplement program, where

those earning less than $35,000 a year are eligible for assistance of up to $500

per month.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

C. Puchmayr: Well, another day and another mill closure in

British Columbia. Today 251 people in Mackenzie in northern British Columbia

will be losing their jobs because their mill is going to close. This has nothing

to do with the American economy or with the Canadian dollar. This is a pulp

mill. It's a booming pulp market with record-high pulp prices. The mill is

closing because it doesn't have a guaranteed fibre supply. They can't sell the

mill because they can't get fibre supply to the potential buyer.

I'd like to read to the minister a quote from one of the people

losing their jobs. He states: "That leaves me with 28 years' seniority, no job,

no price for which I can sell my house and scared. We were the richest community

in the province a decade ago" — that would be in the '90s — "and now we are

nothing. We are a ghost town."

Interjections.

[ Page 12036 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Puchmayr: To the Minister of Forests: the minister is

failing. Will the minister ensure that there is fibre supply to Mackenzie so

that this profitable mill can remain open?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I think we were all

disappointed to hear that the deal to buy the Mackenzie pulp mill went sideways

last week. We had hoped that over the weekend there would be an opportunity for

that deal to come back together.

We've been in conversation this morning with the lawyers involved

from our side as well as with people from the courts and stuff. We understand

that they're still in discussion to try and see if that deal can be salvaged.

In addition to that, we understand there may be another party

interested in the pulp mill. To the member opposite: we are going to do

everything to make sure that the fibre supply is there for this mill, should we

find an appropriate buyer. We hope that for the sake of the workers and the

community of Mackenzie, that can be accomplished.

[1420]

I spoke to the mayor of Mackenzie prior to question period, and I

told her that we would be making any commitment we possibly can to make any deal

that could come forward work if the opportunity presented itself.

L. Krog: You know, if talk were action, the problem would

have been solved about seven years ago. We've had seven years of talk from this

government and no action on forestry whatsoever.

Last week this minister stood by while 800 forestry jobs

disappeared. Tomorrow in my community — people I know, my neighbours, my friends

— 530 jobs gone with the shutting of Harmac. Good, family-supporting jobs. The

reason is because Pope and Talbot has been trying to sell this mill, but nobody

wants to buy it because there's no guaranteed fibre supply. That's the

responsibility of the Minister of Forests, the last time I checked.

Within a few miles of that mill there's wood rotting on the forest

floor instead of feeding fibre to that mill and keeping these jobs going. I want

this minister today in this House to stand up and say what he is going to do to

get fibre to Harmac before it's gone forever.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member might want to start by speedy

passage of the piece of legislation before this House that allows us to create a

tenure to go get the waste off the floor of the forest.

I also don't want the member….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think the member should be

disingenuous on this and say that it's all about fibre supply, because we have

worked with this mill in the past to find its fibre successfully and will

continue to do so in the future.

There are a number of reasons with regards to the Harmac issue.

You do know it's a bankruptcy. You do know that there was a suitor there with

regards to that. There are still some discussions going on with regards to

Harmac.

Frankly, I know some people that work there too, hon. Member. I'm

not happy about it, and quite frankly, I feel for them. We're going to try to

find a solution to see if we can make this thing work.

[End of question period.]

Standing Order 81.1

ADOPTION OF

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

SCHEDULE

Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to rise and advise the House

that the government and opposition have come to a partial agreement pursuant to

Standing Order 81.1(1) with respect to the completion of all the estimates and

some of the bills. Those bills are as follows: Bills 14, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27,

31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39 and 41; and for debate of those bills through all stages

to conclude by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2008, if not earlier.

That agreement, I can advise members, also involves the deferment

of the following bills for debate at a subsequent time following this sitting —

that is, Bills 28, 30, 35 and 40. I'll speak in a moment to a third component of

this, which relates to scheduling of a week of additional debate time. I'll come

to that in a moment.

However, an agreement was not reached with respect to several

pieces of legislation in accord with 81.1, and those bills include the

following: Bills 20, 21, 24, 29, 32, 37, 42 and 43. I do wish to advise members

that the government seeks debate and passage of those bills this session.

[1425]

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1(2), I move the

following:

[Pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 (2), on or before 6:00 on

Thursday, May 29, 2008 all remaining stages on Bills:

Bill 20 Oil and Gas Activities Act

Bill 21 Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 24 E-Health (Personal Health Information Access &

Protection of Privacy) Act

Bill 29 Environmental (Species & Public Protection) Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 32 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement

Implementation Act

Bill 37 Carbon Tax Act

Bill 42 Election Amendment Act, 2008

Bill 43 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008

shall be completed and disposed of. At 5:00 p.m. on the date

mentioned, the Speaker and the Chair of

[ Page 12037 ]

Committee of the Whole will forthwith put all necessary questions for

the disposal of all remaining stages of the said Bills without amendment, apart

from Government amendments, or debate. Any divisions called on the second or

third reading of said Bills may be taken in accordance with Standing Order 16

and all other divisions will be covered by Practice Recommendation No. 1.

Proceedings under this motion shall not be subject to the provisions of Standing

Order 81 or the Standing or Sessional Orders relating to times and days of

sitting of the House.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 40

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 30

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Lali

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: I wish to further….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wish to further advise the House that as

a result of conversations between the Opposition House Leader and myself, I

believe I am in a position, with leave, to offer the following consensual

motion.

Leave granted.

Motions without Notice

LEGISLATIVE SITTING HOURS

Hon. M. de Jong: I do so move:

[Be it resolved that unless otherwise ordered, for the Fourth Session

of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, Standing Order 2 (2) (

b) be amended so that the

House shall meet the week of Victoria Day as follows:

Tuesday, May 20th

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Wednesday, May 21st

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Thursday, May 22nd

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Friday, May 23rd

Two distinct sittings:

10 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6 p.m.]

Motion approved.

Standing Order 35

J. Kwan: I rise under Standing Order 35 to seek leave to

move a motion that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a

definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, for this House to call on

the Harper government to abandon the provisions to Bill C-50, which makes

sweeping changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act without

consultation and study.

Bill C-50 is now before the Select Standing Committee on Finance

and could be moved to third reading at any time. If Bill C-50 passes as

currently drafted, it will give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

arbitrary powers to move people up or off waiting lists, limit immigrants in the

ability to reunite with overseas family members based on humanitarian and

compassionate grounds, and let officials prioritize temporary foreign labour

over family-class and economic-class immigrants.

Immigration has played and continues to play a pivotal role in

building B.C. If these provisions of Bill C-50 are passed, they will have

profound negative effects on British Columbia and its families.

Mr. Speaker, I present to you a written statement of the matter

proposed. If you find that this statement is in order and of public urgent

importance, I would then move at the appropriate time the following motion: "Be

it resolved that this House unanimously urge the federal government to withdraw

the provisions of Bill C-50 that amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection

Act and to immediately allocate significant resources to make permanent

immigration more accessible and efficient while ensuring family re-unification

remains a priority in all immigration matters."

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member. I'll take that under

advisement.

[ Page 12038 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, as you do, you may wish the

benefit of my immediate reaction to the hon. member's submission. I haven't had

the benefit of the statement, but I have heard her commentary today.

I have no doubt that there is widespread concern — certainly on

the part of the member and I think other members — about the issue generally. It

is, of course, a matter that is being considered by the Parliament of Canada

during the course of the debates that take place around the legislation that the

member has cited in her submission.

I am also mindful, however, of the rules that govern this chamber.

I want to say two things about that. We need to be alive to the fact that with

respect to Standing Order 35, the tests that apply in determining whether or not

it may be invoked to interrupt the normal business of the day are well

developed.

