2006 Legislative Session: Second 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Vancouver Japanese Language School

H. Bloy

Greater Victoria Police Victim Services

R. Fleming

Burnaby volunteer festival

R. Lee

National Drinking Water Week

S. Simpson

Burnaby Express junior hockey team

J. Nuraney

SHARE Family and Community Services

Society

D. Thorne

Oral Questions

Appointments to Agricultural Land

Commission

B. Ralston

Hon. P. Bell

R. Fleming

Hon. M. de

Jong

M. Farnworth

Emergency services at Mount Saint

Joseph Hospital

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

D. Cubberley

Federal budget and Kelowna accord on

first nations issues

S. Fraser

Hon. T.

Christensen

Tabling Documents

Letter from Dr. Maria Hugi

Second Reading of Bills

Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006

(Bill 25)

Hon. R.

Coleman

L. Krog

R. Sultan

D. Routley

N. Simons

D. Thorne

B. Ralston

Hon. R.

Coleman

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006

(Bill 29) (continued)

D. Cubberley

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House

Park (Conservancy Enabling) Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 28)

S. Simpson

Hon. B. Penner

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Park (Conservancy Enabling) Amendment

Act, 2006 (Bill 28)

Second Reading of Bills

Public Safety and Solicitor General

Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 31)

Hon. J. Les

J. Brar

G. Gentner

Hon. J. Les

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Economic

Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and

the Olympics (continued)

M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Sather

G. Robertson

Estimates: Ministry of Forests and

Range and Minister Responsible for Housing (continued)

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

D. Konkin

S. Fraser

[ Page 4325 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: With us in the gallery today I understand we have the president of the British Columbia Teachers Federation, Ms. Jinny Sims. Certainly, I've had the pleasure of getting to know Ms. Sims and working with her on a number of issues. I look forward to that relationship continuing to be a very positive one. Ms. Sims works tirelessly on behalf of teachers in this province, and we certainly appreciate the work that teachers do. I would ask everyone in the House to please make her feel most welcome in the precinct today.

G. Coons: It is an honour to rise and acknowledge a young man from Kincolith in the Nass Valley. Cas Stevens is 17 years old and attends grade 11 at Prince Rupert Secondary School. Cas's dad Colin Andrew Stevens was a scuba diver when he was tragically killed in a plane crash in 1992.

Cas says his dad is his inspiration, and from 14 years of age he used all of his holiday breaks to take diving courses and has completed dives in Mexico, the Bahamas and North America. Cas has fulfilled all levels of certification for scuba diving and is the youngest certified scuba diving instructor in Canada. Cas has been able to develop a career before even graduating from high school.

I ask that you join with me in acknowledging Master Scuba Diver Cas Stevens's excellent achievement.

[1405]

Hon. J. van Dongen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a group of visitors to the House today. In the members' gallery this afternoon is the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council. The Advisory Council is chaired by Hon. Lance Finch, the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. It also includes yourself, the Speaker; the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Marvin Hunt; the president of Simon Fraser University, Dr. Michael Stevenson; Virginia Greene, the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations; and two members of the Order, Dr. Edith McGeer of Vancouver and Dr. Perry Kendall of Victoria. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: In the gallery today is Moira Mackenzie, who is the director of communications for the British Columbia Teachers Federation. She's also been a magnificent teacher of primary school students for many years in Surrey. Would the House please make Moira welcome.

D. Hayer: I would like to introduce to this House my best friend, partner and strongest supporter and a great volunteer: my right hand, my wife Isabelle Hayer, sitting in here. Would the House please make her very welcome.

I'd also like to introduce to the House Marvin Hunt, who's my constituent, a good supporter of mine and a councillor from the city of Surrey.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us in the House today is Cheryl Lynn Peters. Cheryl is the executive director of the Ridge Meadows Women's Centre in my constituency and is here to meet members of this House with the B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres. Would all members make her welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I have three guests in the chamber today: Dennis Kiffiak and his son Jeremy. I first met Dennis working with World Vision, and he now works with the Union Gospel Mission in Vancouver. With them is Bishop David Daniels from Liberia, and they're here to talk about educational opportunities between Africa and British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to actually introduce a constituent from West Kootenay–Boundary. Colleen Jones is the vice-president for BCGEU and has been here the last three days lobbying on behalf of women's issues — lobbying the entire House. I would like the House to join me in making her welcome.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a teacher from my constituency, Alberni-Qualicum. Jill McCaffrey is one of my daughter's teachers, so in the interests of a very good report card for my daughter, I would like you to join me in giving her a very strong welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a group of grade ten students and several parents from a school that is in my riding, Mark R. Isfeld Senior Secondary School. They are here to tour the precincts and also to attend question period. I hope the House will join me in making them welcome. I'd like to say thank you to Mr. Barry Walker and all of his students for coming and joining us today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) VANCOUVER JAPANESE LANGUAGE SCHOOL

H. Bloy: Anniversaries are a time of celebration, and for the Vancouver Japanese Language School, 2006 marks a special year. Founded in 1906 and operating uninterrupted until 1941, the school was the vision of the Japanese Canadian community, who wanted to educate their children in their language of origin and other subjects, such as math, history and science.

In fact, the school was so popular that it decided in 1919 to only teach Japanese, as the other subjects were

[ Page 4326 ]

In April of 1949, when the freedom of movement and resettlement was finally granted to Japanese Canadians, those who moved back to Vancouver began the process of rebuilding their lives and their culture. They still believed that learning Japanese was important to the identity of their children and in the rebuilding of the pride of their shattered community.

[1410]

As a result of their efforts, a portion of the property was restored to the community in 1953 — the only private property ever returned to Japanese Canadians in British Columbia. Today the school continues to provide Japanese language and cultural education, meeting the needs of our ever-changing world and as a reflection of Canada's growing multicultural mosaic.

Please join me in congratulating Mrs. Rika Uto and Mr. Richard Yagi, the board of directors and the Japanese Canadian community on the 100th anniversary of the Vancouver Japanese Language School and wish them all the best over the next 100 years.

GREATER VICTORIA POLICE

VICTIM SERVICES

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to report today on the activities of a local volunteer-based agency in my constituency that is accomplishing a lot to help victims of crime. The Greater Victoria Police Victim Services is a police-based victim assistance program that works in partnership with four municipal police departments and two RCMP detachments in Greater Victoria, and has been doing so for the last six years.

This agency cooperates with five well-trained and dedicated staff members and is able to provide a variety of support services because of the dedication of their 60 volunteers, who do a weekly three-hour shift supporting victims of crime and trauma, and take

part in many other activities within the agency.

Greater Victoria Police Victim Services believe that volunteers are the foundation of their program. Volunteers are involved in tasks like offering emotional support, referrals to community agencies and programs, liaising with police and other criminal justice personnel, and providing court orientation. Volunteers also provide assistance with completing crime victim assistance application forms and taking victim impact statement forms.

Volunteering with the society provides volunteers with the opportunity to learn about the impact of crime and trauma, while at the same time learning about the criminal justice system and policing in general. Staff provides ongoing training to volunteers, invites volunteers to participate at their annual conference and hosts social events throughout the year.

The Greater Victoria Police Victim Services assists over 1,350 individuals, and volunteers last year gave over 10,700 hours in assisting victims of crime and those experiencing trauma.

As the MLA for Victoria-Hillside, I want to applaud the great work and commitment of the exceptional staff and volunteers of this society. Last week was national Volunteer Recognition Week, and these volunteers were recognized for the tremendous work that they do in our community. I wish to add my voice to that.

BURNABY VOLUNTEER FESTIVAL

R. Lee: Last week was National Volunteer Week. We recognized and celebrated the contributions of volunteers to their communities. It is estimated that in Canada, 6.5 million volunteers have joined more than 160,000 non-profit organizations to contribute their time and energy to help others.

In Burnaby the third annual Burnaby Festival of Volunteers was held in the Metropolis at Metrotown last Saturday to showcase the agencies and thank the volunteers who help enhance life in Burnaby.

Dozens of volunteer organizations participated in the one-day event, including Access Justice, Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, Burnaby Fall Prevention Society, Burnaby Hospice Society, Burnaby Meals on Wheels, Burnaby Information and Community Services Society, Burnaby Mental Wealth Society, Burnaby Optimist Club, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society, Girl Guides of Canada, Greystone Lochdale Community Association, Habitat for Humanity, Helping Spirit Lodge Society, South Burnaby Neighbourhood House, Special Olympics B.C., St.

Michaels Centre, Sunshine Dream for Kids, Seniors Well Aware program, Tetra Society of North America, Immigrant Services Society of B.C., Salvation Army, Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, Volunteers Now, YMCA, Burnaby Velodrome Club and Volunteer Burnaby.

Throughout the day participants enjoyed the very entertaining performances by groups like Indian bhangra hip-hop dance, Chinese kung fu, Kultura Filipino North Shore, the Moody Food Trio, the North Burnaby Retired Society dancers and the Griffins Anvil band.

I would like to thank the volunteers who worked tirelessly to make this event successful. Contributions from Lee Faurot, Nora Criss, Amy Sundberg, Anne Waller, Patrick Ng, Judy Chu, Cynthia Hendrix, Oscar Cruz, Ken Ryan and Clare O'Kelly are very much appreciated.

[1415]

NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK

S. Simpson: One of the most critical issues that faces all of us is ensuring that we have quality air to breathe and quality water to drink. Without clean air and water, other things — how much money we have, how many jobs we have, how prosperous our economy is — won't really matter much.

Next week, from the 7th to the 13th, we'll be celebrating Drinking Water Week. This will give us an opportunity to focus attention on one of those aspects, on

[ Page 4327 ]

a resource that we too often take for granted. It will encourage us to recognize the important work of health officers and technicians who have the responsibility to ensure that our water is pure and clean, including being free of E. coli and other pollutants. This is in comparison to many developing countries where upwards of 80 percent of the illnesses they face are related to poor water quality.

It reminds us of where our drinking water comes from, the technology we've developed to improve its quality and the infrastructure that provides us with our water. We get an opportunity to think about the importance of conservation and how high levels of consumption have negative economic and environmental impacts. This is a time to learn about strategies to reduce our water use and its costs and to learn about water-saving technology, including low-flow faucets, shower heads and toilets — to name a few.

Drinking Water Week reminds us that we need to protect our lakes, rivers and aquifers. It reminds us that we need to work harder to understand the human and environmental impacts of microbiological and chemical substances which contaminate our water sources. It encourages all of us — government, business and individuals — to consider how we use water and to redouble our efforts to reduce usage, to predict our shortages and to ensure future supplies.

Next week we have an opportunity above all to stop, even if only for a moment, taking our drinking water for granted — a week to commit to leaving our water supplies and quality in good shape not only for ourselves but for future generations.

