2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Diwali

D. Hayer

Diabetes awareness

A. Dix

J. McIntyre

Public art project in Burnaby-Edmonds

R. Chouhan

Recognition of volunteers

L. Mayencourt

Youth homelessness

D. Routley

Oral Questions

Government action on mountain

pine beetle infestation

C. James

Hon. R.

Coleman

B. Simpson

J. Kwan

Closing of Midway sawmill

N. Macdonald

Hon. I. Chong

K. Conroy

Hon. R.

Coleman

M. Farnworth

Link of sale of Terasen Gas to softwood

lumber dispute

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

S. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16) (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. B. Penner

L. Krog

Hon. I. Chong

Hon. M. de

Jong

Reporting of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)

Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

(No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)

Second Reading of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill 11)

Hon. M. de

Jong

C. Puchmayr

A. Horning

G. Coons

L. Mayencourt

C. Wyse

D. Hayer

B. Simpson

D. Chudnovsky

K. Krueger

M. Karagianis

S. Simpson

J. Horgan

V. Roddick

R. Fleming

R. Sultan

R. Chouhan

D. Thorne

L. Krog

S. Hawkins

Hon. M. de

Jong

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development

Hon. S. Hagen

A. Dix

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal

Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. T.

Christensen

S. Fraser

B. Simpson

J. Horgan

H. Lali

N. Simons

D. MacKay

G. Coons

[ Page 1461 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: I rise to introduce a family forged by a special bond of love and commitment. The Balmers are a local adoptive family. Three and a half years ago Chris and Nancy adopted two sisters, Courtney who is ten and Tayler who is days away from 14. As a new parent, Chris describes the past few years as "challenging but very rewarding." As he says: "We've learned a lot about ourselves as parents and guides." Nancy and Chris are here to encourage others to explore adoption. Please join me in extending a very warm welcome to them.

As you know, November is Adoption Awareness Month, a time to celebrate adoption and create awareness around waiting children. Today I have asked members to consider wearing "Kids can't wait to have a family" lapel ribbons. In October we celebrated Foster Family Appreciation Month. We are lucky to live in a province where 35 percent of adoptions occur within foster families. While the yearly number of adoptions has almost doubled over the past four years, these ribbons remind us that today there are approximately 1,000 children across British Columbia waiting to become part of a forever family.

[1405]

A secure family is vital to a child's positive development. Every child deserves a nurturing parent who will help them with their homework, attend their school plays and encourage them through the challenges of childhood, adolescence and beyond. As a lifelong commitment of support and love, adoption has immeasurable value. I hope all members of this House will support local and provincial efforts to find adoptive homes for British Columbia's waiting children.

C. Wyse: With boundary redistribution in the Cariboo, it is my privilege to introduce friends of mine from Cariboo North, Nancy and Gary Gale, who are visiting us here today. They are also visiting their daughter Shirley Patt, who lives in Victoria-Hillside. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to these three persons.

Hon. O. Ilich: I would like to introduce to the House today Randle Robertson from the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation in Field, British Columbia, and John Wilsgard, representing the Golden Area Initiatives in Golden, B.C. Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the House today.

H. Lali: Visiting us today in the gallery are three guests of mine: Linda Allison, who is the president of the Southern Interior Stockman's Association; Mark Quaedvlieg, who is the director and president of Keremeos Stockman's Association; Dave Casorso, who's the director of Keremeos Stockman's Association. I have met with them earlier today, and they've also met with several cabinet ministers here. They're opposing the creation of a federal park in the South Okanagan–Similkameen area. I would like the House to please welcome my guests here in the galleries today.

S. Hawkins: I was pleasantly surprised, as I gazed up into the gallery, to see a former MLA that served in this House from 1991 to 1996. It's Wilf Hurd. I understand that he's with intergovernmental relations now at Simon Fraser University, and I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

H. Bains: In the House today is a good friend of mine, vice-president of B.C. Fire Fighters Association. He did a good job putting on a good reception last night. Please welcome him again in the House today. On behalf of my colleague from Surrey, I welcome him to the House. Please join me and extend a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today in the House we have with us a number of guests to mark the beginning of November, the launch of Diabetes Month. It's my pleasure to introduce Jean Blake, who's the executive director for the Pacific area of the Canadian Diabetes Association, representing 248,000 people living with diabetes in British Columbia; also Genie Wright, the Canadian Diabetes Association's regional director for Vancouver Island, who represents 35,000 people affected by diabetes on the Island. Anne Daniels is the Victoria branch coordinator, where she works for some 21,000 people diagnosed with diabetes in the Victoria area.

We're also very pleased to have with us today Dr. Art MacGregor, a Victoria-based family physician who has won the 2005 Charles H. Best award for the Canadian Diabetes Association for his outstanding contributions to the care of people living with diabetes.

Graduating from UBC in 1958, Dr. MacGregor has practised in Victoria since 1961. Among his accomplishments, Dr. MacGregor served as president of the national College of Family Physicians and in 2003 was named B.C.'s family physician of the year — a prestigious honour indeed. Dr. MacGregor has led the development of the Vancouver Island Health Authority transition fund chronic disease collaborative, a group of 65 local physicians working to improve the care of people with diabetes, congestive heart failure and depression. I ask the House to make all of these outstanding British Columbians welcome.

D. Routley: Visiting us in the House is a friend and constituent, Reid Early. I'd ask everyone in the House to please make him feel welcome.

[1410]

G. Hogg: One of our caucus's most sacred and revered artifacts is today celebrating his 70th birthday. Would you please join me in sending congratulations to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

[ Page 1462 ]

R. Fleming: I rise in the House to introduce two guests today from my constituency. Jorden Layton and Katie Smith are with us today. Jorden was an active volunteer in my campaign. Would the House please make these two guests feel welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) DIWALI

D. Hayer: Hon. Speaker, today I would ask you and all members of the House to join me in celebrating Diwali. Diwali, the festival of lights, is celebrated by people of Indian origin in British Columbia and all over the world. Diwali signifies many different things to the people of British Columbia, as it celebrates Rama's homecoming from the exile of 14 years and his coronation as king. This festival honours Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, and it is associated with goddess Kali. For everyone, however, it signifies the renewal of life.

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

For British Columbians, Diwali has always been a festival with more social than religious connotations. It is a people-oriented festival, where differences are forgotten and families and friends join to celebrate together. Diwali also brings together varying cultures and customs, making the celebrations a happy occasion for all British Columbians. Today I invite all members of this House to join me and all fellow British Columbians in celebrating our wonderful and exciting festival of lights, Diwali. Happy Diwali to everyone.

DIABETES AWARENESS

A. Dix: November, as the Minister of Health has just said, is Diabetes Awareness Month. The Canadian Diabetes Association has launched a campaign called "Diabetes: Get Serious" to raise awareness about the seriousness of diabetes and the need for all Canadians to prevent the growth of diabetes in our communities. This morning across British Columbia volunteers handed out information to the public on this question. The Canadian Diabetes Association provides an extraordinary service.

There are approximately 230,000 British Columbians who suffer from type 2 and type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes develops when the body cannot produce enough insulin or does not use the insulin it produces properly. People with type 2 diabetes represent 90 percent of all those with diabetes in our province, and their numbers are exploding. An increase of more than 100,000 people is expected by 2010. We must do all we can to let people know about prevention and diagnosis of this disease.

Type 1 diabetes, or juvenile-onset diabetes, occurs when the body loses the capacity to produce insulin at all. People with type 1 diabetes typically take multiple shots of insulin every day. There are roughly 30,000 people in B.C. with type 1 diabetes, and I am one of them. This means that I may be the only New Democrat in the country to have voted for Frederick Banting and not Tommy Douglas as the greatest Canadian. Dr. Banting's greatness was not simply that he found a means or treatment that gave hope and longer life to millions of people around the world; he also understood the value of giving individuals the power to control their health and their lives.

[1415]

Banting and his colleagues, Best and others, chose not to seek a patent for their discovery. They sold their discovery for $1, and they sent a lesson to all of us about the need to provide everyone with the tools they need to deal with this terrible disease.

J. McIntyre: Continuing along with the same theme, I also wanted to mark Diabetes Awareness Month. November 1 is their nationwide information day. As we all know and have heard today, diabetes is a chronic disease with no cure. With high premature mortality rates, 80 percent of diabetics will die as a result of heart disease or stroke. Further, it is a contributing cause of death for over 40,000 Canadians each year. According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, well over 200,000 British Columbians have been diagnosed with this disease. Unfortunately and very disturbingly, it is increasing among our youth.

These numbers, by the way, don't include the one in three people who suffers from this disease and doesn't know it yet.

It has been mentioned that there are three types of diabetes: type 1, type 2 and gestational diabetes, which occurs in almost 4 percent of all pregnancies. Type 2 is the most prevalent, accounting for about 90 percent of the cases.

The financial costs are significant, with the diabetic costing the medical system two to three times as much as a healthy person. Medication supplies can range from $1,000 to $15,000 annually per person. With an aging population and rising obesity rates, diabetes is emerging as a real killer in B.C. Our government recognizes this fact. It's why we're hard at work making our province the North American leader in physical fitness and healthy living.

It's important that we all support this goal and encourage others to live a healthy lifestyle. Taking personal responsibility for our health and taking preventative steps will dramatically decrease the risk of contracting diabetes.

I hope that others in the House, along with the Minister of Health, will support the Canadian Diabetes Association awareness campaign this month, "Diabetes: Get Serious," programs designed to create awareness of the risk factors and complications caused by diabetes. This great cause deserves all our support.

[ Page 1463 ]

PUBLIC ART PROJECT

IN BURNABY-EDMONDS

R. Chouhan: All of us here in this chamber have a tremendous amount of pride in our communities, and an important part of that pride is those public works of art that enrich our parks, our buildings, our businesses and all around our neighbourhoods.

My own community of Burnaby-Edmonds has struck an Edmonds Town Centre Business and Community Association to set up a beautification committee to produce murals in the Edmonds area. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the committee, especially Paul McDonell for his leadership and for spearheading this project, and the Streams of Dreams Mural Society for their efforts in improving the place we call home. Truly, this is an exemplary case of citizens taking initiatives and building pride in our community.