One of the tests that I know the hon. member is aware of, given

her length of service here in this chamber, is not just the urgency of the

matter. In fact, specifically, it is the urgency of debate in this chamber that

the Speaker must turn his mind to.

[1435]

Having said that, in the past what the Opposition House Leader and

I have been able to do — the opposition and the government — on matters such as

this is perhaps have a discussion about an appropriate means or time when the

matter can come to the floor of the House of the Legislature. This may be one of

those times. I'm not sure. I'm hearing the member's comments and concerns for

the first time now. But I'm certainly prepared to have that conversation with

the Opposition House Leader.

I regret, however, and fear that the tests that have been

established through the years in this chamber around Standing Order 35 are not

satisfied in this particular case. That doesn't mean we should resist having a

discussion, but it does mean that the mechanism by which the hon. member seeks

to initiate that discussion is, I fear, not applicable.

J. Kwan: Just a quick response to simply say I would

welcome discussion with the Government House Leader to see if we can find a way

to expedite this opportunity to engage in the debate on the motion that I put

forward. I look forward to that discussion along with our Opposition House

Leader.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members, and I will take it under

advisement.

C. Trevena: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: I would like to introduce in the gallery today

Carl Larsen, who has been sitting watching the debate and watching question

period. He's here for the second time, I think, and the last time he was here,

he said that it was a little dry. His granddaughter Kaylah is one of the pages

in the House.

Carl is a resident on Quadra Island — a neighbour and I would like

to say a friend — who also is one of the very hard-working crew members on our

ferry, the Quadra–Campbell River ferry…. I've forgotten the name of our ferry.

However, Carl, who works on the ferries, is a good friend and good neighbour. I

hope the House will make him very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second

reading debate of Bill 23 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the

information of members, continued discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of

Forests and Range.

Second Reading of Bills

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

(continued)

C. Wyse: Before lunch, I had the privilege of having your

attention in debating the merits of Bill 23, the Public Health Act. Given the

break at lunchtime….

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, I'm glad to see that you are here to hear my close

on Bill 23.

I believe that before lunch I had mentioned that there were three

cautions I wished to bring to the attention of the Speaker with regards to this

particular bill. It's on that I wish to wrap up and close.

The first caution is that greater clarity may be needed with

respect to public consultation on public health plans developed by public

bodies.

The second caution is that the government is talking tough with

respect to requiring communities to include mental health and addiction

facilities and housing in their communities but does not back it up with

adequate funding and resources to make it happen.

The third point once more, in my judgment, comes to the point of a

government that claims to be open, transparent and accountable. My third caution

is that once more, this bill is an enabling bill. What it does is grant the

authority to cabinet in order to develop the regulations. That is the level of

government that is least available for any type of transparency and

accountability. That simply is how our system operates.

[1440]

Before lunch I pointed out that this particular bill in actual

fact removes the ability from an individual citizen to trigger investigations

with health hazards. When you compare that the regulations are going to be

developed by cabinet in secrecy, I challenge that this particular legislation

provides for openness, accountability and transparency.

With that, Madam Speaker, I wish to conclude my remarks. Thank you

for providing me this opportunity

[ Page 12039 ]

to give these cautions with regards to Bill 23, the Public Health Act.

M. Sather: I take my place to join in the debate on Bill

23, the Public Health Act. As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues before

me, there are things about this act that I find quite acceptable and want to

support.

For example, the legislation fulfils the government's throne

speech commitment to ban the use of trans fats in the preparation of foods in

schools, restaurants and food service establishments by 2010. The legislation

itself does not ban trans fats but enables the regulation of health impediments.

Insofar as those are effective — and I'm hopeful that they will be — I certainly

endorse that move by the government.

I think it's been clearly understood — and there's all sorts of

evidence and research to support the fact — that trans fats are not good for our

health. I know my wife keeps close track of the trans fats that we might be

eating in our home and actually has educated me a great deal on the dangers of

trans fats. We certainly want to ensure that children in schools are not exposed

to this substance, which in all likelihood is dangerous to their health. I note

that it says in the preparation of foods, so I'm assuming that would mean things

like cooking oils that foods are prepared with.

The whole issue of trans fats, however, is a bigger one. It

certainly is a public health issue, and I think we need to ensure that we're

getting trans fats out of our food products entirely. Anything the government

can do to regulate and reduce the use of trans fats, particularly in our

schools, I fully endorse. That's a good thing, a good part of this bill.

The general purpose of Bill 23 is to enable medical health

officers and environmental health officers to investigate health hazard

complaints. It supports preparations and responses for public health emergencies

and ensures that government and health officials have the authority they need to

mobilize resources and take action to protect public health. It provides the

minister with new powers with respect to requiring public bodies, including

health authorities and local governments, to develop public health plans to

address emerging health issues.

My colleague the member for Cariboo South, who was up before me,

mentioned some of his concerns around local governments and this act. So I won't

delve further into that issue, other than to note that it's been brought up by

my colleague.

The government says that the bill completes modernization of the

Drinking Water Protection Act and other acts. In a few minutes I will talk a

little bit more about the Drinking Water Protection Act and modernization. Yes,

I'm sure there are antiquated sections of these various acts and acts themselves

— as we heard, some of them go back to 1893 — that need modernization.

I think what the public in British Columbia are particularly

looking for are tools to help them be assured that their public health is

protected, and we're hopeful that these modernizations are going to do that. The

minister may require that a public health plan be made to monitor factors,

including public health, and the minister sets the terms of reference for the

plan, including who must be consulted.

[1445]

I want to talk a bit about — in fact, probably most of what I have

to say today — the protection of drinking water, which is a truly essential part

of protecting public health. We are fortunate in our part of the world to be

blessed with good drinking water for the most part. Certainly, we know that's

the case in Maple Ridge with regard to the water that comes out of our tap. In

Pitt Meadows it comes from the Coquitlam watershed, which is secure and hasn't

actually been affected by high-water events and runoff that in recent years has

affected the Vancouver water supply, which comes from the Capilano reservoir.

We have good drinking water in my constituency that comes out of

the tap. We know that in other parts of British Columbia, residents are not so

fortunate. There are a large number of boil-water advisories throughout the

province, which should be drawing our attention to the fact that this is a

public health issue of considerable importance. It behooves us as government and

governors on both sides of the House to pay great attention to this issue.

Local citizens, I think, in all communities throughout the

province were paying a great deal of attention to what happened on the Sunshine

Coast in the last number of months with regard to Chapman Creek and concerns

that this was a threat to the health of the residents of that area. Local

medical officials there concluded that the logging in Chapman Creek on the

Sunshine Coast was a health hazard. They tried to invoke what they could to

protect their community, which is laudable, which is understandable and which

citizens are going to do. It's such an essential thing — drinking water — that

citizens will rise up to try to protect that essential resource, and that's what

happened there.

Their regional district was unable to act because they cannot

develop bylaws to regulate forestry operations, and that was their concern.

Their concern was about the forestry operations along and in the environs of

that creek. The public was able to trigger an investigation into health hazards,

and under the new law, which is Bill 23, a medical health officer is required to

report a health hazard to a designated person. Our critic the member for

Vancouver-Kensington has brought up the question of what this means and how that

will play out via regulation or otherwise — the reporting of a health hazard to

a designated person.

I know that in my community, as well as on the Sunshine Coast and

I expect in other areas, local residents have some concern about what effect

that will have on their ability to become engaged and to remain engaged in this

very important public health issue.

Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law said of Bill 23: "The

Public Health Act shuts the public out at every turn." That's a very serious

statement by a very…. I have met Mr. Gage. I consider him to be a very

well-considered individual, not prone to

[ Page 12040 ]

hyperbole, and I think that says a lot about their concern about how they are

going to be able to protect their health vis-à-vis drinking water.

[1450]

In my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, in particular in the

community of Maple Ridge, we have had concerns expressed not that much different

than what was expressed on the Sunshine Coast.

There's a group in Maple Ridge called the Blue Mountain

conservation group that has been struggling for years with regard to their

safety and health around the watershed that is Blue Mountain, which lies above

most of their homes.

In fact, the genesis for that group was that in the subdivision

that some of them lived in a number of years ago, their water was surface water

coming off Blue Mountain. That water was determined at that time to be unfit for

human consumption, and they were no longer allowed to use that water. They are

convinced that that determination had to do with the forestry operations and the

public use operations on Blue Mountain, which led to the pollution of those

surface waters. They've led a fight for a long time to try to ensure that their

environment and their public health, through their drinking water, are going to

be protected.

Of late both the residents of Blue Mountain and the residents of

an area called Thornhill in Maple Ridge, which is nearby, have been expressing

concerns about their groundwater and the quality of their groundwater, because

all of this area — almost all of it, at least — depends on wells. They depend on

wells for their drinking water, and they are very concerned about their health

vis-à-vis those wells and what is happening to their drinking water supply.

They were able to get a spokesperson a few months ago from the

Ministry of Environment to come out and speak to them about their concerns. You

know, one of the things that you have to determine with aquifers is what the

source is of the aquifers. The one thing they learned from that spokesperson was

that in all likelihood, without the scientific tests to prove it — which are

fairly complicated, as I understand it — Blue Mountain is the source of their

drinking water and their well water, which to a casual observer stands to

reason. It's situated above most of them, and water runs downhill.

The removal of forest cover is of great concern, as I said, to

them. It can lead to increased infusion of aquifers with siltation. They have

been looking everywhere, from insurance, from government, from a variety of

ministries — and I'll go through a bit of that in a minute — including the

Ministry of Health, for how they can become assured that their drinking water is

safe and that their public health is protected.

Some of them, very much to their credit, have undertaken a

monitoring program entirely at their own expense to test their well water, to be

able to develop a baseline of data from which they can compare and will have

objective data for any changes that might take place.

I attended a couple of meetings, at least, with government

officials and with members of the Blue Mountain conservation group. If it wasn't

such a serious issue, I would have to say that it was comical. But in fact it is

a serious issue, so it wasn't.

[1455]

I could fully understand, particularly after the years and years

that this group has been struggling to get some assurance from government and to

get some action, that their environment, their health and their water are

protected. It was a complete merry-go-round, and sadly, nobody was taking

charge.

There were several ministries involved in these meetings. There

were representatives from the Ministry of Forests. There were representatives

from Agriculture and Lands, primarily from the integrated land management

bureau.

The question was: who's protecting our water source? That was the

question that the citizens of my community put forward over and over again. Who

is protecting our water source? Who is protecting our public health? They did

not get any kind of answer, because it seemed that there really is no answer.

I asked the representative from the Ministry of Forests: "Can you

speak to the issue of the removal of forest cover and groundwater? What is the

connection, or in fact, is there a connection?" There is some dispute. It's not

well understood, from what I've gathered, what the connection is, so I asked him

to explain that.

He certainly knew what the meeting was all about, but he said that

he had no knowledge and couldn't comment on that. That was very disappointing to

me, and I think it was very disappointing to my constituents to not be able to

be informed by government of what was going on.

Although the government spokespersons that were there…. They

conducted the meetings well. They were sympathetic. They were empathetic. What

did come out of it was that the Ministry of Health is responsible.

Some of them are my constituents; some of them are in Maple

Ridge–Mission. They went to their public health officer and started asking

questions. "How can you protect our drinking water supply, our public health?"

They were told: "Well, in your case there's nothing we can do to protect your

health unless people are getting sick, unless in fact the damage is already

done."

This is totally unacceptable. That's too late. You certainly need

to act if people are getting sick, but surely in this day and age we must act

before people get sick to ensure that their health is being protected. My

concern is that we're no further ahead. In fact, we may be further behind with

regard to protecting drinking water and the obvious public health benefit

involved.

Sections 57 and 58 of the Health Act are deleted by Bill 23. Those

sections allowed individual citizens to trigger an investigation into health

hazards, such as happened on the Sunshine Coast at Chapman Creek. Again, it was

sad to see residents having to get legal representation and all the costs

involved with that and those legal people having to search for something,

anything, to protect public drinking water and finding it difficult to do so.

Consequently, their challenge was ultimately unsuccessful in the court.

[1500]

[ Page 12041 ]

I think that far from being indicative of a frivolous case, it

speaks volumes about the lack of protection that we have in this province for

public drinking water. That's a shame, and that's really not acceptable. It's

not acceptable at all in the 21st century, and it makes me wonder whether the

government is…. I mean, I find it hard to say that the government isn't aware of

this issue, because I think they're aware of this issue, but I don't see that

the government is wanting to deal with the issue.

Lest anybody think that the residents of east Maple Ridge should

just hang on until there's more development and we get city water…. I would

suggest that is not a good solution. We in the Fraser Valley cannot depend

forever on water from the Coquitlam watershed. Our population is growing

significantly. We have two new bridges coming into Maple Ridge that are going to

bring more people in, and we need people to be able to depend on the drinking

water sources that they have in addition to water from the Coquitlam watershed.

This is the era of climate change, as we know. This is a time when

we're seeing prolonged droughts in the summer. As it is, people in the area that

I'm speaking of, the Whonnock area of Maple Ridge, frequently have to bring in

drinking water by truck during the summer.

Government should be taking every opportunity to protect their

drinking water because we can only expect that in all likelihood, there are

going to be more challenges vis-à-vis the warming climate and drinking water. In

fact, I predict that this will be one of the major issues, if not the major

issue, in this century not only in British Columbia but throughout the world —

the availability of safe drinking water.

Although the government has a climate change agenda and has

brought in a lot of bills, there's nothing to do that I see that is going to

address the issue of protecting drinking water. That's too bad, because I think

this was an opportunity through Bill 23, the Public Health Act, to do that.

An essential part of doing that, however, is to ensure that the

public is fully engaged in the process, because right now, once again, they're

feeling shut out by this government. They're feeling the heavy hand of

government saying: "Well, you pesky citizens that dared to rise up and challenge

our authority over your drinking water…. We're certainly going to fix that."

That's too bad, again, because punishing the citizens should not be the goal of

legislation. Although Bill 23 has some good stuff in it, I fear that is partly

what it is intended to do.

Last year I brought in a private member's bill, the Drinking Water

Protection Amendment Act, 2007, because I wanted to do what I could. Even though

I'm on the opposition side, I wanted to do what I could to address this problem.

One of the parts of that bill was that subsection 32(4)(

a) of the Drinking Water

Protection Act is amended by 32(4)(

a) saying: "…whether changes are required in

land and water use within the watershed, including tree harvesting, agricultural

uses, industrial, commercial or residential development or other uses."

These are the kinds of issues that are affecting drinking water.

There are other issues as well, like drought, but we need to take the whole

picture when looking at the safety of drinking water. I understand that it's a

challenge for any government to do that. How do you manage to carry out resource

extraction — to wit, logging — and still protect your drinking water? I fully

admit that's no small challenge, but I think we have no other choice than to

deal with that head-on.