BURNABY EXPRESS JUNIOR HOCKEY TEAM

J. Nuraney: While many people, both in this House and across the province, are still coming to grips with this season's disappointing performance from the Vancouver Canucks, I am pleased to say that junior hockey teams in the lower mainland are putting the NHL franchise to shame.

In addition to the success of the WHL's Vancouver Giants, my city's Burnaby Express are having their most successful year — with, hopefully, many more to come. Not only have the Express won the British Columbia Hockey League's Fred Page Cup, the Express also trounced the Fort McMurray Oil Barons 6-0 on Saturday at Burnaby's Bill Copeland arena.

As a result of this victory, the Express won the Doyle Cup, an annual series played between the BCHL champions and the Alberta Junior Hockey League. As winners of the Doyle Cup, the Express have earned the right to represent the west at the annual national championships to compete for the RBC Royal Bank Cup.

Starting this Saturday in Brampton, Ontario, the competition will see five teams — the Yorkton Terriers; the Fort William North Stars; the Joliette L'Action; the host, Streetsville Derbys; and the Express — battle for the Canadian Junior A hockey supremacy.

Please join me in wishing the coaches Rick Lantz, Dave McLellan and Bobby Vermette; the players; and the entire Express organization the best of luck as they represent both Burnaby and our province. I am sure that these young men will make both Burnaby and our province proud at the Canadian Junior A championships.

SHARE FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

SERVICES SOCIETY

D. Thorne: Today I would like to tell the House about the SHARE Family and Community Services Society, a well-respected non-profit which has served my riding and the rest of school district 43 for more than 34 years, with the help of literally thousands of volunteers.

SHARE provides parenting support, education and assistance to families where there is concern about the health and safety of children. They have early intervention therapies available to any family with a child under six who may benefit from speech, physical or occupational therapies. This is a free service.

[1420]

SHARE also provides a professional counselling service for families and individuals, which is based on a sliding scale for those who live on low income. SHARE runs a variety of services which provide some relief for those who live in poverty — services such as three food bank depots that currently provide food hampers to over 2,300 families with over 1,400 children, many of whom also enjoy a variety of early learning experiences at the SHARE family resources centre.

SHARE is a leader in community development initiatives and is currently partnering with SUCCESS, the Immigrant Services Society and Rotary. SHARE is totally committed to being responsive to community needs and, as a result, is working now on poverty reduction, developing resources and expertise, particularly in the development of affordable housing for families. I am proud today to pay homage to this beacon of light in my community, and I ask the House to join me in saying thank you to SHARE Family and Community Services and to their many, many supporters.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENTS TO

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION

B. Ralston: On Monday the opposition revealed that recent government appointments to the Agricultural Land Commission were, in fact, Liberal friends and insiders — first, John Tomlinson, a longtime friend of the Minister of Forests and Range and a big donor to the Liberal Party, as well as Bill Jones, a strong supporter of the Minister of State for Childcare and a Liberal Party donor. Yesterday under pressure from the opposition, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands revealed that he has changed his mind about his ministerial order appointing Bill Jones to the ALC.

[ Page 4328 ]

My question to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is this. Did he rescind Bill Jones's appointment to the ALC because he is a Liberal insider, or was it because he spoke out about an application to remove land from the ALR?

Hon. P. Bell: Unfortunately, the member has his timing a bit wrong here. The member brought up the issue in question period, which was at about 2:30 in the afternoon. I rescinded the appointment earlier in the day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It is particularly disappointing that the minister didn't make that announcement publicly and instead kept it to himself, waiting to see whether a question struck home or not.

Fortunately for the public, it did.

However, Bill Jones is not the first commissioner to publicly advocate for removal of land from the ALR. In April 2004 an application to remove the Kendrew farm from the reserve was submitted to Sooke council and the ALC. On November 1, 2004, the ALC commissioner, John Kendrew, resigned. One week later he advocated before the Sooke council for the removal of this farm from the reserve. On July 5, 2005, the ALC removed part of the Kendrew farm from the ALR. On November 1, 2005, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands signed an order reappointing John Kendrew to the ALC.

Could the minister tell us when he will be rescinding the appointment of John Kendrew?

Hon. P. Bell: At least the opposition member has one out of two today. He got the dates right this time. So that's progress.

Mr. Kendrew — actually, this was thoroughly covered during the estimates — had actually asked the chair of the ALC if there was any potential conflict. It was indicated by the chair of the ALC that there was no conflict. Mr. Kendrew is a panellist for the northern panel. The subject property owned by his brother was actually a piece of property on Vancouver Island. Mr. Kendrew chose to resign during that process anyway. When there was a vacancy, Mr. Kendrew reapplied through the board resourcing office normal process and was appointed as the best candidate.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley has a further supplemental.

B. Ralston: In response to my question yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands said this: "The Agricultural Land Commission is a quasi-judicial body, and we need to ensure that it is being seen as an impartial body."

[1425]

Mr. Kendrew stepped down from the commission just to lobby the commission and then was reappointed to the commission. That's not impartial or quasi-judicial. One commissioner was publicly removed for advocating removal of land from the ALR — according to the minister, even before he knew he was appointed — yet another commissioner was not. He was rewarded with reappointment.

Can the Minister of Agriculture and Lands explain why he's prepared to tolerate this apparent double standard?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, the member is not listening to the process. This was thoroughly vetted out. It was ensured that there was no conflict of Mr. Kendrew. He sits on a completely different panel in a different part of the province — something that the member opposite is very critical of, I might add.

Let's look at the history of the Agricultural Land Commission, because that is what's relevant here. In the year 2000, the final year of the previous government, they removed 5,797 hectares of land from the agricultural land reserve. In our first year of office, we removed 552 — less than 10 percent under that government.

R. Fleming: On Monday the Minister of Agriculture and Lands assured this House that all appointments to the ALC are vetted through the board resourcing office. This would be the same office whose director was removed last summer and then replaced by Kathryn Dawson, a Liberal insider. It seems Tomlinson and Jones are an example of a Liberal insider appointing other Liberal insiders.

My question to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands: when his government refers to merit-based appointments, is this just a code word for Liberal Party friends and insiders?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm tempted to actually review the opposition's record. Perhaps I'll save that for the next question, as I'm sensing I may get one more.

What I'm interested in knowing is: who does this opposition actually think is inappropriate to sit on this panel? Is it Erik Karlsen, who worked as a deputy under that government and under this government for some 20 years? Is it Susan Irvine? Is it Grant Huffman? Is it David Craven? Is it Donald Rugg? Is it Frank Read? Who is it that this opposition is so concerned about? These are balanced individuals who have made logical choices, and the results clearly speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: What this side of the House is concerned with is the apparent ethics package of the golden decade that we see from that side of the House.

Interjections.

[ Page 4329 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: This recent rash of Liberal appointments for Liberal donors raises serious concerns about the board resourcing office. Kathryn Dawson took over on March 30 of this year, and already she's whisked through appointments of two Liberal insiders to the Agricultural Land Commission.

Can the Minister of Agriculture explain how many other Liberal Party donors have received or are about to receive approvals from the board resourcing office — or, as it could be called, the donor relations board?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a chamber that we occupy where partisan exchange is common and often appropriate. But to malign the reputation of an individual who came to British Columbia after an impeccable record as a public servant in Alberta working for governments, to come here and also demonstrate an impeccable record of public service…. On top of that, to malign a body within government that has acquired a reputation around the country for setting the standard in merit-based hiring is a testament to how bankrupt this opposition is of questions in this session of the parliament.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Given the record of financial contributions of some of these appointments to the Liberal Party, one thing is clear. The Liberal Party isn't financially bankrupt.

What we see here is a pattern, and that is that $8,000 in donations seems to get you a seat on the Agricultural Land Commission — a temporary one — and $12,000….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member of the opposition has the floor.

Continue.

M. Farnworth: What this side of the House is concerned about is an appointment process, which the public must have confidence in — confidence in dealing with sensitive land-removal issues such as Barnston Island and the Garden lands area in Richmond.

What we saw yesterday was that the government removed a land commissioner for speaking out in favour of removing land. The government seems to think that it's fine for a commissioner in another part of the province to go and lobby on land removal of his brother on the Vancouver Island land commission. Guess what. We don't believe that's appropriate. We believe that's very inappropriate.

What we see is a former executive director of the Liberal caucus — a highly partisan role — now involved in appointments to the land commission. What we're asking is: how can the public have confidence in the appointments to the land commission when there seems to be a direct relation to that appointment and your ties to the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is because I know what great stock and reliance the opposition places on the Vancouver Sun as a research tool and instrument that I commend to the opposition an

article that appeared in that journal describing the work that the board resourcing office has done.

The

article firstly comments on the suspicion that people have historically had about the appointment process in governments of this sort and then says this, commenting on the board resourcing office: "But that has quietly been changing in British Columbians. Members appointed to various public sector boards such as Crown corporations, health authorities, universities and colleges now face a rigorous selection process where skills and competency are the new prerequisite."

That is the standard that this government has set. That is the reason that governments across Canada are looking to British Columbia as having set the example, and that is the standard we are going to continue to set moving forward in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Fine words. But too often what we see in this House and from that side of the government is that its connections to the B.C. Liberal Party are what determines what board you are on and whether your issue gets raised or not in this province.

Again, my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Lands is: can he guarantee this House that the two remaining appointees on the lower mainland panel, which will be deciding the fate of sensitive lands such as Barnston Island and the Garden City lands, will not have connections to the B.C. Liberal Party — either donation or political?

[1435]

Hon. P. Bell: I guess we're going to have to rule out 46 percent of the people in the province. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? We will ensure that the appropriate individuals are appointed to the Agricultural Land Commission through a thoroughly vetted process.

I'll tell you what. This government actually cares about the Agricultural Land Commission. We've got a great history around the Agricultural Land Commission. I might remind the members opposite of a fateful date — June 10, 1998 — when the cabinet of the previous government signed an order-in-council approving the removal of Six Mile Ranch in Kamloops. They completely circumvented the Agricultural Land Commission — went straight to cabinet. That's not protect-

[ Page 4330 ]

ing agriculture. This government will look after agriculture.

EMERGENCY SERVICES AT

MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL

J. Kwan: Yes, this government is looking after the Agricultural Land Commission with patronage appointments. Let's be clear.

When confronted with information about this government's decision to strip the ER resources from Mount Saint Joseph Hospital, the Minister of Health points his fingers everywhere else. He is so desperate that he even told the media that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the decisions made by Providence and the health authority.

Last night I was copied a letter sent to the minister from Dr. Maria Hugi. She stated: "We have been told repeatedly by Providence Health Care administration that it is your staff who's dictating the cutback-based-on-workload formula that is unfortunately not tied to patient safety."