The redevelopment of the Edmonds area has begun with the new Highgate centre and the new number two fire hall on Edmonds. Many new developments will be starting soon in the Edmonds Town Centre, such as the new library, the swimming pool and the addition to the community centre.

This public art project is more than just beautification; it's also about pride in our neighbourhood. When a community bands together to create public works of art, graffiti decreases and positive community symptoms begin to appear. We have seen graffiti in our communities, but it is very rare that a public mural is vandalized. Through this project, young people will have a wonderful opportunity to be productive and contributing members to something of which they and everybody in our community will be proud. These programs offer more than art.

They offer mentorship, opportunities, beautification and so much pride for all of us. Again, I want to commend those members of my community who have taken on this wonderful project.

RECOGNITION OF VOLUNTEERS

L. Mayencourt: Volunteers are strong contributors to the economic and social well-being enjoyed by all British Columbians. Some 26 percent of British Columbians volunteer in some capacity or another, contributing the equivalent of over 75,000 full-time jobs last year. B.C.'s volunteer is most likely to be a woman between the ages of 45 and 65, and our most dedicated volunteers are most certainly seniors within our communities, age 65 and over.

[1420]

In Australia the National Volunteer Awards were developed in 1997, designed to promote, encourage and develop volunteers. Hundreds of awards are issued each year through a process steered by the not-for-profit community. In Newfoundland and Labrador, a more formalized provincial program was adopted to ensure equitable distribution, with over 96 volunteer medals distributed to two individuals in each provincial riding. Balanced between these examples falls the province of Ontario, offering a wide sweep of recognition programs through three targeted awards for exceptional volunteerism, continuous years of volunteer service and youth leadership in volunteerism.

In B.C. there is no shortage of recognition events to profile the exceptional contributions of volunteers, but mostly it is through the non-profit sector. I believe it's time for us to create a provincial volunteer program that will encourage positive impacts, an enhanced profile for volunteerism in the province, the opportunity to showcase local heroes as role models, enhanced learning opportunities, increased local commitment and collaboration to support the 2010 Olympics and pride in being part of a society that says quite clearly it values the efforts of volunteers.

YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about Homeless Youth Awareness Week. We are undergoing a crisis of homelessness in British Columbia. Housing — basic shelter — is a human right, a basic human right. The Vancouver Homeless Count uncovered some very alarming numbers. In the case of seniors, the Vancouver Homeless Count found in one year an increase from 51 seniors living on the street to 171 — an increase of 335 percent. This is particularly galling when we see our seniors and young people on the street.

Youth homelessness represents great unrealized potential to our province. All the youth who live on our streets are at great risk of drug abuse and crime. They're at particular vulnerability to predators of all kinds. Our youth are our greatest natural resource. This House, both sides, must work together to confront the crisis of homelessness. If we don't, we continue to be a society disabled, to be a society dishonoured, and allowing our young people's wasted potential to go unmet is truly a dishonouring of humanity.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE INFESTATION

C. James: The pine beetle epidemic is eating away at our forests in this province. The government has no comprehensive strategy to deal with its impacts. In fact, despite having almost five years to address the pine beetle crisis, the government's response has displayed no urgency and has done very little.

My question is to the Premier. Why doesn't his government have a comprehensive plan to deal with this catastrophe?

Hon. R. Coleman: I invite the Leader of the Opposition to read the Pine Beetle Action Plan. I invite her to do the research with regards to what is going on in British Columbia. I also invite her to look at a little bit of history.

In 1993 the pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia started in Tweedsmuir Park. Your government in

[ Page 1464 ]

that day refused to go into Tweedsmuir Park to address the issue. Repeatedly in this House, in 1993 to 2001, it was brought up to people on the government side — on the opposition side today — with regards to the pine beetle.

In 2001, when we became government, the Premier immediately put together a Premier's task force on pine beetle, which led to beetle action committees being put together, funding and today $100 million in matching funds from the federal government — and more to come.

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

C. James: I would invite the Minister of Forests to read his own internal documents in his own ministry, because it is very clear in the document we have received that neither the federal nor the provincial government has a comprehensive plan to deal with the mountain pine beetle crisis.

[1425]

So again to the Minister of Forests: the minister says his government has a plan, but why do the documents from his own ministry say very clearly that they have yet to come up with a plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: Not only have we come up with a plan, not only have we put people on the file, not only have we funded the file, but we are actually getting on the ground today and doing the work.

The reality is this. You can find a document that might say one thing, but there is a document I would ask the member to look at. That's a document that was released, which was the implementation plan for the federal $100 million that was given out in August of this year. The work done on beetle in the last four to five years is exceptional compared to the no-work that was done under the NDP for nine years.

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

C. James: I'd like to provide some information to the Minister of Forests, in case he hasn't read his own internal documents. The document says very clearly: "In the event of a positive federal response to the government's request, the provincial government intends to build a comprehensive proposal to deal with the mountain pine beetle."

Now, we've heard this minister in this House repeatedly tell us that they have a comprehensive plan. The internal document very clearly says there is no comprehensive plan. Which is it? Is he going to develop a comprehensive plan, or do you have a comprehensive plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: We put out a comprehensive plan in August with regards to the first $100 million from the federal government, including everything from silviculture to economic development to opportunities on the ground — the communities in the Cariboo and the north.

In addition to that, we have a beetle action plan. We funded two beetle action committees, one in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and one in the Vanderhoof area — both of those. The Omineca being the other one. We have another one where we're doing work in the Thompson-Okanagan.

The ironic thing about this is that this member wants to stand up and have a debate about beetle. But let me tell you something, hon. member and through to the members of your caucus. You let down British Columbians from 1993 to 2001 and ignored this issue in B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: I would suggest that the minister and members of his caucus get a briefing from the beetle coordinator and from the deputy minister, who on two separate occasions showed unequivocally that Tweedsmuir was not the cause of the mountain pine beetle. It was an event that was going to happen because of climate change. Get a briefing from your own people on that.

More to the point today, the document which has a time line of a task given to ministry staff on October 13 of this year…. They were to draft a proposal on October 21. They were given a seven-day consultation period in order to get input to go to the federal government — a seven-day scramble for a five-year problem that this government's got. The purpose of this document, according to the document, is to lay out strategic considerations for key decisions on what to ask for from the federal government.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: why the seven-day scramble to come up with a proposal which promises that a plan will be derived?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because the federal government wants some more information on the next $100 million. We already did the plan on the first $100 million. We've matched it. We've already put that comprehensive plan out to the communities.

I think it's important to realize where the members on the other side of the House see it. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted on radio in Prince George: "I think it is important to get the beetle wood out." It's a little late. If we'd looked at that probably ten years ago in parks, we might have been able to address the issue, but in fact, we've lost most of the wood now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Well, embedded in the document that we're talking about today is a suggestion of why this

[ Page 1465 ]

tight time frame exists: "Strategic considerations for the federal government include that Minister Emerson has a desire that the ask be placed in the context of an economic development platform for B.C. interior communities."

[1430]

To the Minister of Forests and Range: is the reason for this mad scramble of a seven-day consultation process simply so that this government can give the federal government a platform in British Columbia for the upcoming election?

Hon. R. Coleman: What the member is describing has nothing to do with the action plan on the ground for the beetle action. It is that the federal government asked for information so that they may be able to go forward to their colleagues at the federal government level with regards to finding some funds that may be able to help the small businesses all across British Columbia that have a disproportion of moneys sitting at the border.

They asked for it on a short time frame, so if we're going to get them that information, we should get them that information. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that we worked with the federal government on different time lines on a number of issues, but I'll tell you this. At least this government, for five years, has been doing something about the beetle action issue.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you: the government says that they have a plan. Their plan's focus is not on the community. The very first strategic goal in this document has absolutely nothing to do with communities impacted by the mountain pine beetle.

The only thing this government is interested in is making it link to this Premier's five great goals, and as my colleague mentioned, it's to help the federal Liberals in preparing an election platform. When is this government going to stop playing politics with the lives of British Columbians and put forward a comprehensive strategy for the mountain pine beetle so that the community knows what the plan is?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2001 the Premier has a summit in the interior of British Columbia. In 2002 they start work with a committee of MLAs to find issues and a plan for the pine beetle action. Shortly thereafter, the first mountain pine beetle action plan is published. An additional one is updated.

Since then, in the communities, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin…. I guess the member wants to say that the communities in the Cariboo-Chilcotin aren't involved in any issues dealing with the mountain pine beetle. But for two years now we've funded the Cariboo-Chilcotin beetle action committee, which is a compilation of mayors and regional directors across the north who've asked for the funding so they could build a plan for their communities. We're doing the same thing in the Vanderhoof–Fort St. James region, with the Omineca plan.

We're actually working with communities. In addition to that, we've doubled or tripled and, in some cases, had to go way above the annual allowable cut to get the fibre out. Our mills are working as fast as they can. Frankly, I think we're doing a pretty good job on the beetle, because we've put some pretty exceptional people on the file.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear. The first targeted dollars for pine beetle were this year, so enough rhetoric from the minister. The government had nearly five years to put a plan in place, and they have not done it.

This document shows that the B.C. Liberals are concerned about three things. It's all about politics for this government — making a political link. It states very clearly in this document, making a political link to the Premier's five great goals: "Keeping" — and I'm quoting directly from the draft proposal here — "political commitments to involve first nations through the new relationship and creating an election platform for the federal Liberals on the issue."

I'm going to give the minister one more chance. Or maybe I should go to the Premier. Actually, I am going to go to the Premier.

[1435]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

J. Kwan: Will the Premier tell this House why it has been nearly five years, and now we're just seeing a development of a proposal, as is stated in this document — just the development of a proposal — on the pine beetle epidemic?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's not confuse the hon. member across the floor with the facts. There's a proposal to go to the federal government for additional funding. I suppose….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Direct it through the Chair, please.