[1505]

I know that the people of Maple Ridge and the Blue Mountain

Conservation Group are totally frustrated that the government is in no way

taking on that challenge and has really dropped the ball in that regard.

Moving on to another part of this bill, which is an area of

concern to me too, the government is talking tough with respect to requiring

communities to include mental health and addiction facilities in their

communities — in other words, talking about addictions and mental health

services. I fully support that. I was a mental health therapist before I became

an MLA. I've also worked in addiction services, so I fully understand how

important it is that we improve those services — that government improve those

services. So I'm glad to see that the government intends to do that.

However, I have to say that there's one thing since I've been

elected that has surprised me about what this government has not done, and

that's around the issue of detox services. You will know, Madam Speaker, that

detox is a significant essential. Whether you do it yourself, which is not

recommended generally, or whether you go to a detox centre, it's an essential

first step to dealing with addiction.

Several years ago our closest detox treatment was in New

Westminster. It was subsequently switched to Burnaby. Now it's in Surrey, and it

simply is not good enough. It surprised me immensely, actually, that the

government has not put in more detox services.

If you have someone who is fighting to get off an addiction and

needs to go to a detox centre, first of all, some of these people — quite a few

of them in my community and throughout the province — do not have a lot of

financial wherewithal. I think it's safe to say that because of their addiction

and sometimes attendant mental health issues, nor do they have a lot of internal

capacity in terms of ability to stay focused on an issue to get there. I mean,

some of them don't even have the bus fare oftentimes to get to Surrey. So it's a

real impediment to have to go that far to access detox services.

On top of that — and I think this is a longstanding policy that

probably predates this government; I don't know — the policy that you can't make

an appointment for detox simply doesn't work. There should be the capacity to

make an appointment and go in, like any other medical treatment. I hope

something is going to happen positively in that regard because of this bill.

Right now you have to go every morning at nine o'clock or whatever the time is

and say: "Here I am. I'm presenting myself for detox." You get told more often

than not: "Sorry, no room today. Come back tomorrow."

[ Page 12042 ]

That is not acceptable, and it doesn't work. We talk a lot about

homelessness, both sides of this House. We talk about addictions, how important

they are, yet addictions services — and I'm focusing right now on detox — are

sadly lacking. I don't see how we can really address homelessness, for example,

in my community without adequate detox services.

[1510]

I don't see that really happening in this bill. I look forward to

the government — maybe the minister in his wrapping-up speech or maybe when we

get to the committee stage…. This is a thick bill, and there's certainly a lot

of stuff in here that we will want to examine. I'm sure the Health Minister will

want to examine it with us and provide all those answers about how this is going

to work, how this bill on the ground is going to provide better services —

whether it's the protection of public health through the protection of drinking

water, whether it's improvement in detox and other kinds of addiction treatment

services or whether it's the issue of homelessness, which has been canvassed

fully by a member before me.

I look forward to the answers to those questions. With that, I'll

take my seat and pass it over to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: I'd like to thank the previous members who have

spoken on this bill, especially as it relates to an issue that's concerning to

me as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

I know that the Sunshine Coast has been mentioned a few times in

relation to Bill 23, and I just thought it would be an appropriate moment to

bring up some concerns I have about the changes that this legislation makes to

the ability of the public to become involved in issues that they believe concern

them and directly affect them. In this particular case, the residents of the

Sunshine Coast, in very large numbers and in eloquent expression of community

interest, spoke loudly against certain practices that were taking place in the

Chapman Creek watershed.

The Chapman Creek watershed on the Sunshine Coast provides clean

drinking water to approximately 90 percent of the population, and as such, it

has for many years been the focus of a lot of attention and the focus of concern

not just by environmentalists and conservationists but by the community at

large. It was clearly evident in those demonstrations, with large numbers of

people coming out to express their concern. They're concerned about the

protection of our drinking water.

I think there's a renewed understanding and interest in how we

protect our water not just for today but for years and years to come, because as

we all know, there's nothing of more value in a watershed than the water. We

have to recognize that the watershed on the Sunshine Coast…. The highest value

in that watershed is the water that we drink and the water that we use to

survive.

It's no surprise that when the community of the Sunshine Coast

spoke vociferously in defence of their drinking water…. They did so this past

summer upon realizing that some logging activity was going to take place, which

could potentially have an impact on the quality of the water. At first it was

unclear as to what response the community would be able to put forward in the

face of Western Forest Products' ability to adhere to provincial regulations

and, thus, not have to take into consideration, to the same level of concern

that the residents wanted, the protection of drinking water.

Bill 23 specifically amends the Health Act, which actually, in

effect, takes away one of the triggers, one of the mechanisms that the community

has to have a say over what happens in their watershed. In this particular

circumstance on the Sunshine Coast, there was a convergence of voices, a

convergence of concern over this watershed issue. Residents in the hundreds

turned out to public meetings and public demonstrations to express that concern.

[1515]

I believe it was rewarding, in a manner of speaking, to see that

the community was concerned and was on top of that issue, and it was drinking

water and the protection of drinking water being higher on the list of

priorities for the community than any other interest.

The Chapman Creek watershed has been the subject of numerous past

public debates and has been central, in effect, to the debate over the

protection of the public's drinking water source. In fact, in the past

referendums have been held over how we were going to protect the water. Numerous

legislative amendments were put forward in order to attempt to deal with what is

the most precious resource on the Sunshine Coast. Unfortunately, the threats

continued, and the sensitivity of the public to those threats grew over time as

well.

So when the time came, in the summer when the issue was before the

public, the community reacted quickly. I was informed that there was some

intention to do some logging right in the watershed. I called up a

representative of the company, and I suggested to him that it would likely

result in some public response and that I wouldn't blame the public for becoming

concerned.

There had been a moratorium on logging in this watershed. There

had been a moratorium, for reasons expressed already, in order to protect the

water against unforeseen circumstances. I think everybody should know that as

the climate changes, so does the climate's impact on the earth, on soil erosion,

on water and stream flows and ultimately on the quality of the water coming out

of our drinking water treatment plant.

Many residents of the Sunshine Coast wondered how it was possible

that the legislative framework — in other words, the laws that control or manage

our water — could allow for legislation to exist that speaks only to the quality

of water as it emerges from the water treatment plant and not before it enters

that same treatment plant. How is it possible that the only safeguard that we

have in legislation is for the water after it leaves the water treatment plant?

I think most British Columbians would agree that we should do what

we can to ensure that water requires as little treatment as necessary. So while

it's possible to treat water with chemicals and through

[ Page 12043 ]

various processes, it would ultimately be better if we didn't have to do that

and if we could keep our water as pure as possible.

Another quasi-legislative effort to protect the water in the

Chapman-Grey watershed was undertaken by the regional government in full

cooperation with the Sechelt First Nation under the leadership of Garry Feschuk

at the time. Chief Feschuk went to Ed Steeves, and they discussed this issue.

They said: "We need to make sure that the watershed is protected. This water has

served our people for millennia, and it should continue to serve our

communities."

Out of extensive discussion and deliberation, an agreement was

signed in the Sechelt First Nation longhouse, and the joint watershed management

accord was endorsed by those present. I say "quasi-legislative" because it

doesn't hold, in fact, the effect of law in the province. It is certainly a

statement of intent, and it is certainly a statement of value, but it doesn't

have the legislative authority or the legislative teeth that the community

wanted it to have in order to protect their water.

So you have a community on the Sunshine Coast, almost entirely

reliant on this source of drinking water, that is searching for whatever

legislative tool is available in that toolbox in order to protect their water.