That directly contradicts what the minister told this House yesterday. Is this just another case of a doctor being an alarmist, or is she right? Why won't the minister admit that Providence is just following the ministry's directives?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I want to thank the member for her question, and I want to compliment her on her sources. As late as just before coming in here to question period, I've not received any letter from the doctor in question. I look forward to receiving it, and I'd be pleased to review the letter once I receive it.

However, I will say what I said yesterday, which is that I actually don't sit in my office and determine what the full-time-equivalents will be in each and every emergency room around the province. What we do know is that the budgetary allocation for emergency services — physicians only — at Mount Saint Joseph has increased by 56 percent over the past three years. It has increased by 56 percent from $686,000 to $1.075 million — physician services only — in the emergency room.

This government is dedicated to constantly improving the services that British Columbians receive in their emergency rooms. I'm proud of the work that each and every day those emergency physicians and nurses provide in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I'd be happy to table the letter for the minister's information. Maybe if the minister actually went through his mail on a timely basis, he would get the information on time for the House.

Mount Saint Joseph is a safety valve for Vancouver General, much like St. Mary's was a safety valve for Royal Columbian. We all know what happened there. There are a few ERs in this province that are not on life support and that are meeting national standards, and Mount Saint Joseph is one of them. But this minister wants to put that at risk, and he's decided a 23-percent cut makes sense in his ER services.

It's time to stop passing the buck. It is time for this minister to take responsibility for his ministry's directives, policies and decisions. It's time for the minister to stop pretending that somehow the crisis in ERs has nothing to do with him or this government.

Will the Minister of Health listen to the doctors at Mount Saint Joseph, see the great work that they are doing and back off on his plan to gut the services at the ER?

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: I know I heard this exact question yesterday. I'll try to give an even better answer than I did yesterday to, hopefully, inform the member as well as I can around this point.

Mount Saint Joseph is an important, valued facility to us in Vancouver and in the province. It has a relatively low patient flow through the ER — I believe about 17,000 patients a year. That compares to between 60,000 and 70,000 or more in some of the larger facilities. Nevertheless, it's important, and there is no question about that.

That's why we have increased the funding for physicians at the ER at Mount Saint Joseph by 56 percent over the last three years. I guess the people of Vancouver Coastal could rely on the expert opinion of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in making their decisions about staffing, or they might rely on a health care provider of over 100 years' experience — Providence Health Care. I guess if it came down to it, I would probably, personally, rely on Providence Health Care versus the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

D. Cubberley: You know, at some point the minister needs to get a refresher in ministerial responsibility. He refuses to take responsibility for bed cuts. Yesterday he said he's not responsible for hospital staffing levels. Yesterday he blamed the ER cuts at Mount Saint Joseph on the health authority, even though they're just following directives from his own ministry.

The crisis that is about to hit Mount Saint Joseph is a direct result of his ministry's workload formula. It is one that Dr. Hugi says is not tied to patient safety.

To the Minister of Health: if the hospital workload formula isn't tied to patient safety, what exactly is it tied to?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always useful to hear from those whose glass is chronically half empty, as we do each and every day in this chamber from this Health critic. What we do, in terms of trying to understand the demands on emergency rooms, is look at patient flow through facilities. We try to assess demand and capacity as carefully and precisely as we can. Certainly, every health authority looks very carefully at the numbers of people who present at ERs and the service they

[ Page 4331 ]

receive from those ERs, and they allocate resources around those numbers.

What we do know today — and this we can say with utter certainty — is that the biggest challenge in terms of the effective management of emergency rooms in this province is a shortage of emergency room nurses. We are short many emergency room nurses in this province, and it is a direct consequence of this former NDP government not expanding the number of nurses by one during the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich South has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: Well, I'll tell you what's half empty. It's funded beds for emergency admissions. That's what's half empty. The reason it's half empty is because you cut one in five in the hospital sector in this province.

You know, Dr. Hugi says: "We could not have met the national patient safety standards" — national standards which, by the way, are embedded, I believe, in the operating agreements you have with health authorities — "working under your staff's formula." She goes on to ask the minister to leave the staffing alone and not to punish Mount Saint Joseph for its success. Bed cuts, hospital closures, workload formulas, overcrowded emergency rooms — they're all connected. Cutting Mount Saint Joseph will only make the situation worse.

[1445]

Will the Minister of Health actually be the Minister of Health and stop this plan before he plunges another emergency room into crisis?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's always useful to look at the record in making a careful assessment of these kinds of provocative questions that come from the member opposite. Let's look at the balance sheet here. Let's look at the number of beds that were cut during the 1990s by the NDP — 3,334 beds cut by this former government, the NDP.

Let's talk about the number of nursing spaces added in B.C.'s colleges and universities during the 1990s — total: zero by the NDP during the 1990s. How many doctors added? Zero. How many nurse practitioners added? Zero. How many international medical graduate residency spaces? Zero.

On the other side, how many nurses spaces added? A 62-percent increase — 2,511. Number of doctor education spaces added? Doubling — 100 percent. The number of international medical graduates and residency spaces tripled, then tripled again.

FEDERAL BUDGET AND KELOWNA ACCORD

ON FIRST NATIONS ISSUES

S. Fraser: Yesterday with the federal budget, we learned, tragically, that the Harper government has broken the Kelowna accord — signed in B.C. last fall, designed to address critical first nations needs. Despite the loss to first nations, to British Columbians and to all Canadians, the Minister of Finance commented yesterday that this budget is "very positive from our point of view."

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House why she feels this is a good-news budget when, clearly, her own Premier's initiative, the Kelowna accord, has been completely ignored by the Prime Minister?

Hon. T. Christensen: I thank the member for the question.

There is no question that last November's first ministers meeting was a historic agreement between Canada, the provinces and territories, and aboriginal leaders from across Canada. We're encouraged that yesterday's budget provided some introductory spending in terms of bringing the first ministers meeting to life, but we are disappointed that there wasn't more definition and a full commitment to funding to reach the objectives in the long term.

Here in British Columbia we are working closely with the First Nations Leadership Council. We are developing the strategies necessary to meet the objectives of Kelowna. We will continue to work with first nations, and we will continue to work with the federal government to ensure that we make progress in closing the shameful socioeconomic gaps that continue to exist between aboriginals and non-aboriginals in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Alberni-Qualicum has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: An 80-percent cut in what was obligated to in the Kelowna accord is what we saw in the budget yesterday — a good first step. We've lost federal partnership despite assurances from this Premier.

The Premier assured B.C. that his leadership style would bring results, and the Premier failed. The Kelowna accord, the critical initiative to first nations, has been abandoned, and we now have no federal partnership. This is a tripartite agreement in this important accord.

I will address the question to the Deputy Premier, if I get a chance, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We've listened to the answers; let's listen to the question.

Continue.

[1450]

S. Fraser: Will the Deputy Premier assure first nations and the people in B.C. today that this government and this Premier will stand up to the Prime Minister, to Prime Minister Harper, and get back that $5 billion commitment?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, I'm pleased to hear the critic for the opposition acknowledge and recognize the

[ Page 4332 ]

incredible efforts that the Premier and the province have made on the aboriginal front. This province has shown leadership on the national stage on the aboriginal front. We are developing a new relationship with first nations in British Columbia. We have shown a sincere commitment to that new relationship, recently establishing the $100 million New Relationship Trust.

Certainly, we need to take no lessons from the NDP in terms of developing relationships between the province and the federal government. We have a positive working relationship with the federal government. We will be working with the federal government to follow up on the commitments made at Kelowna. The federal government has indicated it's committed to those objectives, and we will be pursuing partnerships with the federal government to ensure we meet the objectives of Kelowna.

[End of question period.]

J. Kwan: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Tabling Documents

J. Kwan: This is a letter I received from Dr. Maria Hugi last night, for the minister's information.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 25 and, in

Section A, continued Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 25.

Second Reading of Bills

SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 25 be read a second time now.

Bill 25 proposes an amendment to the Safety Standards Act of British Columbia that will help shut down marijuana grow operations in residential areas. We know that in Canada marijuana and cannabis cultivation, otherwise known as marijuana grow ops, has more than doubled over the past decade. We know that these grow operations, particularly if they are located in residential areas, pose a real problem for police and other safety personnel and local governments.

[1455]

The amendment to this act is developed in partnership with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, who will help address these problems. Crime and violence are associated with grow ops. Organized crime is a big player in grow ops. Marijuana that comes out of grow ops is often laced with other chemicals like crystal meth and put into the system to destroy the lives of our citizens and injure our children.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

There are other safety issues, as well, other than just the drug. There is the theft of over $50 million worth of power from B.C. Hydro. There is the abject lack of any concern about the health issues with regard to children living in grow ops by some people who have them. The bypassing of power and the electrical things that are done can put some significant stress on our systems. Unsafe electrical installations done without permission under the Safety Standards Act can and do cause major fires in residential grow operations.

Fires caused by grow ops have a greater risk of growing out of control and threatening neighbouring properties. Many grow ops are discovered as a result of fires. By making it easier to target and shut down grow ops, we reduce the risk to our communities.

It is estimated that there are 20,000 marijuana grow ops in British Columbia this year. Three-quarters of those operations are in houses or apartments. Grow ops are breeding grounds for mould, fungus and explosive chemicals. They require the use of high-wattage hydroponic growing equipment. It is dangerous for adults and children who live in them, and dangerous for emergency responders who enter. Grow-op houses are more likely to house guns and more likely to be robbed than other residential properties.

This legislation responds to those threats and responds to requests from communities. B.C. mayors attending the 2004 UBCM convention asked for amendments to allow them to target residential marijuana grow operations. In 2003 the National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime, a group of law enforcement agencies with federal, provincial and territorial partners, issued a report on this topic. It recommended development of legislation and bylaws to tackle grow ops. Several communities, including Abbotsford, Kelowna, Chilliwack and Surrey, have created bylaws to help them deal with this issue.

The city of Surrey conducted a pilot project last year that identified the needs for these amendments. That pilot project was funded in conjunction with our Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This initiative launched electrical safety inspections to address the misuse of electricity found occurring in residential growing operations. In three months 119 grow ops were dismantled, and 94 percent of the locations had significant electrical safety violations. But most disturbingly, there were 49 children living in these homes. This pilot project gives us an idea of why the proposed legislation is needed.

With this legislation, local governments will be able to obtain suspicious-account information from hydro companies. This will allow for inspection teams to visit these homes to look for any unsafe electrical installations. If a grow operation is discovered, the power can be shut off. More importantly, we will rid our

[ Page 4333 ]

neighbourhoods of these dangerous operations. With power prices continuously rising, the unregulated use of power affects us all.