Hon. R. Coleman: I suppose the member is opposed to the fact that on a short time frame we try and get money for communities in British Columbia that are facing…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Coleman: …a crisis with the mountain pine beetle. In addition to that fact, we put $30 million into the northern development initiative. We put another $100 million into beetle. We've attracted $100 million from the federal government. We published the

[ Page 1466 ]

plan — it's on the Internet, member, if you want to go and get a look at it — as to what we're doing with the federal money. We sat down with first nations in a summit. We're about to appoint a person from first nations who will sit on our beetle action plan as well. We've done a lot, hon. member. What we didn't do is sit on this file from 1993 to 2001.

CLOSING OF MIDWAY SAWMILL

N. Macdonald: Yesterday the Minister of Community Services said that her ministry had already done the following: "We have indicated to the village of Midway…that we will be there to help them to diversify their economy and that we will be there to assist them." Well, that was news to the people in Midway. The administrator of Midway said that he received two phone calls before question period yesterday. One was in a previous week. It basically asked: "Is the mill really closing?" The second came just before question period yesterday. It essentially said: "Ministry people dealing with this are sick today, and we will phone back later — or you can phone back later, in fact."

Only today has the minister phoned to offer the help that is needed and started to deal with this with any urgency. The question I have: why did the minister give the impression that she was on top of this yesterday when no one in Midway felt that anyone in this government cared at all?

Hon. I. Chong: I will try to be as clear as possible, although yesterday I answered this on several occasions as to what has happened and laid out the facts.

We received a copy of the letter dated October 7 in our office. Shortly thereafter, staff contacted the administrator asking what plans he would like to be put in place through our community transition program that exists. When the formal announcement occurred on Friday, October 28, we again made an attempt to contact the mayor, who was not available. In that case we spoke to the administrator and again suggested that what they would like, in terms of community transition, can occur.

Again, on Monday I had my assistant deputy minister for community transition contact the mayor to speak with him to see what assistance we can provide, all along trying to ensure that this community knows that we're here to help them. I did, again this morning, speak to the mayor directly, who has been unavailable.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. I. Chong: He has said that our government has been most helpful, that our ministry has been most helpful, and that he is satisfied with the process to date.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: That's certainly a different impression than I was given in speaking to the administrator. What this government has consistently done is acted without urgency when communities need help.

The fact is that this government knew about this crisis in Midway — at least the Minister of Forests and Range knew about it in September — yet nothing was ready to go. The fact is that you only made contact with the mayor this morning after question period yesterday. There are mills potentially closing around this province. Instead of being there for communities, why is the minister making things up as she goes along?

[1440]

Hon. I. Chong: I would really caution the member to be very careful with his choice of words, especially when I have expressly stated the facts as they have occurred.

All the actions we have taken to date indicate how seriously we do take this matter from the very time our ministry has been notified of this. My conversation with the mayor earlier today also indicated…. As he stated to me: "Thank you for making the call. Thank you for your concern." He is aware that we are interested in meeting with him. We've made the offer of our staff to be there. He is looking for an appropriate date for that to occur. So we are waiting to see what the mayor would like in terms of community transition.

We've always said all along that we are there to help. Members opposite from the previous government…. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant indicated back in the year 2000 that the needs are best identified not within government but rather identified by the community. That's what we're doing.

K. Conroy: Yesterday the Minister of Forests and Range accused me of making the announcement that Pope and Talbot was closing up shop in Midway. That is categorically untrue. In fact, I remind the House that it was the minister — the minister, not myself, not the mayor of Midway — who actually informed the delegation from Midway at the UBCM in September.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Will the minister tell this House today that when he spoke with Pope and Talbot last Thursday afternoon, as he admitted to doing in this House yesterday, he was not made aware that Pope and Talbot was actually going to announce the closure on Friday, the following morning?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is absolutely correct. I did not know. They did not know on Thursday of last week. As a matter of fact, the decision was made on Friday, subsequent to comments made by — according to them — the member opposite, and the phones started to ring in their offices. The president of Pope and Talbot and their chief executive have told me that there was no intention of doing it on Friday. As a matter of fact, they had thought they would be doing it on November 4, and they had not advised me of that date.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 1467 ]

K. Conroy: Well, we're getting different stories from the Forests Minister and also from the Community Services Minister on this issue. They seem to be on two different pages. Seems like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the two are contradicting one another.

So my question is to the Premier. It is clear that someone on that side of the House needs to show some leadership, to step up to the plate. Will the Premier please commit to reinstating the job protection commissioner immediately?

Hon. R. Coleman: I was very clear with the member, and I have been clear on this whole Midway issue all the way along. I can tell the member that the people from Pope and Talbot, even though I spoke to one of their senior people last night at another meeting, have said this — that the minister and ministry did everything that was humanly possible to help them deal with their issues in Midway, and it came down to a business case for Midway versus Grand Forks.

What they did was put $25-plus million into Grand Forks to modernize one mill, saying: "We can protect the jobs in one mill, add the jobs from Midway and do some transition over time in that sort of issue rather than having two mills that were inefficient and ending up in a few years having to close them both." What they did is make the business decision. They've expanded the mill in Grand Forks, and they're happy with the business decision. That's what predicated their final decision.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Minister of Community Services. She has said a number of times yesterday and today: "We are there to help." Can she tell us specifically what help she is prepared to offer the people of Midway? Is it practical help, which will help their communities? Or is it just the name of a good realtor and a bus ticket out of town?

Hon. I. Chong: We do take this matter seriously in terms of our community transition program. When we make the offer to help, it is to provide assistance to the local community — the local mayor, the local council, the local community — to let them know we will work cross-government to ensure that services are provided and continue to be provided. We have spoken to the mayor now as well as the administrator, and we have stated to them that we will work with them to see what is the best course of action when it comes to community transition.

[1445]

Every community is unique. Every community has its special challenges. I do want to state, as well, that the announcement of mill closure is not taking place immediately, as indicated in its press release. That will take place, I believe, late in the first quarter of next year. That will also allow us time to continue to work with this community, and they do know that we will be there to assist them.

LINK OF SALE OF TERASEN GAS

TO SOFTWOOD LUMBER DISPUTE

C. Evans: On October 15 in the Vancouver Sun , a former federal Minister of International Trade, Sen. Pat Carney, said that the federal Liberals should use the proposed sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of Texas to reinforce their concerns over softwood lumber and the U.S. violations of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Since that day in the ensuing couple of weeks, her sentiments have been more or less echoed by such people as Adam Leamy, ex-director of the government caucus; Derek Burney, Allan Gotlieb, Simon Reisman and Gordon Ritchie — those are the people who negotiated the free trade agreement in the first place — and even our former Socred Premier, Bill Vander Zalm.

I'm pretty sure that none of the aforementioned good folks ever voted for the people on my team. So my question for the Minister of Forests of the other team is: do you agree generally with the sentiments of these icons of mainstream Canadian conservative thought?

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of months ago when I became the minister, I started a cross-Canada dialogue with the ministers responsible for trade with regards to softwood lumber in Canada. We agreed to do a number of things. First of all, it was to look at diplomacy rather than rhetoric in order to try and get to the table with the Americans. We agreed that we would work together to establish a national plan for Canadian solutions so that if we had the opportunity to go back and negotiate, we could. We agreed that we would concentrate on constructive solutions.

One of the concerns was that we wouldn't encumber the file with other trade issues with regards to our ability to maybe someday getting somewhere, because in the past we haven't exactly had great luck with blockading ferries and doing Nanoose Bay and other things we've tried to do with the Americans with regard to this file.

We are, remarkably, a long way down the road on a pan-Canadian solution with those ministers and the Premiers from across this country. I would not want to put that work in jeopardy because one area of the country, on one single file, wanted to put rhetoric into the discussion today.

We have a great relationship with the state of Alaska, who has backed us up on BSE. We don't need to have the people in Alaska, particularly, on the other side of this discussion with us when we need their voice in Washington. I think we need to find a Canadian solution, and we'll do it with diplomacy this time because the rest hasn't worked in the past.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: I think I just received essentially a lecture on the subject of intergovernmental relations and how to deal with another country. So I'm going to switch

[ Page 1468 ]

ministers. I didn't actually want a lecture on intergovernmental relations from the Minister of Forests. I thought his job was to defend 40,000 sawmill workers and forestry workers.

Yesterday at 11:35 we had a motion in this House. I hoped it would be all-party. I hoped it would be non-ideological. I hoped it would be devoid of rhetoric and softly spoken. It was on the subject of delaying the Terasen sale for 90 days to allow another government to come into compliance with the law with our government. A gentleman got up — I think it was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — and said the motion was silly, that the speaker — that would be me — was silly, and that's not how you talk to another government.

My question is to the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. Do you think that the gentleman who spoke yesterday at 11:30 on the question of linkage spoke for your caucus, or was he freelancing on his own?

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sorry if you thought that was a lecture. What I was trying to do was give you the history of where we're at to come to a pan-Canadian solution — not in international relationships but to a Canadian position, which has not been accomplished on this file in many, many years. The reason we've worked towards that is so that we're in a position to react quickly if the Americans want to go back to the table, because…. Hon. member, don't for a second believe that this government or that side of the House should ever be put in a box about not caring about the 40,000 forest workers in this province.

I believe that we need to be in a position to get to a long-term deal on softwood. We're going to do that if we work together as a country to get to the table with a consistent message to have a successful negotiation. We won't do it by blurring the lines with files from somewhere else.

S. Simpson: The one thing we've learned from this minister over here — and it's consistent; I'll give him that — is that they have no plan on the beetle, they have no plan on mill closures, and today we find out they have no plan on softwood.

The reality is this. We've seen these linkages made. The New York Times has talked about those linkages between softwood and energy on August 27. The U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, from Utah, has acknowledged the linkages and talked about the need to have a great relationship with Canada and not lose that.

I would quote the member from October 28, '05, on CBC radio: "The U.S. seems to want it all their way, and if it isn't, then everybody else is wrong. Tying energy to it is, I think, one tool we can use to look at it." The member who spoke to that wasn't the member for Nelson-Creston. Apparently, it was the member for Peace River South.

My question to the minister is: will this government stand up for millworkers? Once, just once in its term, will it stand up for millworkers and move to delay the decision on Terasen for 90 days?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not once in the history of the NDP in government did you ever attach the huge sale of electricity to California that you were doing at a huge profit to anything to do with softwood. Today you have a totally different attitude about this.