They went to public discourse, they went to joint watershed management accord,

and then they were faced with the realization that the legislation itself is

unable to adequately protect the drinking water source.

[1520]

So as imaginative and progressive and forward-thinking as they

were on the Sunshine Coast — and as they are on the Sunshine Coast — they looked

for another legal mechanism. They found that legal mechanism, and they found

that legal mechanism in the Health Act. Unfortunately, this is part of the

Health Act that is going to be amended with the eventual potential passage of

this legislation in Bill 23.

Specifically, what Bill 23 does is remove the ability on the part

of a citizen, an individual citizen, to trigger a review to ensure that a health

hazard does not exist. The public has had until now the ability to go and

trigger an investigation into a health hazard. That's under sections 57 and 58

of the Health Act. They did so only because no other legislative tool was

available to them. The regional district, which is liable for the quality of

water being provided to its citizens, does not have the ability and the power to

control what may impact that water.

So we have a situation where the legal liability for the quality

of the water rests with the regional district, but the regional district at the

same time is unable to influence the quality of the water going into the

treatment plant. What I see there is a chasm between the public interests and

the public's ability to influence that interest.

Perhaps there are other mechanisms in law that we have to rely on.

Perhaps there exist other mechanisms in law that we'll have to rely on, but

reassurance for not just the Sunshine Coast community but for various

communities across the province who rely on drinking watersheds is necessary. We

need to ensure that legislation adequately protects the public interest. There's

no more important role for legislation to take as far as this issue is

concerned. How we protect our water is defined in legislation, and it's defined

in regulation. So the concern simply arises when we see some of those mechanisms

being eliminated.

In this case, we eliminate the role of the public — the individual

citizen. While this is not in and of itself an admission or a resignation to the

impossibility of doing anything about protecting water, it simply eliminates one

of those mechanisms that was used as a last resort, because the community was

very concerned and remains very concerned.

The public will that was expressed in the summer was clear. They

knew — we all knew — that the success or failure of this particular mechanism

would result in the issue being brought to the attention of government. We

recognized that forcing a particular industrial activity in our watershed to be

suspended would garner the appropriate attention to the issue, the issue being

how capable we are as a community and, in fact, as a society to ensure that

protections exist for our water. Nothing really is more important than the

protection of our water.

I do imagine that there are citizens in Powell River–Sunshine

Coast who anticipated legislative change removing the individual's right to

trigger an investigation. There were those — cynical, perhaps myself included —

that thought this would be where government would try to close off one of the

event avenues that the public has to express their concern about drinking water.

[1525]

Some of us were also hoping, maybe against hope, that the province

would look at the legislation that existed on the books and try to figure out a

way we could ensure that our water is protected — to ensure that the legislative

framework exists for all occasions, for all eventualities, whether they be

climate change or industrial activity or even recreational activity.

We need to be able to have the mandate and the jurisdiction at a

local level to protect water sources. Nobody understands that more than those

who are reliant on that water.

I could add that hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are

guaranteed, in essence, the safety of their water — residents of Victoria,

residents of Vancouver — but we folks in the rural areas have to try and find

something else on our tool belt that'll do what legislation does to protect the

water for Victorians and for Vancouverites.

I think there's a double standard here that needs to be addressed

regardless of the success of this bill. There needs to be an effort to ensure

that our water is protected and to ensure that the water accessed by rural

residents of the province is as safe as the water accessed by our urban friends

and relatives.

With that in mind, it's important to realize and recognize the

impact of this particular legislative change that's being proposed to the Health

Act. We need to recognize that it has a direct impact on our communities. Our

communities should be aware and

[ Page 12044 ]

vigilant to ensure that their interests are protected in this chamber.

I leave it up to the public to determine whether or not removing

their voice from this particular aspect of drinking water protection is a good

choice. I personally think this could have been an issue addressed with a more

positive rather than a more negative approach, which is the removal of the

individual's right. However, on committee stage I'm sure that certain questions

will also be able to be canvassed of the minister.

Really, to recap what happened, the regional district was unable

to demonstrate that logging in the Chapman Creek watershed would result in an

imminent threat, as required by the Drinking Water Protection Act.

We have to just for a moment, if I could stop for a second,

recognize that the Drinking Water Protection Act requires an imminent threat and

the demonstration of an imminent threat. I think most people in this chamber

would recognize that sometimes imminent is too late. Sometimes we need to be a

little bit more proactive to prevent that imminent threat from occurring but to

first and foremost ensure that the public has the opportunity to provide input

into how that imminent threat is mitigated.

When they failed to demonstrate an imminent threat is when the

Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, a group that has a long history of some

very excellent work on behalf of the broader community…. It's got a lot of broad

support from numerous different sectors in our community. They filed a

complaint, essentially.

I'll take my seat. I think the member opposite would like to make

an introduction.

[1530]

D. Jarvis: Permission to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Jarvis: I apologize to the member for Powell

River–Sunshine Coast for interrupting his brilliant debate. That's what we're

doing here, debating a health act in the committee stage.

I would like to introduce to you approximately 35 or 40 students

from Drummondville, Quebec, who are here on exchange with the children from

Laura Secord School. Would the people please say bonjour and welcome to British

Columbia.

Debate Continued

N. Simons: May I also add: c'est dommage que les Canadiens

ont perdu mais à la prochaine fois, à l'année prochaine.

An Hon. Member: Yeah, show off.

N. Simons: Well, I had to express that in French in case

there were Canuck fans here. But it is too bad that the Canadiens are out of the

playoffs.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

As I was saying, my responsibility here in this chamber is to

question the acts and the legislation that are being brought by government. Part

of doing that is to point out where there maybe are some frailties, for lack of

a better word, in the legislation and where perhaps some more attention could be

paid, whether through amendment or through…. It may be unnecessary, if we are,

in fact, reassured at committee stage that amendments are not required.

I certainly would have liked to see a government that at least

speaks to issues of conservation and would see this perhaps as an opportunity to

strengthen legislation that protects our drinking water. We need, obviously, to

be vigilant. We mustn't let legislation, if it's in fact enacted, prevent us

from suggesting better legislation, should that be needed.

What happened on the Sunshine Coast was that the regional

district, acting as a local board of health, which is its right under some

legislation, held hearings and issued an order. They held four days of hearings

and subsequently issued an order restricting the industrial activity — not

halting it, not vetoing it but restricting it.

What they considered the potential health hazard — that is, the

harvesting of old growth within the watershed…. What they considered problematic

was the logging on slopes of greater than 60 percent. Their conclusion was that

it did pose a risk. Subsequent to that, the Supreme Court said that the

complainants did not in fact make the case adequately.

Unfortunately, this has led the public of British Columbia, at

least the public of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, to say: "Well, then, what are

we going to do to ensure that our water source is safe? What are we going to do

to ensure that a community that's landlocked, from which there is no road to

another community…? How are we going to ensure that our water is safe?"

I'm hoping that the minister will be able to reassure and assuage

any fears we might have about the protection of water. I don't want to put too

heavy a burden on him, but it is his mandate. It is under his authority that the

water we rely on in this province is protected.

[1535]

Amendments to the Health Act might eliminate what they considered

a bit of a nuisance, what they might have considered a bit of an impediment to

the companies that provide government with so much of their funding. Perhaps

other reasons exist beyond that. We'll figure that out, perhaps, at committee

stage.

I can't help but think that the reaction to the activities on the

Sunshine Coast, or what triggered government's intent to change how we protect

our water, how we protect our health, was pretty much prompted by the actions of

residents on the Sunshine Coast.