It is estimated that grow op–related electrical thefts are in excess of $12 million a year. In response, B.C. Hydro is allocating more staff to identify and deal with any accounts that may steal power and is planning to allocate more staff in order to handle the increased information requests as a result of this proposed legislation.

To protect the privacy of our citizens, we're taking steps to ensure that the information collected is only shown to the authorities that need to see it. Every measure has been taken to ensure that those abiding by the law will not be affected. We will protect privacy, and we'll shut down these grow ops.

British Columbia has had the highest rate of drug crimes among the provinces for the past two decades. British Columbians have the right to feel safe. They have the right to feel safe in their homes and their neighbourhoods, and they have a right to think that their governments will stand up when a solution can be found to a problem. These changes will help with that problem.

[1500]

In this province, grow ops are a scourge. They lead to other multiple levels of crime and issues for law enforcement communities. In a number of our communities we have issues of homicides that are directly related to the drug trade in British Columbia. We have gang violence. We find more guns in grow ops than anywhere else in our crime scenes.

We are dealing with something that is only doing one thing: fuelling the pockets of organized crime at the expense of our children. It is time that we did some things that we can do provincially to send a message not just in British Columbia but to the rest of the country. The leadership needs to be taken on these issues to protect our communities.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of this piece of legislation with the amendments to the Safety Standards Act. I believe it's an important little piece of the puzzle, another tool in the toolkit for law enforcement and for communities to protect our children and our families.

When I saw a report where, of 252 samples of drugs taken out of the Vancouver drug scene, over 50 percent of them were laced with crystal meth — and when I saw another report that had the high percentage of crystal meth–lacing in marijuana in British Columbia — it just chilled me, knowing what it could do to our children.

It is absolutely critical that we take the steps and send the messages not only in this jurisdiction but across this country that we are going to protect our communities from the standpoint of public safety. It is not right that someone steals power in British Columbia. It is not right that they wire up their houses so that they can burn to put at risk their neighbourhoods, and it's not right that they continue to do it without our having the tools for our communities to protect them.

The cities of Surrey and Abbotsford should be congratulated for the pilot projects that they did, which actually led us to this legislation today. I look forward to the comments from other members of the House in second reading debate.

L. Krog: The balancing of interests in society is always a difficult one. Obviously with this legislation, information that might otherwise remain private in a sense becomes open to authorities. Arguably, this is a breach of our rights to privacy as citizens. Balanced on that, however, as the minister has quite rightly pointed out, are the rights of citizens in communities to be safe in their houses, in their neighbourhoods.

This is a small part of a much bigger puzzle — to use the minister's language. What the bill essentially does is give local government the authority to request information from electricity distributors — which in British Columbia, most obviously, is B.C. Hydro — to obtain information about residences within its jurisdictional boundaries. It then gives permission to the local authority to disclose account information derived from that residential electricity information or a portion of that account information to various authorities, but most particularly to a provincial police force or a municipal police department, as those terms are defined in the Police Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner has raised some concerns. That letter to the Minister Responsible for Housing, dated April 6, poses a number of issues. These issues should legitimately give the members of this Legislature concern — because, as I commence my remarks, this is about balance.

Mr. Loukidelis comments:

I am aware, however, that police and safety officials feel that the current information disclosure system is not working, particularly because there is no proactive disclosure of Hydro consumption information, and that FOIPPA does not provide sufficient authority for disclosure of electricity consumption information to local governments for safety purposes.

He goes on to make a very valid point. He says:

As a general point, such initiatives amount to a form of surveillance, involving compilation and use of information about entire classes of citizens without grounds for individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Such initiatives are multiplying at all levels of government in Canada and are a cause for concern. They are, in my view, to be avoided wherever possible, including because they are not subject to prior approval by the courts.

[1505]

I come back to what I say about balance. We are very fortunate in this province to have a person of Mr. Loukidelis's abilities occupying the office that he does, and his comments should always be heeded and taken seriously by any government. However, on balance, on this issue, when one contrasts the growth of organized crime, the danger to our neighbourhoods and communities…. I believe in this case one needs to err on the side of supporting, in general principle, the bill before the House.

We must never let legislation pass through this chamber without the kind of careful scrutiny and comment that it deserves. This is one of those occa-

[ Page 4334 ]

sions. This is not something where one can jump up and say wholeheartedly that they support it without reservation. Firstly, that's not the opposition's job. Secondly, it's very unlikely that any government is ever going to bring a bill into this House that will engender complete and absolute public support.

However, in this case, as commented by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General…. He said this bill is to "help local authorities target and shut down marijuana grow operations more quickly and more efficiently."

We could talk a great deal, at length, today about the problem of crime and drug abuse in our society. From my perspective, representing Nanaimo as I do, my concern is about safety. This is a safety standards amendment act. That's what we're talking about.

We know that in West Vancouver, quite recently, there was an incident at a residence where a house exploded, injuring an occupant and leading to an order to demolish the remains of the house. Surely it is not an unreasonable expectation amongst British Columbians that their neighbours down the street are not going to be operating grow ops in their houses, which could lead to explosions that not only destroy the houses of the occupants and owners who are engaging in this unlawful activity but threaten the lives and safety of children and others living in those neighbourhoods. It is not an unreasonable expectation.

Surely it is not unreasonable for society, through the use of information — which I would respectfully suggest is not of a terribly private or important nature in contrast, perhaps, to one's information about their health records — whether they've been to counselling, whether they've been charged with criminal offences or whatever…. In contrast to that, the information being made available to authorities here, not to the general public but to authorities, is simply about electricity consumption. With this change, hopefully, we will see across the province an improvement in the ability of police forces to deal with grow ops, certainly from a public safety perspective.

The concern, though, amongst others that the opposition has, is that we should not in any way be transferring down to local government the problems that should, frankly, be looked at and dealt with as part of our criminal justice system. That is one of the concerns. If we're expecting local municipalities to do this, I don't think it's unreasonable that local municipalities might wish to look to the provincial government for funding to assist them in a cooperative effort to ensure that British Columbia's neighbourhoods are, in fact, safe.

Another concern that we on this side of the House have is that electricity meter readers may also be at risk now of being negatively targeted by marijuana grow operators. The tentacles of organized crime stretch out throughout our society to every level of our society. Those involved in suppressing criminal behaviour and enforcing sanctions against it all face risks of threat or bribe.

[1510]

I would hope that the government will take into consideration the needs of those people who entered public service to do something as innocuous as reading meters. They should ensure that they receive the full protection of the law, that their lives should not be threatened as a result of them doing their jobs. I think it's an issue that the government has to consider with respect to this bill.

If we are going to do this successfully, however, then the government needs to consider this as part of a much larger package and a better strategy and, hopefully, a strategy that will see the neighbourhoods of British Columbia be safe. As I've said, for those of us on this side of the House, it is about public safety. There are larger issues in society about the growth and consumption of marijuana for personal purposes. There are larger issues about the legalization of drugs, but that's not the subject we're talking about today.

We're talking about ensuring that everyone who drives home at night can be satisfied that the houses in their neighbourhood are not going to be the subject of unnecessary attention.

As the minister has pointed out, one of the concerns that all of us have in British Columbia is that marijuana grow operations, in and of themselves, can be harmful and dangerous in terms of explosions. But we know that rival gangs, rival criminal groups, often attempt theft amongst their own kind. That, likewise, is a concern for British Columbians — the fear that the neighbourhood house, which is the grow op, will be targeted by other criminal elements and that that will lead to shootouts in neighbourhoods. It's not that common, but it's a concern, and it's a concern in particular parts of this province.

I can say with some surprise and chagrin that indeed, in the neighbourhood where I myself live, just a few weeks ago the police busted a marijuana grow operation. I live in a fairly typical nice suburb — nothing surprising about it. We all have our suspicions…. But that's what was going on in my own neighbourhood. It happens in neighbourhoods across the province. It happens in all kinds of neighbourhoods, and those neighbourhoods deserve to be protected.

The opposition, I want to assure the government, will deal with this bill clause by clause. There are a number of questions that need to be answered and, if you will, a number of reassurances that the people of British Columbia deserve with respect to exactly how this will be implemented. One wouldn't want to think that if you overuse your hot tub one week, you're going to be raided by the RCMP next week. This does present some issues, but subject to that, I say on this side of the House that we want to keep British Columbians safe in their neighbourhoods.

R. Sultan: I join the member for Nanaimo with great gusto in supporting this bill — uncharacteristically perhaps. Nevertheless, I think it is fitting that a bill of this importance be supported on both sides of this Legislature.

Bill 25, being introduced by the Minister Responsible for Housing, is of particular importance to my constituents on the North Shore. I happen to represent, in

[ Page 4335 ]

part, the British Properties, a neighbourhood — developed prior to and immediately after World War II — of large lots and wonderful, sprawling, ranch-style homes and, as time has marched on, perfect candidates for grow-op operations. They offer space, privacy and an exclusive address — and maybe even the possibility of a real estate gain at the end of the day, if nobody catches on to what's happening. But people have caught on to what's happening.

[1515]

One of these homes experienced a huge, probably propane-fired blast, which blew out the entire front of the house and caused serious injury to the gentleman who apparently was the "gardener" on the premises. It certainly woke up the neighbourhood and, as the member for Nanaimo and the minister have pointed out, has put public safety at risk once again.

The story, of course, doesn't end there. I have a sister who lives in East Vancouver. She's lived in the same house for 62 years. She tells me about these houses in the same block, in particular one with the shades drawn and with mysterious midnight pickups of product being delivered rather furtively to automobiles in the back lane in garbage bags. When the police are called, they say: "There are too many of these reports to follow. We will do our best." With, as the minister points out, an estimated 20,000 grow ops in British Columbia — many of them here on the lower mainland — the police cannot respond to every tip and possibility. This is a cancer on our neighbourhoods.

I participated in the British Properties Area Homeowners Association's Operation Clean Sweep last fall. We went through and actually picked up the cigarette butts on the streets. I felt rather good that there were no cigarette butts left on the street that I was assigned, not to mention the odd beer can, which is not what one would normally find being tossed out car windows — we hope. But nevertheless, there were.

Well, I had a companion, a woman who lived in the neighbourhood. As we walked along, she said: "Now, that is the former grow op." The house she pointed out was certainly a respectable-looking property and not very far at all from the local, private, high-prestige golf club we have in British Properties. So here we have my sister living in, shall we say, one of the more economical neighbourhoods of East Vancouver, and here we have another property, adjacent to one of our highest-status golf clubs. They're all being afflicted, one presumes, with the same problem.

I agree with the member for Nanaimo. This is not an issue of freedom to smoke funny cigarettes, as Vaughn Palmer would describe them, in the privacy of your own home. This is an issue of public safety, in the first instance, and it's also an enormous public health issue. It's a fire prevention issue. I read a story the other day estimating that in one community 10 percent to 15 percent of the fires, perhaps, are triggered in grow ops.