Let me tell you something, hon. member. We have a plan. For the first time in Canadian history the ministers of this country have come together to put a unified voice together on softwood. We're going to take that forward at the first opportunity we have to the United States to protect the jobs in British Columbia, protect the workers in British Columbia and get a plan that works for long-term stability economically and on the ground in B.C. for our mills.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

M. Farnworth: I rise on a point of order. I know we have a new tone in this Legislature, and I think that's to be commended. But I'd also like to remind the Speaker and two of the more experienced members of this chamber — the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests and Range — that the use of BlackBerrys is not something that is allowed during question period.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's been a longstanding practice that BlackBerrys aren't used during question period, and I would hope that both sides of the House would adhere to that.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued committee debate on Bill 16. In Committee A, estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

[1455]

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2005

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

section 35 (continued) .

N. Macdonald: Just a quick question to the minister, looking at the process here. We've talked about Columbia Lake, and the question is: is this a similar

[ Page 1469 ]

process that any change in Columbia Lake Park would go through? Is this the normal process?

Hon. B. Penner: Any changes to the boundaries of parks or ecological reserves that are listed in the

schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act would require change to that legislation, and so it would require an amendment here to be debated on the floor of the Legislature.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the information.

L. Krog: Forgive me, minister, if I asked this question prior to lunch, but for the sake of continuity and my limited intelligence, I'm sure you'll be happy to respond once again. Is there a reduction in the size of any of the parks set out in

section 35 as a result of these amendments?

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: Over all, the amendments we're debating collectively result in a net increase of 143.74 hectares in the amount of lands that are protected in parks or ecological reserves pursuant to the act. With the three specific parts mentioned in

section 35, there is a slight decrease in the total number of hectares.

Coldwater River Park — these boundary adjustments result in a net decrease of three hectares to reflect the fact that those boundaries as originally drawn captured a pipeline and a berm structure that does not have any park value and apparently now provides some impediment to proper maintenance or at least easy access to maintaining those structures.

In terms of the amendment to Manning Park, there's an increase of 1.22 hectares as a result of the adjustment and then a deletion of 1.66 hectares, for a net reduction of about 0.4 hectares. That's to accommodate, I believe, two bridges that are being rebuilt to improve the safety of those corners where those bridges are located. I can attest from personal experience, having worked there as a park ranger, that those two bridges were the site of many serious collisions, motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.

So the Ministry of Transportation has generously agreed to fund improvements and replacements to those two structures and to realign the highway roadbed in those areas. That is what has necessitated the overall boundary alignments or adjustments to Manning Park. It's strictly related to making Highway 3 safer.

The third change is to Shuswap Lake Marine Park. We're replacing two different sites in the marine park pursuant to the land use planning process for the Okanagan-Shuswap, which concluded in 2001. The other site was added in 2003, as recommended by that land use planning process, and this now is catching up and taking out the other area as part of that arrangement.

L. Krog: With respect to subsections (

d) and (e), I take it that that is not in any way allowing mining within these particular parks and in fact may well represent a removal of rights to mining. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I believe the member is referring to

section 35(d), and the park listed there — if I can pronounce it correctly — Dune Za Keyih…. Yes. What's happening is that there are a number of forfeited mineral claims that are being removed from the list. So in fact, some mining rights are being removed.

Section 35 approved.

section 36.

L. Krog:

Section 36 amends the description of Sunnybrae and Taylor Landing parks by repealing those descriptions — amends the act. Are those in fact being deleted as parks? Is my reading of that as clear as I think it sounds?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this is one incident where legislative drafting is relatively clear, but what is not as clear in the drafting is that those areas will continue to operate as parks. They're being transferred to local governments. In the case of Sunnybrae Park, it's being transferred to the Columbia-Shuswap regional district. This is something that they've asked for in writing. The second, Taylor Landing Park, will be operated now by the district of Taylor.

[1505]

Both of those parks serve primarily a local use in terms of local public recreation and access, and both of those communities are looking forward…. I think, in at least one case, they're already operating the park.

L. Krog: Can the minister confirm to the House, then, that there will be covenants or agreements in place between these districts' municipal governments and the provincial government that will guarantee in perpetuity that these properties will remain as parks?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my understanding that there's something known as a reverter clause in the agreements between the Columbia-Shuswap regional district as well as with the district of Taylor with respect to the two particular parks. The upshot of that is, should those local governments cease operating or using those two parks for park purposes, then the ownership of those lands would revert back to the provincial Crown.

Section 36 approved.

section 37.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 37, again, is that a situation where the allowance for mineral claims in these particular scheduled parks is in fact being reduced?

Hon. B. Penner: As with

section 35(d), what's happening here is a number of mineral claims have been

[ Page 1470 ]

forfeited, and that's just been confirmed in legislation. So those mineral rights are being ended by this amendment.

Sections 37 to 39 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Shall

section 40 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

L. Krog: With respect to

section 40, actually. I take it that this

section simply means that the Lieutenant-Governor and council must appoint, and that is a change, I take it, of…. Previously the individual to be the agency had to be appointed on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly?

Hon. I. Chong: Actually, the

section remains, in that the Lieutenant Governor does still make the appointment upon the recommendation of the Legislature, which is as a result of the select standing committee — the committee that appoints the independent commissioner on this basis.

Section 40 approved.

section 41.

L. Krog: If I could simply ask the Minister of Community Services to advise the House what the purpose is of the changes.

Hon. I. Chong: This is to separate the appointment of the Merit Commissioner and the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency.

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

[1510]

L. Krog: Again, to the Minister of Community Services. I take it that the purpose of the retroactivity is to ensure that no claims could be made as a result of things that have been done for which the agency may not have had appropriate authority?

Hon. M. de Jong: With some trepidation, I think the

section we're dealing with, 46, relates to

section 32 of this bill. So it would relate to the Private Career Training Institutions Act, which was the section, as I recall from discussions, that provides students access to a fund. The concern was that whilst the amendment was driven by some concern around their ability to access the fund, the retroactivity is to ensure there is no interruption in their possible access to that fund.

Sections 46 and 47 approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, earlier in these proceedings, we stood down sections 12, 13, 14 and 25. I have spoken with the hon. member and the Opposition House Leader and advised them that there is a drafting issue with respect to those sections. The concern is that, if passed and enacted, they would not perform the function they are designed to do. Rather than try to amend those sections on the fly, I believe there is consent to simply have those sections withdrawn from the bill — 12, 13, 14 and 25. I believe I am able to make a motion to that effect.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Sections 12, 13, 14 and 25 are deleted.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2005

Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: With leave of the House, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2005

Bill 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate on Bill 11.

Second Reading of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005

Hon. M. de Jong: Yesterday was one of those special days in the chamber where we were collectively — I hope, I think — as a body doing something that pro-

[ Page 1471 ]

fessional firefighters in British Columbia have been interested in seeing occur for a number of years — many years, in fact. As I said to one of the firefighters who was professing his pleasure at what was happening, and actually also professing a degree of positive reaction to the reaction he saw from members on both sides of the House…. He thought that was good, and I agreed with him. We reflected that that's really in itself a reflection on the fact that people come to this chamber and do want to do the right thing.

[1515]

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

Sometimes, in attempting to do the right thing, there are a myriad of obstacles and hurdles that we have to overcome, and there are questions that we have to ask, whether we're in government or whether we're in opposition — and sometimes those roles change. Yet at the end of the day parliamentarians and legislators celebrate the fact that those hurdles and obstacles are able to be overcome. We were able to introduce a bill which, my sense is, enjoys in principle at least healthy support from all quarters.

It's worth noting, of course, that the work firefighters do is fraught with danger. Most of that danger is of a very immediate nature, and it presents immediate challenges. There is risk that is immediate, and we think of that when we consider a burning structure, a home, and the work that firefighters do to save not just the property but, obviously, the people who inhabit or work in the structures that they're concerned with.

There's another kind of risk, though, and that's really what is at the heart of this bill and the amendments that they move forward. It is the risk that develops over time for firefighters, when they are put in a situation, which their job requires, where they are potentially breathing noxious fumes. They are in closed areas. Fires are burning, and there are burning substances that they may not even know about — and dangerous substances at that. That exposure to those fumes, to that environment, is what gives rise to that risk.

The results of that risk often don't become known for years — sometimes at the end of an individual's career and sometimes after that career as a firefighter has passed.

So a couple of years ago — and I'm not in any way, shape or form ashamed to say that it was with constant prodding and encouragement from the professional firefighters — the government asked WorkSafe B.C., WCB at the time, to examine that request, that submission, which said certain cancers that seemed to be developing on a disproportionate basis with firefighters or retired firefighters should be declared and presumed to be a result of the work that those firefighters do and to be contracted by them as a result of the work they do.

WorkSafe B.C., some experts and the firefighters themselves employed some officials to conduct the studies, some reviews, and available data…. There were reports, some of them from other provinces. Ontario, for example, did a report, submitted a draft report. There were peer studies. At the end of the day the case that firefighters were able to bring seemed conclusive. It seemed legitimate for them to say and for the laws of British Columbia to reflect the fact that as a result of the risk we ask firefighters to assume in terms of the work they do, they were exposed to a greater likelihood of contracting certain forms of cancers.

That's what this bill is about. It's not particularly complicated. The amendment says that certain cancers, as set out in the schedule, will be defined under the terms of the act as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter. It creates what the lawyers refer to as a rebuttable presumption, and that means the following.

At a time, a very difficult time for a firefighter or retired firefighter, when they are told or learn that they have contracted one of these cancers, what they don't have to worry about…. And God knows there's lots that they would and do have to worry about in those circumstances. These are real people with real families, and sometimes the diagnosis is such that what they're having to think about is ensuring that their families are going to be looked after when they're gone. Sometimes that's the nature of the prognosis.

What this ensures is that they don't have to think about proving the link, proving the causal link between the disease, the cancer they have contracted, and the fact that it was attributable to the work that they did.