I want to reiterate that first nations and the non–first nations

population of the lower Sunshine Coast, new residents and long-time residents

alike, have said repeatedly that we need to ensure that our drinking water is

protected. I certainly hope that this kind of

[ Page 12045 ]

protection can be guaranteed somewhere in the act so that individuals whose

right has been removed will still be protected by other legislative mechanisms.

Now, when the regional district formed itself, in effect, as a

local board of health, it did so under

section 37 of the Health Act: "A local

board of health is established in each municipality, consisting of the council

of the municipality." Elected representatives of the regional district on the

Sunshine Coast heard testimony. They heard testimony from a number of witnesses.

They are accountable to residents on the Sunshine Coast, and the residents of

the Sunshine Coast spoke in clear and eloquent terms.

They said to their government: "We want you to do what you can to

prevent hazard to our drinking water and to ensure that the provincial

government is aware that we find the current protections inadequate." So we have

one reaction, which is to eliminate that sort of thorn in government's side. I'm

hoping that we can perhaps see an opportunity to see government come in with

legislation that will protect our water.

We have a number of concerns. The concerns that I wanted to raise

and specifically address today are specific to the concerns of Powell

River–Sunshine Coast. They're concerned about other aspects of the legislation

as well. Other speakers will obviously have the opportunity to address it.

Whether it's a concern or the identification of an issue that's going to be

canvassed further is really up to them.

This was an issue that dominated the public discourse. It

dominated in conversation and was a top of mind issue. On the Sunshine Coast, as

you all likely know, there is a very strong consciousness about the importance

of managing and being stewards of our natural resources, whether they be our

wood or our water or our minerals.

The Sunshine Coast has a wonderful mix of industry. That wonderful

mix of industry also creates situations where you have a wonderful conflict

between interests.

[1540]

Our role as legislators is to take those conflicts and stickhandle

them — slightly better than the Montreal Canadiens did.

An Hon. Member: Hey, watch that. Watch that.

N. Simons: You weren't here. That's all right.

We stickhandle those competing interests to ensure that ultimately

the public interest is protected. I'm hoping that with this legislation,

whatever happens to it in the next stage, we'll be able to fully examine the

implications that it has on us and on our drinking water.

With that, Madam Speaker, I either adjourn debate, or I cede my

place and allow one of my distinguished colleagues to continue.

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to speak to Bill 23 this afternoon

to put some comments on the record about areas of the bill, the Public Health

Act, that directly relate to issues, some of which have been quite animated in

my constituency, and to some of the areas in this act that give cabinet

extraordinary powers.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast just talked at some

length about drinking water protection in his community as one illustration.

Here, too, in the capital region there's an experience, I think, that does touch

upon the provisions in this act that I wish to comment on this afternoon.

I appreciate that we are dealing with over a century of

legislation that is to be modernized by government at this time. Some of the

previous legislation has titles that are not even the topic of polite

conversation and that have long left the lexicon of health care and chronic

disease management and preventative health care. I appreciate all of that — that

these statutes do need to be updated and revisited and that often governments

don't get to this kind of business for very legitimate reasons, I think.

Many governments in many sessions of the Legislature have come and

gone where the Public Health Act has remained unexamined and not integrated and

amalgamated into a bill like this — not this bill, but a bill like this —

because other business of the House has more urgency. Sometimes that is very

legitimate.

We saw earlier this afternoon that the government intends to have

its way and push through many bills that deserve full scrutiny and fulsome

debate, and that is unfortunate. That is a product of the inability to manage

properly the legislative calendar and to also push through changes in the way

that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: It's very definitely related to changes to the way

budget estimates are conducted in this place.

The point I'm making is that for legitimate reasons over many,

many years governments have failed to integrate legislation into a new Public

Health Act. I think that there's no problem on this side of the House with

getting around to that business.

I think: why now? Perhaps Vaughn Palmer got it right when he

commented that this is a year when the Liberals were "hungering for material to

bulk up their post–Conversation on Health legislative reform package."

Indeed, if the minister or the government want to show progress by

claiming a new compendium health act, then I'm absolutely certain that they're

going to do that. It will potentially be brought in with closure or displaced by

other bills that will be pushed through with the use of closure.

[1545]

It's interesting that this bill comes after legislation where we

debated sustainability. Again, it was a curious point that the minister…. I was

going to say "members of the government side," but I don't think any of them

spoke to it, although apparently they were proud to add a "sixth principle" to

medicare. But it was interesting that the minister's justification for the act

seemed to contradict itself on many occasions.

[ Page 12046 ]

At one point sustainability was sold as having the virtues of its

imprecision — that the word was meaningless. "Don't worry. This isn't in any way

going to displace other principles of medicare or lead to attacks and reductions

in health care services."

Then, on the other hand, it was used alternatingly by the minister

to claim that this is actually an innovative, revolutionary change, a new

practice that signified the boldness and vision of the government. Never mind

that not a single other jurisdiction in Canada agreed with him, is not adding

that clause to their….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just a reminder that the topic we

are debating is Bill 23, the Public Health Act.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I've made my

point that some of the context of Bill 23 is similar to a previous bill that was

up for debate, which is a bit hollow.

Let me get back to Bill 23 and some of the aspects of it. I think

the segue has proved that the government doesn't have a lot to say and that as

Mr. Palmer, indeed, put it: "This is great to bulk up a rather hollow agenda on

health care."

I want to examine some of the provisions in the act that I think

warrant debate, because this legislation does, indeed, afford cabinet some new

powers. I think the area that members on this side of the House are particularly

sensitive to and want to examine are the powers over local government,

specifically.

It runs contrary, again, to government sentiments and statements

on prior occasions about their respect for partnership with local government and

for the authority and jurisdiction of local government. I think that is one

aspect of this bill that does deserve some illumination.

I think that where other questions can be raised on Bill 23 is

around the exclusions — basically, what isn't in this bill. In other words, it's

the tendency we see from government legislation that is submitted to this House

to leave up most of the details, most of the things that we should be discussing

in this place, as matters of regulation for cabinet to enact and decide upon

later, behind closed doors, away from full scrutiny and debate in this place,

and with no obligation to consult those that are impacted.

Here we see it, to some extent, in Bill 23. This continuing theme

that has run through a lot of legislation in the past during the mandate of this

government.

I wanted to just speak to one key point that empowers the minister

under this legislation to require public health plans that will monitor the

health status of the public and factors that influence public health that may

deal with communicable disease or health hazards. I don't think anyone would

disagree at all with the ability for the provincial government to require that

of local government.

[1550]

Quite the contrary, I think that in terms of the aspects of this

legislation that do, indeed, modernize and afford government the ability to do

that, it's entirely supportable. I think where it perhaps could be improved upon

is around the powers that give the minister sole ability to set the terms of

reference for the plan.

Many regional districts in this province are involved intimately

with the facilities that form their health care system. They have their own

regional planners that compile health care information about their citizenry.

They even budget and expend considerable millions of dollars — hundreds of

millions of dollars — on the physical capital of the health facilities

themselves. Of course, they work with health authorities on all the land use

issues related to siting of health care facilities.

It seems to me that there should be some requirement that the

minister at the very least involve local government, elected officials and

staff, with the production of the terms of reference for public health plans.

That, to me, just seems to be something that can only improve the quality, scope

and thinking behind the plan — and, of course, the plan itself when it has

completed the process.

But that's not in the bill. There is no onus at all on the

minister to receive information or have the benefit of participation from those

officials. In fact, quite the opposite. It's all about overriding and giving

powers to merely order things instead of working in consultation for a stronger

public health plan. I think that is a concern. I think it's perhaps the wrong

approach.