I would also point out that the $6 billion enterprise — $6 billion with a "b" — which it is estimated the marijuana business has become in British Columbia, is generating cash that I believe is of great potential to corrupt our society. Where does this money go? Well, we can speculate. I understand from the member for Delta South that perhaps some of the farmland down there has achieved remarkable increases in value for not entirely understandable reasons. Perhaps some of this money is trickling into agricultural real estate.

Certainly, I'm sure some of the money goes into legitimate business and thereby makes it more difficult for other legitimate businesses without this source of untaxed capital to operate. I suspect some of it finds its way into financial organizations of dubious merit and reputation. I have been told, in connection with work I've been doing on our B.C. Securities Act and regulation, that it is affecting our international reputation in capital markets. So the ramifications of illegal activity in the drug trade of this magnitude have many fallouts which go beyond mere community safety.

[1520]

To come back to the basic point that I think is unassailable, we're here talking about the right to look at electricity bills. If somebody is consuming huge gobs of electricity for no apparent reason, possibly something illegal is going on. Should not law enforcement have an opportunity to investigate further?

I do not regard this as an unreasonable infringement on my privacy. If the neighbours down the street are contributing to the theft of $50 million of electricity from B.C. Hydro every year, as the minister has estimated, that's going onto my electricity bill and so on. So there are many ramifications. I think it is high time that society fought back against the forces that would destroy civil society in British Columbia. I think this bill is yet another small but hopefully effective tool to accomplishing that end. It has my full support.

D. Routley: I rise with great concern over this bill. I embrace its intitulement, the Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006. All of us in this House are interested in increasing the safety standards in our communities. But I think we are dealing with the outcome of a drug crisis in our communities being dealt with as an issue deserving of punitive action versus being dealt with as a health issue, as I think it rightly should be.

The previous speaker mentioned that these grow ops represent a cancer on our communities. Indeed, in his analogy he uses a health circumstance. With respect to the speaker, I would suggest that prohibition has never worked. I'm reminded of an interview I heard with a Drug Enforcement Agency officer, who had resigned and converted to a position that this was a health issue. He asked the interviewer: "What was the first prohibition?" The interviewer was quick. The interviewer answered: "Garden of Eden, I suppose." The officer replied, "You're right. And who was the cop, and how many people did he have to police?" — or she, for that matter. That was a failure.

I think it's difficult for us as legislators to speak out of two sides of our mouth at the same time. We're often in positions where we're asked to endorse or criticize, but there are several aspects to every issue, several

[ Page 4336 ]

sides. This issue really challenges our concept of rights and freedoms.

This province has very few detox beds. This province, rather than providing detox and health care for addicted people, opens shelter beds. This province has failed to invest in the circumstances that lead people to drug addiction, and the province has failed to support its police forces. In our rural communities, our police forces are facing big-city issues with small-town resources.

In the end, I think the act supports addressing the issue of safety in our communities. How could I stand here and challenge that? Of course we all endorse that. But it chooses to trade, potentially, some of our rights and freedoms rather than invest at the other end in the treatment centres, the detox beds, the police resources to adequately deal with the issue with the mechanisms that are available to us already.

There are other issues. We don't know what circumstances would have to be in place to allow a local government to request this information. We don't know if the local governments will be required to meet a standard of due diligence in applying for that information.

[1525]

The notice under this act could be directed to the owner or occupier. Oftentimes those two terms are mutually exclusive. With only two days given to respond to notice, I think that we will find that many owners who ought rightly to receive this notice will never receive it.

Another concern is the method by which suspicious electricity consumption will be stored and made accessible. Will such a notice of confidentiality among the authorities be distributed, or will this information be made public? Will this information be kept on record? Is there any mechanism to correct mistakes that might be made under the act? One of the previous speakers referred to the overuse of a hot tub, a welder in the basement. There are many different reasons people use higher than average electrical consumption.

Also, collecting the information is one thing, and acting on it is another. The speaker previous to me referred to the theft of electricity. It may be that this bill will encourage theft of electricity rather than have a meter read to show an increased consumption.

There are numerous, very deep difficulties that this side of the House has with the bill. But our difficulty is not found in the title, the Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006, as I said. Every member in this House supports safe communities, but I think we will achieve safety in our communities when we invest in our children and in their education adequately, when we invest in the health care system adequately so that it can take care of the addicted, so that it can address these issues, when we invest in proper police resources to allow them to carry out investigations without shortcut.

Those are the commitments that this government needs to make to make our communities safe — investments in people's living conditions, in people's learning conditions, in people's health conditions.

I speak with a positive trepidation in that I support the title of the act, but when it comes to the line-by-line debate, I'm sure it will be a healthy one.

N. Simons: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and express some concerns over Bill 25. I think it's misleading to the public of British Columbia. In fact, this is just another attempt to perpetuate a failed policy on a war against drugs — and a failed policy, I might add. It is acknowledged by most people in crime prevention, most people in crime law enforcement, that this is not a way of actually dealing with a fundamental issue.

Drug use and drug abuse have long been goals of the war on drugs, since Richard Nixon announced the war on drugs in the early 1970s. What we have here are simply remnants and perpetuation of failed policy — failed policy under the guise of safety, failed policy on so many different levels. Not only will it not make our communities any safer, it'll give the illusion that we're doing something about a perceived problem that's only being exaggerated by this government.

Every single argument made so far by the members opposite has indicated that there's really no other way of dealing with this problem. It has no imagination, completely using old methods like we use old weapons. It's ineffective and, in fact, condescending to the people of British Columbia that we are using a safety standards amendment act to actually try to deal with the issue of marijuana grow operations.

We're talking about marijuana. We're not talking about crystal meth. I don't see anything…. We're not talking about cocaine. We're not talking about heroin. We're talking about marijuana. The fact of the matter is, if the members opposite had any idea of what general, regular society was about, they would realize that a large proportion of Canadians take marijuana in a recreational form. The hypocrisy that I see…. I think if you look at Statistics Canada….

[1530]

Interjections.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada. If they don't want to hear the actual truth of it, it's not my fault. I'm attempting to bring some arguments forward that have been relayed to me by constituents, and if the member….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, sit down, please.

Order in the House, please.

N. Simons: I understand that it's causing a little bit of upset for the members opposite because they're tied very closely to this whole industry of the war on drugs. I understand that. But I think what really needs to be seen and understood here is that the perpetuation of this particular angle — at the prohibition, which is essentially what we're dealing with — is failing public policy. It's failure, and it's perpetuation of failure.

[ Page 4337 ]

The war on drugs, which is continued by this attempt through the Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006, to deal with grow operations will fail. It will fail because it will not make our communities any safer. Marijuana growers, who are doing something illegal, which they should not be doing, will turn to other forms of electrical generation. They will steal electrical power, and they will do it in a more dangerous way. Not only that, they'll turn to propane. The member opposite mentioned propane.

How far are we going to go when we chip away at the civil liberties of our society, one by one, slowly, slowly? The members opposite will be lulled to sleep by the idea that they are simple little things that deal with motherhood and apple pie.

It's not that simple. This has been an argument that's been going on for a long time. We have professors, law enforcement officials and governments that all agree that the continuation of this policy is failure of public policy. It's an embarrassment and a lack of imagination in dealing with this issue. When we put marijuana into the same discussion as crystal meth, we're doing harm to our children. We are doing harm to our children by putting those on the same standard and by putting in legislation that's ostensibly going to cause safety when there is no evidence that it's going to be any safer in our communities. There is no evidence whatsoever.

Give me a business case. The minister opposite suggests 180 homes were found to be in violation. How wide was the net to capture that? How many people in this province are going to be secretly watched by Hydro without knowing it? How many lists will their names be on across this province? What will those lists be for? It's failed policy backed up by cheap legislation.

This is not an issue that should be simply passed through without careful consideration. The process of debate, as much as it might cause the members opposite some discomfort, is to assess the appropriateness of legislation, the effect of legislation and the philosophy behind that legislation.

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member opposite suggests that I vote against it. That's the simplest kind of response one could expect. Nothing surprises me about that response, because this is simple legislation that doesn't do what it's pretending to do. I think the public of British Columbia will know that.

However, I'm concerned about the safety of our homes as well. I'm concerned about the safety of residences. I would like to see a business case to suggest that the continued use of more money for law enforcement to branch out into safety standards is an effective use of our taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, it is a failure, and it is a continued failure, but if it's one that the public of British Columbia believes is going to make their residences and their communities safer, we'll have very little to say about it. The truth of the matter is that if you ask anybody who does careful, dispassionate analysis of this issue, it's a continuation of prohibition.

We know, with the minister…. Not surprisingly, the minister opposite was the Minister of Public Safety when he talked about the fact that the guns killing our soldiers in Afghanistan were related to the drug use here. That's inappropriate and misleading to the public of British Columbia.

[1535]

Interjection.

N. Simons: I'm surprised that the member opposite claims, after so many years since he said it, that it's still true. However, I'm not surprised, really, that they're other things that the minister opposite said when he was in a ministry that had some control over this issue. He must miss it, because now he's the Minister Responsible for Housing, and he's still talking about the drug war — that marijuana is being traded kilo for kilo for cocaine.

We know that illegal activities fund organized crime. That's a tautological argument. They can look it up. The fact of the matter is that if we perpetuate this approach, organized crime will be happy, because the price will go up, and they'll reap higher profits. The only thing, and we're talking about marijuana here…. And it might be a generational thing, looking opposite. The only thing that….

Interjections.

N. Simons: That was meant in the most respect of wisdom and everything. But things change.

Madam Speaker, it's really quite a pleasure to be able to speak to an audience that listens. I'm pleased about that, because I think, if nothing else, maybe some ideas that they've never heard will actually float in and maybe stay for a while. I'm not saying that they're completely wrong in their approach, but I'm saying that they're pretty close to completely wrong.

I believe that if this causes anybody in the public to feel somewhat safer in their communities, they shouldn't. This is the wrong approach. What will make them safer is a clear approach to drugs that doesn't marginalize, doesn't force it undercover, doesn't force it underground. We know….

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member opposite wonders if this is a smoking chamber.

I have a number of quotes from a number of people of eminent ability. Professor at Simon Fraser University, Bruce Alexander: "We're talking about prohibition. This bill is a continuation of prohibition." Professor of behavioral science, University of Toronto. Professor of pharmacology of the state of New York. If the minister doesn't want to hear about Canadian evidence, we have some from the United States. It might be more close to their philosophy.

[ Page 4338 ]

We have another professor from Simon Fraser. All of them who spend time studying, analyzing, looking at the statistics, looking at the evidence and not being swayed by moral panics indicate that our approach since Richard Nixon in 1970 said we needed to declare war on drugs….