[1520]

Now, it bears repeating, and it is part of the first reading that took place in this chamber yesterday, but those cancers are as follows. Specific cancers now recognized by WorkSafe B.C. are primary-site brain cancer, primary-site bladder cancer, primary-site kidney cancer, primary-site colorectal cancer, primary-site ureter cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary leukemia.

It bears thinking about, and I'm happy to see that other members in this chamber have indicated that they will be providing their remarks and, I suspect, anecdotally some of their experiences. For some of the people that they have run across, these provisions would have been or are going to be very, very helpful.

There are a couple of things worth emphasizing, however. I think we in this chamber need to accept that this is an evolution in our law, our legal regime, around occupational hazards, and the body of evidence continues to be collected. There are other cancers that this bill and the regulation that moves with it don't cover. In one case or two, there is a similar presumption extended in one or two other provinces. It's not included here. We're not yet convinced entirely of the causal link or that there's sufficient evidence, but that may change, and we're going to continue to track that very closely, I'm sure, with the help of the Professional Fire Fighters Association.

I should also say this, because I expect members throughout the chamber will want to point this out: the definition of firefighter that this covers does make it pretty clear that what we're talking about in this case

[ Page 1472 ]

are full-time firefighters, and that goes to the question of the extent of their exposure to the risk caused by noxious odours and fumes and air. That doesn't mean that I or the government are presuming to close the door on that other large body of individuals, those who volunteer in our communities to fight fires, because most certainly, they will have concerns, and they will want us to know that there are risks associated, most obviously, with the work they do. We've had those discussions and continue to have them.

In Alberta there is some work taking place that we are lending ourselves to and tracking very carefully, and I believe just yesterday, ironically in Manitoba, the Manitoba government extended coverage. We're still studying the manner in which they did that to include certain segments of the volunteer firefighting community. So it would seem there is a growing body of evidence and perhaps a mechanism by which that could be done.

While we celebrate the introduction and hopefully soon passage of these provisions that will immediately afford coverage and the benefits of the presumption to professional firefighters, I want to make a clear statement on behalf of the government that the interests that our volunteer firefighters have shown in ensuring that their interests are properly protected has not fallen on deaf ears. That work will continue as well.

It was, as I said at the outset, a remarkable day yesterday, and I would not want to sit down without making these final remarks. First of all, the firefighters have conducted themselves in a way that I believe demonstrates the best of what it is to interact with democratic institutions. They were passionate — have been, continue to be — about this cause. They were at all times civil. They understood that part of what needs to happen in order for this chamber and governments to respond is to ensure that there is a level of education and understanding.

[1525]

They were bipartisan, unpartisan, in the sense that they knew that meant the chances of parliament, the Legislature, responding increase when there's an understanding on both sides of the House about the virtues of the proposal being brought before us, and have worked diligently to ensure that that is the case. They were not shy about carrying their message both to members of this chamber and to public officials at every level of government.

The response they received via the legislation but also the response — and a number of them commented on this to me yesterday — from both sides of the House yesterday is one that heartens them and leaves them confident that as they move forward, the support they require to carry out their work exists at the very highest levels of our political institutions right here in Victoria in this Legislature.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to some of the work that was undertaken by my predecessor, the Minister of Labour prior to the election, Graham Bruce. Other MLAs have commented on some of the work by MLAs, the member for Burquitlam, the former member for Burnaby-Edmonds — a whole host of people who were of assistance in ensuring that this matter and this day arrived. I am grateful for, again, the work of the firefighters.

I commend this legislation to members of this chamber with this proviso. We have made here, I think, a very solid beginning in properly recognizing the risk and affording the people who incur that risk a measure of protection that they deserve. But these are living, breathing documents, and I want everyone to know that we will continue to be receptive to the data and the information that is collected.

I am looking forward to the comments of other members in this second reading debate.

C. Puchmayr: It's a pleasure to rise here on the initial draft of this template. I listened very closely to the Labour Minister's comments with respect to it being a living and breathing document. I'm sure he didn't mean any pun by that, but we certainly need to take this legislation as a very positive go-forward. We're certainly going to assist the government in putting forward some amendments when it goes to committee with respect to making it so that it encompasses more of those people that are out there fighting the fires in the province of British Columbia.

I'm going to go through a little bit of history here about my former life as a member of the New Westminster city council. I remember very clearly the UBCM convention in 2003, where it was unanimous by every mayor and councillor in British Columbia that this legislation actually needed to be brought forward, that the presumption of cancer needed to be part of workers compensation and the compensation to firefighters in general.

I was disappointed that once it came back to our council…. Our councils recommended it. It was passed unanimously. We thought there was going to be a go-forward at that time. That was certainly not the case. Then the scientists got involved, and Workers Compensation was involved, and the thing started spinning away from becoming a reality. I was very saddened to see that.

So it goes without saying that when the announcement was made in April of 2005, we certainly were pleased that this legislation was going to be amended and that it was going to go forward in a manner that we think now is the template for where we would like to see this go in the future.

[1530]

We're not alone with this type of legislation. Now Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and even Nova Scotia have presumption-of-cancer legislation. So certainly, whatever sciences we had in Workers Compensation that were steering this thing away from becoming a reality, obviously, there are better sciences out there that are showing there is an exposure and that firefighters are at risk from the line of work they do with respect to fighting fires.

Now, there certainly was a lot of work done and some very gifted people — Gordon Howard, the presi-

[ Page 1473 ]

dent of Local 1525 of West Vancouver, and the video he made on hidden dangers — and things we can look at to show that there are actually exposures out there that are real, that firefighters are suffering the consequences of those exposures and that it needs to be addressed.

In order to address it, of course, at one time the onus was certainly on the employee to make the case. In some cases to assert that or to go through the sciences to bring the people forward to make the appeals and to show the evidence that it was related to industry would cost tens of thousands of dollars. So just the fact that the presumption is there now and the onus is in reverse is certainly a very significant go-forward position.

The position I'm going to move over to is with respect to other members that work in that field: forest fire fighters, volunteer firefighters, my friends on Saturna Island who fought the huge dock fire and who constantly fight fires when cabins are engulfed. They too are exposed on a fairly regular basis to the same types of carcinogens that career firefighters are exposed to.

I'll give you what I think is sort of a creative response to that. You know, I had friends in the Okanagan fire who were homeless during a period of time where they were evacuated from their homes. I know that my council recommended that our New Westminster firefighters take one of our brand new quint trucks and hurry up to Kelowna and assist on that horrible night when many houses were being destroyed in the fire. They fought side by side with volunteer firefighters; they fought side by side with forest fire fighters.

The three components of firefighters were all exposed to the same carcinogens, all exposed to the same hazards of the workplace. At the end of the day, we're saying that one segment is going to benefit from this legislation, and the other two segments will not. With that, I do have some concern.

Obviously, the belief is that this is an occupational hazard. It needs to be addressed. We need to go forward, but I don't believe that we should be segmenting off certain providers of that same service. I believe there is an equal application that needs to happen here, and we need to go forward with that application.

The other concern that I'm going to touch on briefly is with respect to the retroactivity to April 11, 2005. That certainly is a concern. If we are saying now that all these scientists at the Workers Compensation Board and all the technologies or sciences they were utilizing to say that these links shouldn't be made…. We're now saying as a Legislature that that was wrong. The links need to be made. Therefore, having come to that level, why are we not going backwards in retroactivity? We will be proposing some retroactivity when this bill proceeds forward.

Those are really the issues that we're looking at. It's a balance — a fairness of this legislation — so that it applies fairly to those that are at risk, as opposed to one segment of those that are at risk, and also so that there is retroactivity. Just by virtue of being diagnosed two days apart, two different families could sustain two different impacts to this, one devastating and one where at least there could be some support for loss of life down the road. I think the other side needs to clearly look at that so that we prevent that from ever happening and so that everyone is equally covered by this new legislation.

[1535]

A press release that just came out today is from the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia, and it's on behalf of the 440 chief officers, members of the Fire Chiefs Association of British Columbia. They are very clearly concerned about the fact that the bill does not include any of the other firefighters. The chiefs association is concerned. I respect the Labour Minister's comments earlier on how this is sort of a living, breathing document, and I'm holding out that that means the minister will listen to what we're putting forward. I think his comments yesterday were bang on.

His comments yesterday were: "The contributions our firefighters make in communities all over B.C. should never be underestimated, and it's important we support them in every way we can."

Well, a lot of communities don't have career firefighters, and their firefighters are exposed to those same hazards. Therefore, taking those powerful words of our Labour Minister yesterday and taking what he spoke about today about this being a living, breathing document, I hope that the other side listens carefully when we make our amendments to this bill, so that at the end of the day, we have something that not only we can celebrate here in the House, but every firefighter, everyone providing that service in British Columbia, will be treated equally and will be supportive of this new legislation. Those are my comments.

A. Horning: It's a pleasure for me to be able to say a few words of support on Bill 11, when firefighters' increased cancer risk will be recognized by the Workers Compensation Board.

My experience in firefighting goes back over 40 years ago when I was a volunteer fireman with the Rutland fire department. In those days it was all volunteer firemen, but in 1972 Rutland became amalgamated with the city of Kelowna, and the volunteers that were there at the time had the opportunity to become full-time firefighters with the city of Kelowna. I elected to stay in the farming business and real estate business, but my brother Dave joined the force at that time, and he spent over 30 years with the Kelowna fire department and just retired a few years ago.

I want to, at this time, thank a couple of local firefighters, Harold Heyming and Larry Hollier. These two fellows, as I sat on city council, approached several councillors to support them in this cause, and they fought very hard with lobbying council. Eventually we were able as a council to give a letter of endorsement to the government on this issue. Of course, we went further and took it to UBCM, and consequently, it was passed there.

Bill 11 recognizes certain cancers as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a

[ Page 1474 ]

firefighter. The law changes the Workers Compensation Act to make it easier for a firefighter with cancer to receive compensation benefits. The new law puts the burden of proof on the employer to establish why a cancer-stricken firefighter should not be eligible for compensation rather than requiring the firefighter to prove the case. The law applies to firefighters who become disabled from cancer on or after April 11.