In some cases, of course, it will make no matter of difference

because the provincial government almost exercises sole responsibility for these

kinds of things. But in other instances where there's expertise that won't

necessarily be consulted, I think it will result in a weaker plan.

Another area of concern in this legislation is where it allows

cabinet to override local government zoning bylaws that prohibit certain types

of health services — for instance, a needle exchange or a methadone clinic. I

want to speak to this for a moment because I can understand the positive

motivation, I suppose, of the minister or the government to do this.

They have a responsibility to make sure that communities are

respectful and inclusive and, indeed, to deal with what can often be

controversial preventative public health services in their community — like a

needle exchange, for example — when communities might otherwise be shutting them

out.

It shouldn't take a municipal election to change mayors, for

example, in a place like Surrey before the government can even have a

conversation about some of these kinds of services. I just throw that out as an

example — not one that's specific, but just a large municipality in the Lower

Mainland. It shouldn't be the whim of political leadership at the local

government level, but neither should it be forced through provincially.

I think there are going to be examples where local government

zoning bylaws can be used abusively, irresponsibly, but I think there are also

examples where local zoning bylaws can be used legitimately. Take the case of

needle exchanges. There are a number of cities

[ Page 12047 ]

in the United States and Canada that have zoning bylaws that merely set out a

minimum distance for needle exchanges from schools and from school children by

inference.

I think in the case of Boston and Chicago it's something like 200

to 400 metres. I don't want to get the examples wrong, but it is not a huge

distance, recognizing that these are urban areas and that often services can be

just some blocks from one another, and you're into a new neighbourhood. But

there is a minimum. I think in some cases that's legitimate.

There was a real live example of this in the capital region not

too long ago, where Vancouver Island Health Authority — I think with good

intentions, but without the benefit of consultation — purchased a building where

it suggested it intended to put a brand-new, expanded, fairly large operation

needle exchange because it was being evicted from the current location, or the

service provider was.

[1555]

In this case it happened to be approximately 50 yards from an

elementary school. Needless to say, there was some concern. A lot of the concern

arose from the fact that nobody had been consulted at all — that, in fact,

details were learned that the real estate transaction was going to close within

48 hours before the principal of that school knew that a new, quite significant

regional needle exchange facility was going to be located there.

I think the health authority did the right thing in the end. It

listened to the public and has now moved on to look at a different service

delivery model in a different location within the capital region for that

facility. It is a setback, no doubt, because I think service will be disrupted.

But when it comes to the two important public goals, they

shouldn't be thrust upon each other in terms of where we provide public

education safely and where we provide important public health services for

intravenous drug users. In that case there would have been, I think, a

reasonable rationale for local government to have a bylaw setting out a minimum

distance.

We have such bylaws for casinos in most municipalities in British

Columbia. There is a permitted area for those. They cannot be located within a

certain proximity to other types of businesses. Even within the casino complex

itself there are restrictions around where alcohol can be served and where

gaming can occur.

There are also zoning restrictions on private liquor stores in the

city of Vancouver and in the city of Victoria as well, recognizing that there

are activities sometimes associated with those kinds of retail activities and

the consumption of alcohol sometimes immediately after those kinds of retail

activities which do not fit well with certain streetscapes and certain areas and

certain other uses of land adjacent to them — such as public education in the

example that I'm speaking to. So that's a legitimate kind of bylaw.

This legislation allows the government to simply run roughshod

over those kinds of local bylaws, no matter how well-crafted and how

well-considered they are, no matter how much public consultation has been done

by local government. The province can do that, of course, without any public

consultation. It seems to me that in some of those instances, the province ought

to be working with the communities that it wants to help, instead of merely

holding this over their head.

I do offer this to the government because there is a conundrum

that municipalities have in trying to craft bylaws that make their communities

better planned and allow the location of things like methadone clinics and

needle exchanges where they feel they would work best in their communities.

Sometimes a local government bylaw can be counterproductive to what the

municipality is trying to do — if there is a controversial pre-existing

location, for example, for a methadone clinic where it does not interface well

with other types of activities in the immediate surroundings.

If you bring in a bylaw subsequently, of course, what you can

actually end up doing is grandfathering that right or that usage into the

current locations, the problematic locations. I think most mayors are aware that

sometimes they are careful what they wish for through the use of new bylaw

legislation.

Again, I say that there are very legitimate uses as well. We don't

have in the city of Victoria right now any restrictions on where some of these

types of preventative health facilities can be located.

It may be an opportunity in this case for local government to do

the right thing, look at the downtown core, look at some areas or some precincts

where they have a lot of health services and identify them as the best places to

be. You can actually use a bylaw as a positive motive to locate health

facilities of this kind rather than look at a bylaw as a punitive way to

prohibit them from locating in various locations.

[1600]

The legislation, in terms of how it addresses banning the use of

trans fats in foods prepared in schools, in restaurants and in food service

establishments by 2010…. I think that is absolutely laudable. That's a

supportable element of this legislation. It's one that other governments have

been quick to move towards. I think it's a debate that began and, perhaps

unexpectedly, received multiparty support anyway in the last Parliament of

Canada and became federally, at least, an expressed goal of the House of

Commons. I think that B.C. moving to put specific restrictions and to put a date

on it in our province is a good thing.

I think, though, that it does raise an interesting issue for the

province in terms of meeting its goals for improving the health of its

citizenry. Already you're seeing jurisdictions like New York and other places

where there are trans fat bans in restaurants reacting to the worldwide food

crisis that we're in the early stages of in terms of rising food prices. No

doubt the production of healthier, better foods is something we're all

interested in, but they cost more.

Legislation, by putting in restrictions like this, may actually….

I'm speaking specifically to how the regulation impacts schools, where we have

meal programs at schools. There could be a real collision of interests here

[ Page 12048 ]

around trying to move towards and take giant steps towards serving better

food, making sure that nutrition for our school students is dramatically better

than it is today and more comprehensive. It's already something that is not well

budgeted for, not well resourced. Some schools manage it better than others,

based on where they are and what kind of supports they might have in place that

are voluntary, by and large.

This legislation and where we're heading in terms of food costs is

going to be much more difficult for us to collectively aspire to what I think

the intent of the legislation is, which is not to eat less or to stress family

budgets more but, in fact, to raise nutrition and to bring healthier foods into

schools. That's going to be challenged. That's going to require resourcing that

I think the Ministry of Health needs to be involved in.

It's not good enough just to say that we're passing legislation,

that we're going to change these laws, without taking some responsibility over

to how the overall health condition of its citizens is going to be improved

collectively. I think those are things that I would certainly like to hear the

minister speak about, perhaps on another occasion or when he has the chance to

speak later — what kind of strategies he's developing to do that, to raise

nutrition levels and reduce the input of harmful substances into our bodies,

make us healthier while also making it something that is broadly attainable.

I also want to speak to an aspect of the bill related to food. In

this case, though, it's more about environmental safety that this legislation

touches on. There is recognition in this bill…. I think it is good that the

minister and the government can take action on harmful activities in our

environment, in our lived environment that, over time, have been demonstrated to

cause adverse, negative impacts on public health, such as chronic disease or

even disability amongst sections of the population — anything that interferes

with the goals of public health or, to quote the legislation, is "associated

with poor health within the population."

I think that's a good thing. It means, one would hope, that

government would be willing to finally take action on some environmental

contaminants that certainly have demonstrated detrimental effects on public

health. I'm speaking specifically about pesticides. There have been a number of

municipalities that have moved towards banning cosmetic pesticides and other

uses of pesticides in our environment. You know what? They have never had the

benefit of coordination or really any active interest at all from this

government. That's a shame.