What we should be declaring war on is poverty. We should be declaring war on the infringement of our civil liberties. We should be declaring war on the invasion of our privacy. We should be conscious of the fact that the government has already passed legislation that is damaging to our civil liberties in the Civil Forfeiture Act. What is the relationship between this particular piece of legislation and the ability of government to forfeit without a charge, without even an accusation, without a conviction? In the event of an acquittal this government has reserved the right to allow for forfeiture of property.

Now, based on hydro bills we have the ability to go into homes that have been swept into a net with very little care and without a warrant.

The other issue that I think should be noted to the people of British Columbia is that this is not going to have the effect of increasing the number of people convicted of growing marijuana. It's going to give them a 48-hour heads-up that the cops are on to them — whether they're guilty or not.

I saw the figures: 450 homes were targeted, were identified through tips from the police to Hydro. Out of those 450 they followed up on, I believe, 180. And 420 tips resulted in 126 homes being approached. That's a euphemism for, well, approached. You know what that is, Madam Speaker. Out of those 420 tips, 126 were approached, 118 needed repair, and 78 out of the 420 originally identified had their power terminated.

[1540]

Are we serious about this? Is this really what this is about? Is it about going against drug growers? Is it about safety standards? We're pushing the safety standards further. We're getting more unsafe in my opinion, and my opinion might not be reflected by everyone. I believe that if you force people to do things like steal hydro or construct their own bypasses or turn to propane power, we're not getting rid of the problem; we're displacing. It's called displacement.

I think the minister opposite knows very well what displacement is. You see it when the police crack down on prostitution. It moves somewhere else. The exact same thing happens in marijuana grow operations. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the problem. We need to address the problem, but we're living under this illusion that by getting tougher and getting meaner…. It's never worked before, and it's not going to work now.

We know that over 30 percent of Canadians have ingested marijuana in one form or another. Contrary to the minister opposite's contention that I'm supporting the use of marijuana, nothing can be further from the truth, and nothing can be more disingenuous. This is a debate about legislation. It's not a debate about opinions. We're talking about civil rights, we're talking about privacy rights, and we're talking about

an act that attempts to undercut both. See it in that way instead of, "I'm afraid of drugs," or: "I like drugs." That's not the issue.

The issue is: if this is truly intended to address a problem, it's going to fail. If it is truly intended just to reflect the government's perspective on illegal substances, it's worth only the paper that it's written on.

If we want to address the issue truthfully, if we want to be honest about it, and if we want to have an honest debate about it, I'm looking forward to that time. In the meantime, I don't want to be watched, even if I have nothing to hide. I don't want to be watched. I don't want my hydro records to be watched. I don't want someone sneaking up. I don't want my community under surveillance.

What happened to the idea that, you know, government shouldn't be extending its arm so far into the private lives of people? This is about people who decide to use recreational drugs. This is not the same thing as drugs that are going to cause irreparable damage to the brain of a child or of a young person. When we put them in the same category, we're doing a disservice to the young people of this country — an absolute disservice — because they know better. If they think that their elders are telling them, "This is going to hurt you; this is going to kill you," and they know that it won't, what else are they going to learn from adults?

I do not condone illegal activity, but I do not condone the erosion of civil rights, the erosion of privacy rights, in order to address that scourge. That's what we see is happening. That's what we see is happening, gradually, through the imposition of this type of law. It's happening little by little. It doesn't all happen at once. Societies don't become states where the government has all control quickly. It's a gradual erosion of rights that we have to be on the alert for.

Our own Privacy Commissioner says this is a problem — our own Privacy Commissioner, whose expertise is beyond those in this chamber. Their expertise on privacy rights needs to be respected. What I see is a lack of concern, because they know this is going to make people think that they're doing something about things they're afraid of. But it's an illusion.

The police chief from Seattle…. If we need to quote law enforcement, there are many law enforcement officials who believe that this approach to the war on drugs is wrong. Chief Norm Stamper, 34 years police chief, talks about the United States experience: "Tens of thousands of otherwise innocent Americans incarcerated, many for 20 years, some for life."

[1545]

By the way, may I add, that the Minister Responsible for Housing has stated in glowing terms that what they do down south is better: on the first offence, take away property. This is a reflection of the same attitude under the guise of a safety act. They've done it in Ontario. Well, I don't want to do everything in this province that they do in Ontario. We should lead in terms of legislation; we shouldn't be sheep. We should lead. If we don't do it, who does?

We have Provincial Court judges who know that prohibition doesn't work, and Tony Smith, a police

[ Page 4339 ]

officer of 28 years in Vancouver. The evidence is overwhelming; it's overwhelming. The problem is: I don't think that bad crime results in good law, and there needs to be a connection between the two. What we have here

is problems with safety.

We have a response that will probably create different safety problems in different places. Maybe we'll need to get the propane companies to give us information on how much propane they get. "What if I cook a lot?" "Well, don't worry about it. You can send in an application that your house doesn't get under surveillance because you cook a lot."

What's after propane? What about people…? You know, I encourage people to use solar power and whatever kind of power, but we're talking about a community fuelled because of the high prices, fuelled because of the criminal nature of the enterprise they're in — their illegal enterprise, I might add, in case anybody thinks that I'm going too soft. They find other ways of doing it. Crime doesn't go away because we have the tougher law.

Why would we want…? If I was a friend of a safety officer in my community who would go to the houses to find out if they were having grow operations…. Why put their life in danger? The police are equipped; the police are trained. The police have the skills and the resources necessary to investigate criminal activity.

They need warrants. Warrants shouldn't be seen as a hindrance to law enforcement. It's part of our social democratic history that we have expectations that we're not going to be watched if we have nothing to hide. We are going to be watched if we have nothing to hide, and we are going to be on a list even though we have nothing to hide, and I find that offensive. That is the most offensive part of this bill, besides the fact that it's not going to do what it says it's going to do.

We have, right now in Vancouver, the 17th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm. Well, a lot of drug-related harm comes from our zealous attempt to enforce laws that are not supported by the majority of the population. Study after study, statistic….

The members opposite would have trouble denying this. They would have trouble denying that the majority of British Columbians believe that marijuana should be decriminalized.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of British Columbians would prefer an approach that saw this as a problem from a health perspective. We don't need vengeance in order to feel good. If we would only use our minds, if we'd only use the leadership roles with which we've been elected to serve, to think for ourselves about this issue — if only. But you know, as I said, it does require a bit of a shift in attitude. I have numerous quotes of surprisingly misinformed….

To summarize, I don't like this legislation for a few reasons. If I can see evidence in third reading that this will in fact accomplish what it sets out to do, if there is any evidence at all, I'd be happy to see it.

[1550]

I don't like another way for government to keep track of us. I don't want to know about a list of suspicious homes. I don't like the fact that we're giving grow operations 48 hours just to vacate and relocate somewhere else, to steal power somewhere else, to order propane somewhere else. It's not a tough-on-crime piece of legislation; I'll tell you that. The number of charges is going to be reduced, and the problem will escalate, perhaps. Ultimately, it's not about crime control. It's about crime displacement.

To summarize, my objection to the misleading intent of this bill…. I believe it results in the public being misled. I'm not sure if the intent is to mislead, but the result is that the public believes this government is actually doing something that will (

a) reduce crime, (

b) reduce the amount of drugs on the street, (

c) have an impact on organized crime, (

d) do all of the above.

It'll do none of those. If they have a business case suggesting that the number of fires has gone down after a certain number of years or such, perhaps…. I believe that the public of British Columbia should know that it's not…. Without further examination at committee stage, I would suggest that the bill is seriously flawed.

D. Thorne: I have just a few comments that I wanted to make today on this bill. I do have some concerns about it. I do share some of the concerns of my colleague, which my colleague just spoke of.

Specifically, I think the 48 hours' notice is a problem. I'm sure that there's probably a privacy law that you have to give 48 hours' notice — the same way we in municipalities had to give notice when bylaw officers were going to somebody's house to check, for instance, if there were secondary suites. We would have to give the homeowner notice, and the next day, when the bylaw officer arrived, the second stove would have been removed from the house and the bylaw officer would have to leave, because there was no proof that there was indeed a secondary suite. As we discuss this further and get more information on it, I'm hoping that that time can be shortened if we go forward with this bill.

Another problem that I think we can't cover in this bill or in this House is the problem with sentencing when we do arrest these people and shut down the grow operations. We get to the court system, and so often they're back on the street and back growing by the next day. This is a huge problem, one that we still have not been able to solve and probably won't be able to solve for quite some time.

I do think this is probably a good start on this issue. I know that in Coquitlam, where I was on council for three terms, we discussed this many times. There were motions brought forward by councillors to do exactly the same thing, but of course, councils don't have the power under the Local Government Act to enact this kind of policy that would oblige Hydro or a power company to release this information to the police.

It has always been a huge issue for the police to get the information. I think that out of their inability to get

[ Page 4340 ]

this information have come many problems for people who live in neighbourhoods where there are grow ops.

Speaking only for my community of Coquitlam, a certain area of Coquitlam gets tagged as "the green mountain," because there are so many grow ops. It's such a problem. You know, it's a problem for everybody in British Columbia, in Canada, in North America. There's no doubt about that. We're going to have to, I think, approach it from many directions. This is just one direction, but I think it is a good start.

[1555]

I think one of the things that rarely gets talked about is how dangerous it is for neighbours who live by a grow op. I've had two on my street. Now, as it turned out, there was no danger to myself or my family because of that. But there are people, I'm sure, all across the province and, certainly, in my riding, who have left — even one woman I know, a medical doctor, who left the province because she was so traumatized by something that happened on her street.

I'm not going to say anything more about it, because I don't want her to be identified, but it was so traumatic for her and her family that they moved away from B.C. I don't know where she went, because this problem is everywhere. But she did go, and it was quite traumatic for everybody concerned. Certainly at council it was a big problem for us, because she came and talked to us before she left.

The other thing that happens sometimes with neighbours of grow ops is that they are mistakenly targeted as grow ops. I suspect that having this kind of information, the police will be able to more accurately target the right house. We all, I'm sure, have heard stories of how the wrong house was targeted because somebody thinks it's a grow op. There's no real information, so they're unable to know, and the house is assaulted or whatever the police end up doing. In fact, the family is traumatized because they're not guilty of anything except living in the wrong neighbourhood or next door to the wrong house. I'm hoping this act will help those people as well.

I don't have too much more to say. Certainly, I think the privacy issue is one we will have to watch so that it doesn't get out of hand. I have some faith that the municipalities, where these actions will be taking place…. I mean, the province has to pass the act because the municipalities can't. I'm hoping there'll be some system where if I have a hot tub or a suite in my house and nobody knows that I'm using more power, I would be able to let the right authorities know so that I wouldn't be having surveillance. I'm hoping that if it becomes a problem, some system like that would be in effect.