This bill contains seven listed primary-site cancers: brain, bladder, kidney, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, urethral, leukemia and colorectal. The last, colorectal, is a combination of two cancers, effectively giving B.C. firefighters and their families eight covered cancers, the second-most-covered cancers in Canada.

[1540]

In closing, I would like to mention some of the key messages of this act. WorkSafe B.C. is undertaking extensive examinations of the links between the occupation of firefighting and certain cancers. The evidence we have tells us that it makes sense to move forward with these changes. Government has moved to ensure that the Workers Compensation Act recognizes the risks associated with firefighting. B.C. is now among the provincial leaders in a number of cancers recognized as presumption occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter.

Our firefighters face extraordinary risks each time they answer the call. It's important that we recognize the contributions made by our firefighters and appropriately acknowledge the dangers they face. This is one of the reasons I support the bill. Another one is from watching firefighters in the Firestorm 2003 in Kelowna, when we lost a lot of houses and evacuated over 50,000 residents. Firefighters worked around the clock — not only our local firefighters, but we had firefighters from across B.C. and also some from Alberta.

At this time I would like to acknowledge those firefighters for the job they did in Kelowna in 2003. The significant part of that whole firefighting issue is that there was not one life lost.

In closing, I support the bill and look forward to the support from other members of this House.

G. Coons: I'm pleased and honoured to rise and have the opportunity to discuss and fully support Bill 11, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005. It's

an act that I have had a lot of experience with. The Prince Rupert firefighters have put in a lot of hours of meetings and lobbying. Their struggle to recognize something that needs to be there is finally here, and we're recognizing that.

As far as Prince Rupert firefighters, Local 559, I'd really like to commend some of the past members up there: Calvin Thompson, Dave McKenzie, Remo Pamponio, Jeff Beckworth, Rocky Puelo. They spent a lot of hours not only with me but with previous MLAs, and we've finally come to a point where we have some legislation that is long-needed — long-needed not only for firefighters but also for the wives, the husbands, the children of these firefighters and their families — and the needed for having that out there for them.

As was mentioned earlier, I met Tim Bailey, who's in the Legislature today up in the gallery. I met him at the UBCM and the firefighters that were here all this week. I have to give my heart and soul for their dedication to this end. As mentioned, UBCM unanimously supported this, along with many municipalities — Vancouver, Surrey, Richmond, Langley, Nanaimo, Kelowna and also, I'm proud to say, Prince Rupert, my own municipality.

I'd love to mention a few words from Mr. Bailey up in the gallery that he commented on a website somewhere. The issue is being put forward now because of the scientific evidence we have that can show that firefighters have twice the rate of cancer as the public. It's important to remember that every workplace is potentially our workplace. Wherever firefighters go, they don't know where they're going into. It may be a factory, a company, a house with a meth lab. I think that finally we're recognizing the workplace indications and that this is a bill that's long-needed.

Even though it is a great bill — it's a great bill — I hope that in the days to come we can even make it better. There are a few concerns, as were mentioned. The legislation only covers full-time firefighters, and the part-time and volunteers at this point are not covered. Basically, at this point in time it ignores the over 11,000 part-time and paid on-call firefighters. I think the call from the fire chiefs is one that hopefully will be echoed throughout this chamber.

[1545]

An important aspect of the bill is the status of the many volunteer firefighters and again — as I spoke of yesterday on the electoral boundaries — the many rural and northern communities that depend on volunteer firefighters.

The hon. member for Kelowna–Lake Country. I do have a spot in Oyama where I have a strong plot of support on one of the orchards. My mother-in-law and brother-in-law live there. My brother-in-law is a long-dedicated member of the Oyama fire department. For the many summers I've spent there, I've gone to some of their training sessions and have realized the important value that they have in small communities like Oyama and spread throughout the rural areas in smaller remote communities.

I see this especially in my riding in the first nations villages, where their volunteer firefighters put in long hours and are dedicated to the job. I hope we can realize that this legislation has to be more inclusive. We should consider that.

One other concern is the forest fire fighters, and Kelowna was mentioned. I was there for that, watching the will, the dedication, the fear and apprehension of the firefighters there in the community. I watched the fires nearly eat their way to Oyama. But thank goodness and the dedication of the forest fire fighters, it didn't make it over the hills. I hope that as we work together with this living, breathing document that we can be inclusive again in that aspect.

Everybody knows firefighting is a dangerous occupation. They face a wide variety of hazards. They battle raging infernos, rescue people trapped in burning

[ Page 1475 ]

structures, chemical fires. This bill is one that I strongly support.

Another major concern that I and members on this side have is the concept of the lack of retroactivity for valuable men and women who put their lives at risk. As far as the bill, we look at it dating back to, I guess, April of this year. This amendment does nothing for those firefighters whose cancers predate this amendment bill.

We can make this bill better, and we can be more inclusive with the addition of retroactivity clauses similar to the other jurisdictions. If we look at other jurisdictions, with Manitoba in 2002 leading the way with retroactivity going back ten years, with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia following Manitoba's lead…. Again, on this side, we are very supportive of this bill, and I know we can make this a better bill as we work together with everybody in the Legislature so that firefighters — part-time, volunteer and forest fire fighters — are included in this legislation.

One last item I want to get out on the table at this point in time is the item that is missing, I believe, from this amendment: how the list of diseases gets added and how that list is expanded. For example, including site lung cancer as it is recognized in Manitoba. We hope to assist, alleviating all the concerns in this area as well as many others.

At this point in time I would like to conclude. Working with the House on this, I hope that it is a living, breathing document and that we can alleviate all the fears out there and make this one of the best amendment bills that has come into legislatures in the country.

L. Mayencourt: I, like other members here so far today, rise in support of this piece of legislation. Since I became an MLA, we have had a regular annual visit from the firefighters in British Columbia, and they are great guys and gals. They come here, and they have talked to us about a number of issues over those past five years.

[1550]

It gives me a great deal of pride to see our government, the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services responding so positively to the hard work they've put in, in the five years that I was in the process. I know that was a lot of work. I know it took a lot of cajoling and a lot of time to talk about what the issues were. I think we've come out with a good piece of legislation as a result of that.

I want to pay tribute to other colleagues in this caucus who worked very hard on this bill as well. I think that each and every one of us has been touched in some way by the kinds of risk that public safety personnel put themselves in as a way of protecting us as private citizens. I think that the work that has been done here so far has been great.

Like other members, there are some issues that I hope we will be able to amend over the course of time. For instance, I really believe that we should find some way of incorporating volunteer firemen in this particular piece of legislation. I know that the minister has made a commitment that he will monitor the situation in Alberta, where they are also considering this.

This is very historic. You take a look at Canada right now. You go from western Canada, from B.C. to Alberta to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and all of those provinces have adopted this very progressive piece of legislation that takes the onus off the firefighters having to prove that a cancer they have was as a result of their work.

Firemen today go into burning buildings in my neighbourhood and other parts of this province, and they're exposed to all kinds of toxins, all kinds of plastics and formaldehydes and so on. That intense amount of exposure over a very short period of time quite often does lead to a more significant risk than just walking into a building and trying to put the fire out. It's important to note that with that exposure there are folks — firefighters in our province — that have experienced cancer. We need to do everything we can to help them along the way.

Madam Chair, you yourself are a survivor of cancer. You know well — as I do, as someone that's worked with individuals who are living with cancer or with other life-threatening illnesses — that one of the last things a patient has time for is to be their own advocate. This is something that individuals within the firefighting profession have made note of and brought home to me and to you and to other members in this House — that it's important that we recognize that this presumptive cause of cancer is valid. Therefore, I am very pleased to be supporting this piece of legislation.

Yesterday in the House we had firefighters all the way around us here in the galleries. I want to tell you that I really, really felt proud of the people we were helping yesterday. These are great human beings. They work hard, they go to places that none of us want to go, and they take people out of buildings and give them life.

And firefighters do many, many more things. In my community they're involved in all kinds of work with young children, with the burn unit and so on. These are people who are truly engaged in British Columbia society. We do owe them the respect, the honour, the understanding and the acceptance that they have been exposed to toxins and what have you that might cause cancer — not necessarily right away but perhaps later in life.

[1555]

I was speaking with a couple of the firemen last night. We had a little party. We got together. It was Halloween, and of course, everyone was dressed as a fireman. We got out there and had a really good time. I chatted with some of the firemen, and they said to me that they started lobbying government on this particular issue in 1987. That's a long time, and I want to thank them for their perseverance.

I know that some of their colleagues are too late to have benefited from this piece of legislation, but as we go forward, I know that those individuals who worked in my community to inform me about the presumptive-

[ Page 1476 ]

causes-of-cancer legislation that they wanted to have happen…. I'm proud that they came to me, I'm proud that we worked with them, and I'm proud that we got this piece of legislation in front of us.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge a group of individuals that I was with last night who are from my neighbourhood, who represent Vancouver's firefighters very well in the negotiations with government. They are Lance Ewen, Jeff Dighton, Gord Wilson, Chris Coleman, Gord Ditchburn, Paul Sihota, Manny Dosange, Rolyn Potter and Al Gregory.

There's one name that's not on there that I must add, and that name is Rod Macdonald. Rod is the president of the union. I think I've had him into meetings with you when you were the Minister of Health Planning. He's a fierce advocate of making sure that when there are issues around public safety, firefighters are well represented at the table and their views are understood. As we go forward, I know that we can count on these members and many others to provide government with information that might make our legislation even better.

With that, I salute the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. Good job — great to do it. I look forward, over the course of some consultation, to seeing if there are ways that we can even do better.

C. Wyse: It is indeed a pleasure to follow my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard. With my colleague representing a more urban riding, it is indeed my pleasure to provide somewhat of a contrast in the argument in support of this good bill. Before I begin that, I would like to recognize the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services for introducing this much-needed legislation.

In the discussions here I want to present some rationale for making a good bill into a better bill. In following my colleague opposite…. He represents an area that has a full-time, paid fire department that is equipped properly and adequately and has been for as long as any of us here in this House have been. But when you come from a rural area, as I do in the Cariboo, our fire departments are predominantly volunteer — paid, maybe, a very small stipend and remuneration.