[1605]

When my friend and colleague the member for Alberni-Qualicum

introduced legislation in this place to remove other toxic elements from the

environment and a plan to do it that's doable — in this case it was pet-friendly

antifreezes, which also have the risk of poisoning small children and have done

so on some occasions — again, there was no interest from the government side in

bringing about that kind of progressive legislation.

It's interesting. The powers will be here for government to take

action on things like pesticides and other public health contaminants, but so

far we've seen very little or no political will from the government on very

specific, very well demonstrated and documented areas of public health to take

that kind of action.

It's unfortunate, because I know in the two incidents that I just

mentioned…. One of them is a substance — I've got to get the name right — that I

think is called Garlon 4, which is sprayed on railway tracks. There are

well-documented negative effects of that. There has been an opportunity for both

sides of the House, in the life of this parliament, to cooperate, bring in new

legislation to ban and seriously restrict those substances. In both cases

government has used its majority to not allow debate or passage of those bills.

I want to talk a little bit about the drinking water elements of

this bill. I think the sections that are of concern here, sections 57 and 58 of

the bill, take away the ability of ordinary citizens to trigger investigations

into health hazards. The examples that third parties that have had a chance to

look at this legislation, environmental groups, are using…. What is being lost

by the public is, you could call it, a whistle-blower element to public health

legislation currently — the ability for ordinary, individual citizens to trigger

investigations into health hazards.

My colleague from Powell River spoke at length about the logging

activities in his area that threatened the purity of drinking water. I want to

speak of an example that occurred in my community about ten years ago when the

capital regional district was planning and about to borrow and begin a project

to expand the Sooke reservoir for our drinking water system.

It was known that the area that was going to be flooded in the

expanded region of the dam had former roadbeds in it. It had a

section of

railbed that would be underwater. It was known that creosote and other toxins

were in that area. There were conflicting engineering reports saying that this

was not a threat or that, in fact, it was a very serious threat to leach into

the drinking water, and there was no agreement.

I look at this legislation and the way it works. We did achieve

resolution in that instance. Those materials that were at risk of being

hazardous were eventually, after considerable struggle…. It was really through

citizens persuading their politicians in the end and overcoming considerable

bureaucratic resistance to taking the proper precautions and removing that

material that we were able to do that.

Again, I think it was the threat that these individual citizens

banding together could force the chief medical officer or others to order an

independent investigation into whether, in fact, there was a risk posed by those

materials being within the new drinking water catchment that, in the end, broke

the logjam and had the regional water commission overcome its reluctance to do

so. It basically pushed the arguments aside from those engineers and scientists

who felt that we could take the risk and made the opinions of those who felt

that it was poor advice to do so carry the day in that instance.

[ Page 12049 ]

I think that by losing that whistle-blower element in public

health legislation, we're not doing ourselves a favour. We're not helping the

cause of vigilance over clean drinking water. What we have here in this province

is the envy of many parts of our own country, let alone the world. That cannot

have enough protection, and ordinary citizens play a vital role in providing

that protection.

[1610]

I've just given an example of how that happened in the capital

region. I worry that in other parts of B.C. the same dynamic could potentially

be lost on future occasions, and I think that would be a shame. We would be in

this place talking about potential repercussions of that at a later date, which

I think could best be avoided.

I appreciate the opportunity to spend some time talking about a

couple of elements of this bill that I think could be improved. I hope the

Minister of Health was listening and will take it under advisement. Maybe when

we get to committee stage of the bill, we can seek to make this legislation work

better in the interests of all British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I just want to add a couple of minutes to this

debate. We're debating Bill 23, the Public Health Act, and hon. Speaker, as

you'll know, what this act does is update a number of statutes to help deal with

public health issues and the role and authorities of medical health officers,

environmental health officers and others.

There are a number of aspects to this bill that I certainly

support. One of the ones that becomes clear right at the outset is the decision

around the banning of trans fats in schools — around food facilities in schools

and other similar facilities. That's obviously a positive thing. It's something

that I'm very supportive of and something that makes good sense.

There also clearly are opportunities here to deal around health

hazard complaints, looking at the authority of officials to mobilize resources

and take action to protect public health, and requirements around the creation

of public health plans. These are generally…. There are a number of significant

issues here that are positive. What I want to do is talk about a couple of

issues in particular — two issues that relate to the efforts of this bill — and

deal with those in my comments.

The first one that I'll deal with does deal with concerns that

have been raised around one aspect of the bill, and that relates to the

decisions to make changes in the Health Act regarding who can lodge complaints

or concerns around health hazards. It's been pointed out by a number of my

colleagues that the incident related to the watershed at Chapman Creek…. You'll

know, hon. Speaker, that that is a situation where the regional district was not

able to deal with these matters through their zoning authority but, in fact, had

complaints raised to them by individuals around potential compromising by

logging activity, forestry activity, on the watershed.

Individuals raised those concerns. The local citizens were able to

use the Health Act to trigger an investigation and a call to halt the logging by

the regional district with its health board hat on. As we know, the courts

overturned that decision and said that that was outside the authority…. I accept

that decision. I think the important thing here was the ability of individual

citizens to come forward and lodge those concerns and have them listened to and

heard.

I do concern myself that these changes may begin to remove that

authority, because under the new law it talks about local medical health

officers being required to report to designated persons. The designated persons

are not clearly defined. They will be defined by regulation at some future date

by cabinet.

That may sort itself out to be all right, but the ability of

individual citizens to be able to come forward should be protected. If the bill

doesn't do that, then that is a concern I have around this particular piece of

legislation.

I want to focus my comments really for a few minutes here on

another issue, and the issue relates very much to my constituency. When I look

at community-based health, public health, the creation of health plans, the role

of health officers, the role that's played in communities…. I look at what

happens in my own constituency in Vancouver-Hastings. I look at what happens in

relation to people who have significant health issues there, whether it be

health issues around addictions or health issues related to poverty.

[1615]

Those are issues that are very compelling in my constituency.

There's a significant population in my constituency that suffers those

challenges. It has been pointed out earlier in discussions today in this House.

We know that poverty is a very compelling issue in this province.

We have heard now through Statistics Canada that for the fifth year in a row,

British Columbia has the highest levels of child poverty in the country. What we

also know about that is that children don't get poorer by themselves. Poor kids

mean poor families.

When we think about poverty and the relation of that to this work

— the relation to the development of the public health plans that are talked

about in this bill and how those plans get developed — it then becomes necessary

to start to look at and talk about the social determinants of health.

If we're going to use legislation to encourage local governments

and other officials to develop those public health plans that deal with issues

in communities and if, as the bill does, it provides additional authorities to

deal with issues like methadone facilities, needle exchanges and those kind of

facilities, all of which are certainly important in the communities where they

are provided, I think we also need to look at the broader question around social

determinants of health.

What we know is that it's an area in this country…. It's certainly

not exclusive to British Columbia, but it's an area across Canada where much

more work needs to be done, where we haven't in fact done the kind of work to

look at those connections between social conditions, conditions that people find

themselves in, and the quality of their health.

[ Page 12050 ]

There has been, at an international level certainly, research done

on this. We know that in some parts of the world — in our Scandinavian

countries, among others — there has been a greater amount of work done than has

been done in Canada or in British Columbia. The World Health Organization has

looked at these issues, and they have identified ten core social determinants

that they believe begin to get at the issue. They are issues that they believe

need to be dealt with.

Following that work of the W