At this point in time I'm very prepared to support this bill. I'm sure most municipalities in the province will thank us all if we pass this act.

B. Ralston: Perhaps it's appropriate that still in the gallery is Councillor Marvin Hunt, who's from the city of Surrey. I'm from the city of Surrey as well. The problem of grow operations in the city of Surrey is really a story of infestation throughout the municipality. Indeed, next door to my own house there was discovered a grow operation, and shortly after that there was a serious fire in that house. I am personally well acquainted with the public safety challenges that this particular legislation seeks to address.

This legislation flowed from an initiative led by Surrey Fire Chief Len Garis. It's perhaps significant what Mr. Garis has said — that this program now being put into provincial legislation requires what he calls a major attitude shift for the non-traditional approach it represents. With public safety as its sole driving force, the electrical fire and safety inspection program appears to some to contradict the conventional criminal justice approach. To be successful, this approach needs an alternative frame of mind, one that puts public safety ahead of catching and punishing criminals.

After all, the system gives the growers enough notice to remove any evidence needed for prosecution, and its main penalty is to turn off power, in some cases only temporarily.

Rather than a criminal law initiative, which would be ultra vires of the province in any event, and rather than being focused on law enforcement, this initiative is focused, quite properly, on public safety. Indeed, it grew out of the dissatisfaction of police officers with the resources that they were able to devote to the problem of grow operations, particularly in the city of Surrey. They were not able to attend to the backlog of tips they were given. The criminal investigation that's required is lengthy and complicated, requiring warrants in almost every case and sometimes surveillance.

[1600]

When the matter gets to court, often for various reasons that include the Charter of Rights in the courts, the prosecution is not successful. When there are convictions, quite often the sentences — although the Court of Appeal has gone back and forth on this — do not involve jail. To deal with this problem in the way that Len Garis set out to do is a particularly creative and useful solution to the widespread problem that these occurrences of grow ops in Surrey present to public safety.

The 90-day demonstration project had the following benefits. It reduced the safety hazards associated with residential grow ops. It reduced the backlog of grow-op tips to the police. It dealt with a large number of low-level grow ops and so-called weaker cases, while allowing the criminal justice system to focus on crime networks behind the marijuana trade. It served as a deterrent for residential marijuana producers by interrupting operations, and it raised public awareness of the dangers associated with grow operations. Those benefits that were seen in the pilot project are now being adopted in this legislation. Indeed, I think it's worthy of support at this stage, at second reading.

Members have raised concerns about the issue of privacy as it relates to one's records of consumption of electricity. That issue was addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Regina v. Plant, in which the police — in pursuance of a criminal investi-

[ Page 4341 ]

gation, I stress — had seized hydro records without using a warrant. What the Supreme Court of Canada said was that the privacy issue that was involved in seizing hydro records was very minimal. The fact of your pattern of electrical consumption reveals very little about the biographical core of your personal identity. The meter simply reads the consumption of power. It doesn't read what you consume it for. All of that remains private. So the Supreme Court of Canada said that in a criminal case, this intrusion didn't violate

section 8 of the Charter and indeed was a minimal intrusion upon privacy.

In 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada, in another case, was asked to decide whether the so-called FLIR technology, which is basically a device that senses heat in a building…. The police officer — and again, I stress this is a criminal case — typically stands off the property and holds the device up. The device measures the heat that's being emitted from different buildings on the property. All it does is produce what they call a thermograph and beyond that, nothing else.

But it can be an indication, taken together with other evidence, that there may be a grow op going on in the particular building that's being targeted, particularly when it's compared to the heat profile — the heat emanating from other buildings on the same property or on the same street.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that issue, as well, and again said — they're the ultimate arbiters on this, a criminal case of protection of privacy,

section 8, the right to be free against unreasonable search and seizure — that the use of that device in those circumstances was not an unreasonable intrusion upon privacy. It simply produced a thermograph.

With respect to some of the debate in the House, I personally view the privacy considerations, while I'm not unmindful of them, and one is always wary of legislation that intrudes upon the privacy rights of citizens…. But the intrusion that's contemplated here is minimal, and in the words of fire chief Len Garis, it's not in pursuit of a criminal investigation anyway. The ultimate consequence here, as my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville has pointed out, is in pursuit of the enforcement of another municipal bylaw.

Bylaw officers are entitled to enter a residence to enforce various parts of the building code, other standards of sanitation and other matters related to the lawful occupation of buildings.

[1605]

The result is that someone is given notice. If they choose to comply with the notice, then the matter is really resolved. There is, of course, the danger of a false report, but I'm convinced that the police, and particularly the fire and electrical inspectors, are very conscious of that risk and are doing everything they can to minimize unwarranted intrusions upon the residences of citizens of this province.

I see this legislation as productive, as helpful, and I will be supporting it at second reading.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the last speaker and to the first speaker, who I thought put pretty balanced comments on the table with regards to this piece of legislation.

Evidently in my previous life as a Solicitor General, I said some things that upset the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast with regards to marijuana trading kilo for kilo in the United States — true — and that marijuana fuelled the international gun trade — true. Why was that true? And why was I able to make those statements in my capacity as a minister at the time? Because the senior management of the RCMP in serious crime and international crime advised me as the minister that that was true. I guess if you want to get offended because somebody actually tells you the truth, it's an interesting thing.

The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith got up. I'm not sure whether he's supporting or against the bill, but he made some comments that I really can't leave undefended. He made this comment: "They put no money into policing, this government. They've done nothing for law enforcement in British Columbia, this government."

The reality is this. The largest investment in B.C.'s history in policing and law enforcement was done by this government — $122 million, plus an investment in a real-time information management system so police officers could have information at their fingertips, like no other jurisdiction in the world.

I don't know what he's upset about with what we did in law enforcement. We have the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, an 82-percent record of solving murders. The best in North America was done under this government. There's an integrated team that tracks sexual predators now in British Columbia, an integrated team in British Columbia that does stuff on the Internet to track Internet luring and child pornography — none of which was done in the ten years of the NDP.

I understand the questions and issues about mental health from the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, because I agree with him. The issues around mental health and addiction are important. But he has to remember this. Through the 1990s they had a mental health plan, and the number of dollars they invested in it was zero. They may have announced it. They may have thought they had it, but they did nothing about it.

I don't mind the issue about: "Do we have a discussion in and around mental health and addictions?" But to have it in the context of a piece of legislation that is actually a tool in a toolkit, asked for from government by the members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and municipalities across British Columbia, is a little bit strange to me.

It is interesting that Marvin Hunt, the councillor from Surrey, is here today — and, actually, Dianne Watts, who's the mayor of Surrey. They should be thanked for actually taking a leadership role in the fact that they were prepared to do a pilot project in their community to see if this type of initiative would work. All they were looking for was a tool in a toolkit. The

[ Page 4342 ]

reason they needed a tool in a toolkit is because of the impact of these types of operations in their communities. I think it's important that we do that for them.

Some people think of the disclosure of power as being some big deal. Somebody mentioned hot tubs and that "I've got a kiln in my basement, or a welder." That's not the spike. That's just a nonsensical argument that somebody wants to make to say: "I don't like the bill." The reality is that it's a lot more power than that to grow marijuana.

[1610]

You've got to ask yourself these questions. Is it okay that 49 children in 119 homes were living in grow ops when the first test case was done? Do you find that acceptable? Do you find it acceptable that 49 children in 119 homes were living in grow ops? Do you find it acceptable that they're being exposed to fungus and mould and chemicals in the home that they live in? Do you find that acceptable for the safety of a child?

Do you find it acceptable that in 119 homes where marijuana was being grown, there were 49 children living there; that there are more incidents of weapons in grow ops and crime than in any other jurisdiction in British Columbia today; that most — something like 24 percent — of all grow ops have weapons in them? Do you find that acceptable? Do you think the public safety of those children should even be considered?

If this bill saves one child, one police officer, one fire protection officer or a community from fire, it's worth doing. It is exactly that reason that we're here today. This is about the fact that we have something we want to deal with in our society.

I listened to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and I wrote down one of the most interesting quotes I have ever heard in my life. We're going to force people to steal power — right? — and force someone to break the law. The grow op is against the law, hon. member. It is a criminal offence in this country. Is that going to be the excuse you want to put out there for your children — that we're a society that believes we do not stand up for the law? You're going to allow your children to come to you when they shoplift in some store and say: "Well, I was forced to break the law, dad."

What kind of message is that for the young people sitting in the gallery here today? The young people in this gallery should be hearing this message: do not, do not, do not take drugs. It will just destroy your life, and we're trying to protect your community so we can protect you.

What we're going to do in the next few days as we go through committee stage is set the stage for one more tool as we move down the area to work with the rest of our jurisdictions across this country in criminal justice. Yesterday the federal budget put money in for increased costs to incarceration, because they're actually going to start paying attention that serious crimes in this country are going to get dealt with. There's nothing wrong with that, because we have to start dealing with some of the consequences of what happens.

To the members over there who make a statement like that — "I was forced to break the law" — I would like you to go to one of the 80 or 90 families in the South Asian community who have had a son or a daughter murdered as a result of the drug trade. I'd like you to go to them and say it's okay to be forced to break the law.

I want you to understand that drugs, marijuana grow ops, the connections to organized crime and gangs are a scourge on our society, and there is nothing wrong with jurisdictions like Surrey and Abbotsford taking some leadership to try and shut some of these things down.

For members of this Legislature to stand up and actually want to enter into a discussion about a federal statute and think they.… I assume they want to legalize this. Well, then go run federally. Go talk to your MP. Go see if something's going to happen there.

In the meantime, we are going to protect the communities of British Columbia. That's our job as legislators in British Columbia. That's what we should be doing in B.C. We're providing a tool to societies today.

I am proud of this piece of legislation, and I move second reading of this bill.

[1615-1620]

Second reading of Bill 25 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill be placed on the Committee of the Whole for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 25, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Next, second reading debate on Bill 29.

HEALTH STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

(continued)

D. Cubberley: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Go on to your other duties so we can hear what's happening.

Member for Saanich South, continue.

D. Cubberley: I can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why there wasn't rapt attention for my electrifying remarks on Bill 29. I'm pleased to have an opportunity to comment and thank the minister for according me the opportunity of a little more time to understand the bill before making any comments.

Bill 29 makes a number of amendments to the Health Act, the Medicare Protection Act, the Evidence

[ Page 4343 ]

Act and quite a number of other pieces of provincial legislation. The purpose of the act is to create a new level of accountability and clear rules governing the collection, use and disclosure of the personal health information in ministry and health authority databases. The intent, as stated by the minister, is to allow the Minister of Health to designate or create databases containing personal information as health information banks, the use of which can play an important role in analyzing patterns of health and illness, and in designing and delivering the best possible patient care.