In actual fact, the basis of this bill is based upon exposure to risk and the development of the resulting diseases, namely the various cancers that are contained within it. I propose to this House that we're beyond the time of monitoring, as has been so ably demonstrated by my colleague.

This has been petitioned since 1987. The arguments, in actual fact, apply to the volunteer fire departments also. The same situations that all firefighters face are faced by this particular group. Therefore, in making a good bill and making it better, I'm hoping that members opposite will have heard this comparison — the contrast between the two general ways that fire protection is provided to our various communities — and will be in support of an amendment to include volunteers.

[1600]

My colleagues opposite from the Okanagan and my colleague who has just walked in from Kamloops–North Thompson — and I hope I got the riding correct — have experienced the forest fires and the devastation that they cause. Once more the forest fire fighter is exposed to the same risks. As a matter of fact, colloquially, this group of firefighters are called smoke eaters, and they're called that very affectionately. Again, for me the same argument applies, through amendments to this legislation, to include that group also.

The second point that I believe the House should be looking at is the one of retroactivity. When I look around the House here and given my own age, I'm aware and have friends that have been volunteer firemen for decades in actual fact. They have been exposed for decades to this same risk. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard very eloquently made the case that when a family is exposed to a serious disease like cancer, which has been attributed to the actual risk factors that they have volunteered in doing, one of the very last things that should be facing that family and the surrounding members is looking over their shoulder for financial security.

That is the underlying basis contained in this legislation, and to have it go back to such a short period of time I believe needs to be examined. Given the two points that I've presented in front of the House in support of amendments to good legislation, I would point out that there are precedents around this type of legislation by other provinces. So it isn't as though it requires that as a House, we need to go out and make a study of these particular areas. Both the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan cover these types of items. Therefore, I would hope that when we are dealing with this item at another stage, the House will look favourably at those two amendments.

Now, there are two other items that I believe likewise the House should look at for improving the particular bill, but it would be my opinion that these two items would fit more appropriately into the monitoring aspect of the bill as time passes and we have a chance to review it. I believe we should look at the actual list of diseases that are presently covered. There are larger groupings of various cancers that are covered by other communities, other provinces, under this type of legislation. I believe that as time passes, we should come back and have a look at that particular list itself.

The other point I would draw the House to is clarity around the phrase "cancer caused primarily from fire suppression." That particular phraseology may lead to a bottleneck of

interpretation where this intent of the act is to reduce the burden of proof upon the actual cause of the particular illness, and there is the possibility of needing to defend the phrase of what primarily fire suppression responsibility does mean.

We have many of our fire officers who will have actually served in fighting fire and then, as their career passes, change their actual assignment — for example, become fire inspectors. Therefore, there is the possibility that this could lead to somewhat of a bureaucratic

[ Page 1477 ]

interpretation. But as I've mentioned, this is an item in my mind that fits in that area duly for the monitoring over the passage of time as we see this thing is passed and put into place.

In closing, I ask the House to remember the contrast and the comparison between both the rural and the urban fire departments and to ensure that our volunteers are also covered under this particular legislation in a retroactive fashion so that we cover back over that period of time.

[1605]

D. Hayer: I am very pleased to stand in support of this very important change to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005 — Bill 11. The firefighters of British Columbia have been asking for many years for this recognition of certain cancers as being an occupational disease associated with long-term firefighters. Well, this document demonstrates that we not only heard those firefighters; we listened too, and we acted.

Firefighters are one of our first lines of defence for our home and our family, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. This amendment is just one more way we can all say thank you to those brave firefighters who go into harm's way to protect us and who, regrettably, may suffer the consequence of exposure to toxic materials while they are protecting us.

I want to thank all those firefighters who made the efforts that have resulted in these changes to the act. I want to thank the Minister of Labour, who I know has made this amendment a personal goal. I commend the government, the minister and all members of this House, who I am certain will support this amendment unanimously as their way of saluting the bravery of our firefighters and honouring their selfless commitment to the safety of all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: I am very pleased to rise to support this bill in principle. My brother is a firefighter. He's a firefighter in Kelowna and has been in many, many fires in which he has been exposed to all kinds of toxins, so I am very pleased to see this happen. Again, I want to make sure that I'm understood to be fully supportive in principle.

However, as members on this side of the House have pointed out, there are some weaknesses in the bill as it is tabled, and they're weaknesses that are hard to understand. I'd like to spend a few minutes explaining why I feel they're hard to understand, hoping that when we table our amendments, members on the government side of the House will listen to the reasons and listen to the logic and do the right thing.

The amendment on retroactivity. My brother was one of the firefighters who fought in the firestorm of 2003. He was a firefighter who spent his entire shift fighting up against the fire line. On the crew change, as he came out, the crew coming in had no officer. So he was asked if he would, because he's an acting lieutenant, take charge of that crew until they could go back and find an officer for that crew.

That was one of the crews that was trapped on the Friday night, and we did not hear for four hours whether those firefighters were alive or dead. My brother still has nightmares about that event, as do many of his colleagues. There is an ongoing study as to how much exposure those firefighters had because their Scott packs had run out. They had to fight that fire in a circle-the-wagons approach where they simply took all the trucks, encircled themselves and sprayed water in the hopes that the fire would blow past them.

It took six to eight minutes for those large houses to completely explode and then implode upon themselves and evaporate. Trees blew up all around them. Propane tanks went off. My brother and his crew members describe it as if they were in a firefight in a war zone.

According to this act, the level of exposure that those firefighters were exposed to in that one incident, if it leads to any kind of cancer or any kind of illness…. It is my understanding, according to the way this bill is being tabled, that they will not be given the presumptive clause because it starts on April 11, 2005, and would not go back to 2003.

I don't understand why the retroactive component of this is not in place.

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: That's not true.

B. Simpson: Okay. Well, I stand to be corrected. I've been misinformed, then. If that's the case, then I look forward to an explanation of that other than what I've been given.

The other aspect of this that I've been told is that as new science and new studies indicate, other forms of exposure which then go back for those who have been in service 20 years or 25 years…. Those who have been exposed to those carcinogens may not then be covered retroactively. So the retroactive clause, I think, needs to be looked at.

The second is that our volunteer firefighters are not covered. I come from a community — the community of Quesnel. We also have smaller communities like Big Lake, Horsefly, Likely and Nazko that are only covered by volunteer firefighters. Many of those firefighters have more experience actually fighting fires than many of the full-time firefighters down in the lower mainland and those covered by this bill.

I have a letter here from the fire chief from Quesnel, who's written to the minister. For his benefit, I would like to put this on the record, because I think it speaks for itself.

To Minister de Jong:

I'm sadly disappointed with your announcement regarding cancer presumption for firefighters. Although this is good news for long-term career firefighters, it totally misses the mark for our volunteers.

This clause is particularly telling.

Fires don't care if the people fighting them are career or volunteer. Why should our government? Do our volunteers that give freely of their time not deserve the same coverage as their paid counterparts? This prejudice against volunteers makes no sense, as many of our vol-

[ Page 1478 ]

unteers attend more fires than career firefighters. The fact that just one fire can expose any firefighter to these certain cancers should be enough evidence to remove the distinction between paid and volunteer.

Bill 11 is at first reading. The fire service and

our volunteers desperately need your help to amend this legislation to include all firefighters before it comes into law. As the author of this bill, I respectfully request that you amend the bill to strike the words "on a full-time basis for remuneration" from

section 6.1(1)(

b) to remove the distinction between paid and volunteer firefighters. WCB already considers volunteer firefighters as employees under the act. Please let the intent of this bill include all of the province's firefighters, including our volunteers.

Madam Speaker, I think that argument stands for itself, and there's not any reason to add to it.

My final comments I wish to make are about our Forest Service firefighters who — again, it's my understanding — would not be covered under this act. Those firefighters on any given fire are exposed more than most of the firefighters are in any given year. We cannot forget that we use fire retardants and that we use fire suppression chemicals. Many times these folks are in there, and they're not called smoke eaters with no reason. They are out there fully exposed to anything that's in the air. We do not yet know the carcinogenic effects of mosses and lichens and the various other organisms out there that are being engulfed in the flames.

I would like this bill to be much more robust. I would like us to learn the lessons from other provinces such as Manitoba and Alberta that are moving forward and adding more to their existing legislation. I think that the two amendments we are going to table from this side of the House make the bill more robust. I would hope that the members on the other side of the House give them due consideration and pass them and that then, collectively, we make this a much stronger bill and we do embrace our volunteers in a way that they're asking to be embraced.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you to the Government House Leader for pointing at me at that particular moment. That was one of the thrills of the three months so far.

[1615]

I'm pleased to speak strongly in support of this legislation. It's a time to celebrate, and it's a time to congratulate our friends, sisters and brothers, neighbours and family members who are firefighters in the province of British Columbia.

This presumptive-cancer campaign is one that has been longstanding. The professional firefighters of the province brought this notion forward almost 20 years ago. It's a testament to their patience and to their commitment that today, this week, we're able to move forward on this issue. These people who are firefighters in British Columbia have provided a service, an important service, to the working people of the province and to our communities.

This is a victory, and it's worth celebrating. I think it's a victory, in the first instance, for the professional firefighters of British Columbia and for their families. We need to congratulate them and to thank them for the hard work they've done on this issue.

Strong workers compensation legislation is central to our social safety net. Civilized societies understand that work, unfortunately, sometimes leads to illness or injury. We wish that it weren't true, but that is sometimes the case. So we are duty-bound and have the responsibility as legislators to bring forward and strengthen that legislation which protects workers from workplace accidents and from workplace illnesses.

We do that in several different ways. One is to educate, and that is an important and central aspect of workers compensation legislation. We also have, as part of the workers compensation regime, protections and standards that are put in place as our society's rules and regulations with respect to how work should take place across the province. That's an important element of workers compensation legislation.

Another part of workers compensation legislation — unfortunately, but it needs to be there — is insurance. We need to provide a financial safety net for those who fall to illness or accident in the workplace so that as a result of the problems that they face in the workplace — despite the problems that they face in the workplace, the illness or accident that they have to go through — they're not put in a position where they suffer too tremendously financially. We know and understand — and I hope there will be other opportunities to look at — the levels of compensation and the way in which workers are compensated.