The bill provides that information collected can only be used for health-related purposes, which are set out in

section 10.3 of the bill. These purposes enable the creation of individual electronic health records, which can be an invaluable aid in speedy access to information in the course of urgent care, can expedite transition from diagnosis to cure and can enable better management of chronic disease. The bill also places limits on the purposes for which data may be used and disclosed.

The bill also establishes a right of complaint to the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner for persons asked to provide personal health information, and it authorizes the commissioner to investigate and attempt to resolve any such complaints. The sharing of personal health information is limited to specific organizations, health authorities and other public bodies, such as Health Canada.

[1625]

The minister in his comments indicated that the specifics of any large, one-off or regular sharing of personal health information would have to be set out in an information-sharing agreement and that such an agreement could only be made with a health-related organization. The minister has also said that there are requirements that will maximize transparency and accountability to the public and that ministerial orders under the legislation will be published for review.

The minister has indicated that the fundamental purpose of health information banks is to improve patient care and the quality of evidence-based decision-making. We understand the development of such databases to be an important step in establishing a platform for the electronic health record and to enable more sustained analysis of population health trends, leading to a better design of care delivery.

We're pleased that the minister made an explicit linkage to the first ministers' commitment to create an electronic health record and are convinced that this initiative will yield benefits to all British Columbians and, indeed, potentially to all Canadians. We note the recent announcement of $120 million in federal funding to support the direction. The minister has said that accurate and complete electronic health records are vital to an effective, sustainable health care system, and we concur wholeheartedly with that statement.

EHR for individuals has important potentials for the diagnosis of disease, for the delivery of emergency care and for the management of chronic diseases like diabetes, including the design of better approaches and better self-management by those who are living with disease. It can play an important role in overcoming the many different silos through which care is currently delivered today, driving towards integration and innovation as well as achieving greater efficiency in the delivery of care.

EHR also supports improved quality of care, leading to better clinical diagnosis and treatment decisions, more generalized evidence-based practice and safer and more consistent patient care. EHR can also substantially increase productivity in the health care workplace. We know how telehealth can be used to render elements of travel and delay unnecessary. EHR will spread these benefits beyond the realm of telehealth while enlarging its reach as well.

Complete and immediately available patient information for sharing across the entire continuum of care throughout a lifetime is one benefit of EHR. It will also provide access to population health information that will enable the detection and analysis of health trends and the creation of remedies and interventions.

We're strongly supportive of the intent of this bill. We will want to examine the controls embedded in it to protect the privacy of individuals and to eliminate any potential for commercial use or use that would in any way limit the access to benefits of individuals or open up possibilities of limiting the liability of insurance coverage and other corporate products for individuals.

It remains of paramount importance to ensure that streamlined data collection and transfer of personal health information meet all tests regarding maintenance of personal privacy. We understand that the Privacy Commissioner has reviewed the draft sections relating to the health database provisions and that he feels they strike the right balance. We will continue to inform ourselves on these matters — hopefully, with a briefing from staff in the very near future — and we will have more to say on a clause-by-clause reading.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health closes debate.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I do want to thank the member for his thoughtful and constructive comments in relation to Bill 29. Those are much appreciated. I think the continuing debate that we'll have on this in committee stage will also be very important and useful in regard to electronic health records and how we can move forward on those.

This is a complex piece of legislation. It is going to form the underpinnings for our management, dissemination and collection of health information in the years and decades ahead. It is a vitally important piece of information, and I'm gratified that it enjoys bipartisan support.

[1630]

Jurisdictions across Canada — certainly across North America and around the world, or at least the western world — are all grappling with the issue of managing electronic health records. I think every jurisdiction is struggling to find the appropriate balance

[ Page 4344 ]

between the protection of personal privacy — because among the issues we value most as individuals is the appropriate privacy around our personal health records — with appropriate ability for medical professionals to be able to access that vital health information at a time when it is needed. This legislation is about finding that proper balance between appropriate access and protecting privacy. I do think we have an appropriate balance here, but I do look forward to the continuing discussion of that point.

Having that prompt access to care can be extremely important, as the opposition Health critic noted. Whether you're in your own physician's office or you're going into the emergency department, perhaps conscious or unconscious, or if you're travelling somewhere else in the province and ultimately somewhere else in the country, you will be able to have the benefit — or your medical practitioner or whoever the practitioner is will have the benefit — of being able to have that appropriate access to your health records so that an appropriate course of care can be adopted, and adopted quickly.

Among the advantages…. I'm very pleased the member noted the recent partnership we were able to secure with Canada Health Infoway. Canada Health Infoway will be bringing $120 million to British Columbia for this project. The Ministry of Health will be adding an additional $30 million. That's $150 million. We look forward to working with the B.C. Medical Association and with a great range of other practitioners in this province to ensure that we are able to have the electronic connection, electronic entity, that will provide that service.

A patient can arrive at a doctor's office, in an ER or in some other health facility, and we can avoid a repetition of tests that might be needed in the event that such information couldn't be transmitted. The practitioner will have immediate access to critical health information. For example, if the patient has an allergy to penicillin or has had a chronic disease like diabetes or has had a recent injury or health incident that is notable, all of those things can help form the very sound care that can be provided, whether it's in the doctor's office, an emergency room or a primary care centre. All of those things can be very valuable in producing that better patient care.

I think this is tremendously exciting. I know I found it very exciting to attend the recent e-health event that was held at the Victoria Conference Centre. Over 1,600 delegates from around the world gathered in Victoria for this e-health conference. While technically all of my skills are woefully inadequate in this important area of public policy, I do know that those 1,600 people — or more, I think — who ultimately gathered there were tremendously excited about the potential of moving health care to an entirely new level by using this rapid access to electronic data. I do think it has the opportunity to move us enormously forward.

[1635]

This is very exciting, but it does have to have a sound foundation to build on. We believe that this sound foundation is here, but I do very much look forward to the thoughtful comments and questions of members as we move to committee stage debate. This is a new area of public policy and one that we're excited about, but one that also, I think, will very much benefit from the scrutiny that can be provided in committee stage debate.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 29, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 28.

Committee of the Whole House

PARK (CONSERVANCY ENABLING)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 4:39 p.m.

section 1.

S. Simpson: In

section 1, the definition of "conservancy…." Could the minister tell us what the difference is between a conservancy and a class-A park?

Hon. B. Penner: As we discussed during second reading debate a few days ago, conservancies are a new designation under the Park Act. Conservancies and class-A parks are not exactly the same. Both conservancies and class-A parks provide a high level of protection to biodiversity, ecosystem, recreational and other values. Conservancies, however, explicitly recognize the importance of these areas to first nations for social, ceremonial and cultural purposes.

[1640]

Conservancies provide for a wider range of low-impact, compatible economic opportunities than do class-A parks. However — and I need to stress this — commercial logging, mining and hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-the-river projects, are not allowed in conservancies.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that comment. Maybe the minister could give some indication of what kind of activities would be allowed in a conservancy that are not allowed in a class-A park.

[ Page 4345 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I may have additional information in a few moments, depending on local traffic conditions in downtown Victoria.

However, as already indicated and as the legislation indicates, a number of low-impact economic activities are possibly permitted within conservancies, provided that they are consistent with the purposes, as set out in the legislation, for those conservancies. In class-A parks, park use permits may also be granted for a wide number of different activities, but there's a different test in the legislation — in the specific provisions in the Park Act, which the member can read — when the minister must make a decision about whether or not to issue a park use permit for a specific application or specific use.

With the conservancy designation, a different test applies. It's set out in the legislation. I think I canvassed this somewhat in second reading, and I'm sure we'll be doing it more this afternoon.

S. Simpson: I'll come back to some questions related to that in a few minutes, I think, when the minister's staff arrive.

Another question in relation to the definition of conservancy. Could the minister tell us: does the new definition of conservancy areas have any impact outside of the north and coastal LRMPs? I know this has been developed primarily to deal with the LRMPs in those areas. Could the minister tell us whether this definition is expected to have any impact or application outside of those areas?

Hon. B. Penner: As indicated when the legislation was introduced and as I think I mentioned in my second reading remarks — was it last week already? Time kind of blurs around here — the government does not have any specific intentions at this time to utilize the conservancy designation for any other areas in the province outside of these midcoast and north coast LRMP regions. However, depending on what other LRMP processes come up within other parts of the province, those planning processes may recommend use of a conservancy designation. Government would have to consider it at that time.

I can also repeat to the member that it is not our intention to convert existing class-A parks to conservancies. The impetus for this designation was to reflect discussions and the agreement that was reached after ten years of arduous negotiation by many different groups around a table — to reflect those directions from the LRMP process for the mid- and north coasts.

[1645]

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments that at this point the government has no plans or no intentions to apply this legislation outside of the LRMPs that are there. But could the minister tell us: under the terms of the legislation, would it be an allowable thing to in fact apply these conservancy areas outside of the LRMPs? If so, what would have to occur? Would it require additional legislation? Would it require additions to the schedules? Could it be done, and what would have to occur?

The Chair: Member, just for your information, I would remind the member that for relevancy purposes, we are talking about this bill and this

section and not future policy or future plans.

S. Simpson: Absolutely.

Hon. B. Penner: Just as we're doing today, and just as we do whenever we're adding or changing boundaries to class-A parks, it would require a legislative amendment to be brought to the floor of the Legislature for debate. If additional areas were to be identified for inclusion within a conservancy or if the conservancy designation were to be applied to a new area within British Columbia, it would require legislation to be brought to the Legislature.

Specifically, you'll see that there's a schedule. In fact, there are two schedules,

schedule E and

schedule F, that have been created pursuant to the Park Act through this legislation, assuming that the Legislature approves it. It's those schedules that would indicate areas to be included within that designation.

S. Simpson: Just so that I'm clear, at this point there are, I believe, 24 areas identified in schedules E and F — 23 of them in E and one in F, I believe. So anything that adds to that…. I believe the press releases that went out talked about the addition of a number of other areas at some subsequent time — another 80 or something areas to be added.

Just so that I'm clear, when those areas are to be added and if there were other areas outside the LRMPs, they will come back as a legislative amendment to the schedules of the bill and will need to be passed by the Legislature before they can be added to the list? Is that correct?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm going by memory here, but I believe there are another 85 or so areas that are anticipated by next year, by the end of 2007, that we'll be in a position to move forward with in terms of including in the conservancy designation.

It's my expectation that a legislative amendment would be brought forward to amend the

schedule to the Park Act,

schedule E and/or F, so that the additional 85