But the concept and the principle are important — that we protect those people from financial ruin.

In this specific case, we're talking about the issue of presumptive cancer. It seems to me — and it strikes me that there is some consensus in this House on this question — that the first reason we need to deal with the presumptive cancer issue is because the science is clear. The science is clear that those whose job it is to fight fires have workplace dangers that most British Columbians don't face and, as a result, have disproportionately suffered from cancers. We need to take seriously the science in this area, and I think this legislation, in fact, does take seriously the science and moves us significantly forward.

[1620]

The legislation, in effect, presumes that the cancers that are identified in the

schedule are a result of workplace exposure and turns the burden of proof, the onus, at the Workers Compensation Board around so that firefighters are more able to make their case when it comes to what they've suffered as a result of exposures on the job.

The second reason why I think there is a consensus in this House with respect to the value of this legislation is that there is a common understanding that in the face of this terrible illness too many firefighters have to deal with, we need to do something to make sure there isn't a double whammy on those families — that they're not worried about the case that has to be made

[ Page 1479 ]

before the Workers Compensation Board, that the onus is turned around, that it's easier to make the case with respect to the presumptive cancer. This legislation then gives them the comfort that they won't have to. The two points go together. The reversing of the onus and the science go together so that those people who are suffering from these illnesses don't have to unprove the science. That's not their job. The science is there. We understand it, and the legislation is there now to protect them.

As I said a minute ago, there is a consensus in this House. It is to the credit of both sides of the House that there is a consensus with respect to what is in the bill before us. Having said that, it seems to this member that there are several areas where the bill does not speak, where it should speak. It's my belief that together we can build an additional consensus. We can build a consensus on at least one or two of those areas where the bill does not speak.

The one that I'd like to direct my attention to for just a minute is the issue of retroactivity. It is in the nature of legislation that it is sometimes arbitrary. That is, legislation is written to take effect on a particular date — sometimes the date that the legislation itself is passed, and sometimes retroactively. In this case, the bill that's before us is retroactive to April 11. I want to argue that, like all legislation, that date is somewhat arbitrary.

It's a date which has been chosen by the drafters of the bill, by the government, and the problem with the arbitrary nature of legislation is that it takes a snapshot. It cuts the course of history at a particular day. I want to argue that in this case, it makes more sense for us together to move that retroactivity back. It makes sense because people are ill, and those illnesses don't have a particular date.

April 11 is a date which does not have much meaning to the contraction and the spread of the disease in individuals. People have become ill and have suffered as a result of these cancers, which are now being recognized as presumptive cancers. Their illnesses don't relate to that particular date. So it seems to me that while in some cases an effective date for legislation — today, the day that it's passed, a couple of months before — makes sense, in this case we would improve the bill and speak to the needs of a number of British Columbians if we were able together to agree to move to retroactivity.

There is tremendous support on this side of the House, and certainly from me, for the legislation. I think we can make it better, especially in the area of retroactivity.

[1625]

There are some other issues which others, happily on both sides of the House, have spoken to. The issue of volunteer and part-time firefighters, I think, is an important one. Others have spoken to that; I won't take up the time of the House on that. The issue of specific heart and lung diseases that arise — it's argued, and I think it's accepted — as a result of the workplace hazards that firefighters find themselves in or deal with…. Again, others have spoken to that. I won't take up the time of the House except to say that I think those are points well made.

This legislation is a fitting, though tragic, memorial to those firefighters who have gone before, those who have been disabled or who have died as a result of these cancers. This bill strengthens our commitment to and our protections for this group of working people. That's an important part of our job — to find ways to provide the protections that firefighters in this case but working people in all cases need and deserve.

I think we can work together to make a good piece of legislation even better. I commend that notion to members on both sides of the House. I'd like to once again, in closing, express my support for the bill and urge all members of the House to support it as well.

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, once again, it's awfully good to see you in that chair, knowing that you came through your own terrible fight with cancer over the last many months. Like all of the members who have spoken before me on both sides of the House, I'm tremendously pleased to be a part of this debate and a supporter of this legislation, of which I'm very, very proud.

I've been a member now…. This is my tenth year. We've had a visit by the firefighters every year, I believe, since I've been elected. Every year they came to us and said, "We really think that government ought to allow this presumption," and I'm tremendously proud of a Premier, a minister and a government that have followed through on that step.

I know we all appreciate the many, many good things that firefighters do in each of our communities and throughout our province. We see them streaking off to motor vehicle accidents. They're often there before the Ambulance Service, in that there are more fire halls than ambulance stations. They provide a very great level of assistance at motor vehicle accident scenes. They often help people out in their homes with the kind of accidents and illnesses that people phone 911 to report. I know I always feel better when I see the fire trucks on the way to any of these incidents.

I represent a long string of small communities served by tremendous volunteers and volunteer fire departments who are called out in the middle of the night, often to very frightening situations, incurring substantial risks in going to help other people in need. I really respect and value these people as they work — sometimes underwater, sometimes in muddy ditches, sometimes in very dangerous vehicles — putting their own lives at risk, using the Jaws of Life, extricating people from crashes, doing their utmost for their fellow man often in situations of great danger.

In my previous life I worked in the road safety division of ICBC for some time. I had the privilege of working with lots of firefighters and brought on a program to teach people how to properly install infant car restraints, making sure people were trained to put their babies and their little children in properly. The firefighters did the work. I didn't have the staff to do it,

[ Page 1480 ]

but they did. I know the public sees them taking

part constantly in that sort of valuable volunteer activity.

A friend of mine, when I was engaged in that work, brought on a training session for little children in a fire department. They had decided to bring this whole school full of little elementary school kids over to the fire station and teach them about fire safety. The adults brainstormed before they brought this on. What central message would they have for the kids? What would they want the children to go away with? They decided to teach them what to do if their clothing ever caught on fire. The slogan is, "Stop, drop and roll" — right? We've all heard that.

[1630]

Those poor little kids were indoctrinated with that slogan from the moment they got off the bus. They mentioned it at the meal that they served them. They taught them a little dance. They showed them how to stop, drop and roll on the tumbling mats. All day long that message was brought home to them.

One little girl was just getting back on the bus and a big, burly firefighter leaned over and said to her: "So, darling, if your clothes are ever on fire, what will you do?" She said: "I wouldn't put on those clothes." It's amazing how clearly children see things, and not always the way that we think.

I really appreciated their help in all those efforts, and they're always helping. We had a tragedy not long ago in my constituency. Clearwater is a small village, not yet incorporated. It has a volunteer fire department. The firefighters were called out in the night. A restaurant was burning down, and a young volunteer, Chad Schapansky, was trapped in that fire and died — a real tragedy, and one that the people of Clearwater will never forget.

I think it was brought home to everybody worldwide in the tragedy of 9/11 that these people — who usually, when you see them, are all spiffed up in nice uniforms that look freshly pressed, and you often see them doing public service activities around town — have to always be prepared that one day they'll go to their deaths. Those firefighters running up the stairs in the twin towers — I'm sure many of them knew they were running to their deaths, but they went, because that was their duty. Firefighters go to work every day knowing that that might happen.

One of the members who spoke previously from the opposition side mentioned the wildfires of 2003 and my constituency having been involved. That was a horrific experience. The first fire, the Strawberry Hill fire, was alarming enough, but when the McLure fire got rolling, it was a nightmare. They're doing a memorial monument about it. It's a dragon that a sculptor is carving for the monument, and that's what that thing was like. It was just ferocious, making its own weather system, throwing burning material up to three kilometres ahead of it, and it gave off a roar that defies description. It was terrifying.

The little, tiny fire department from Barriere, B.C. — a volunteer fire department full of heroes led by a fellow named Al Kirkwood, who in his day job is a publisher of the little community newspaper, the North Thompson Star Journal — rushed out there to McLure, started fighting that fire and backed up in front of it for 20 hours until it reached the community of Barriere. I was getting reports every few minutes from the Ministry of Forests. At that point, when it reached Barriere, they said to me: "We're pulling everybody out. The community's going to burn tonight. We can't stop it now."

There were 800 homes involved, and they thought they'd lost it. But nobody really knew the tale of what those firefighters went through until the next day, because it was tough to communicate. The fire was horrific. The noise was awful. They had a few RCMP with them, and a few forestry guys, and this horrific fire was bearing down on them. When they finally pulled out, they had to actually drive through a wall of flames, and they didn't know if they were going to hit something in it and get stopped, if the fire was going to consume all the oxygen and their vehicles would stall, or what was on the other side.

At the end of the day God stopped it. Lots of people were praying about it. It reached Barriere, and it split. It went around. It had to jump the North Thompson River on the left-hand side, which would be the west side. It had to jump the North Thompson. It burned along on the other side of the North Thompson, jumped back on the other side of town and burned almost a complete circle around the community of Barriere. No homes in Barriere actually burned, but we did lose about 80 homes in the area on the south end of Barriere, in the smaller communities — Exlou, McLure, Louis Creek.

[1635]

The largest employer in the area burnt down and will never be rebuilt, sadly. But those people knew what they were up against, and they stood in there for it. I am tremendously proud of them, and I'd like you to give them a hand, if you would, my friends.

[Applause.]

A couple of years ago the Delta Sun Peaks hotel was just nearing completion. It was under construction. It's by far the biggest structure that's been built at Sun Peaks so far, and it's a wonderful place with a lot of new facilities — beautiful new hotel. The fellows finishing it were in a hurry to finish it, so they had set up tiger torches to dry the exterior walls with plastic shrouding around them. Early in the evening the security guards noticed that one of the shrouds was melting, so they moved the tiger torch. Now, apparently they missed one, and the hotel caught on fire. Out came the little, tiny Sun Peaks volunteer fire depart-

[ Page 1481 ]

ment, and that is a huge structure. It was burning ferociously, and these tiger torches were going off like bombs. They were firing hundreds of yards up the ski runs. They could have landed anywhere.

Again, that little volunteer fire department stood in there, watered down the adjacent hotels — windows popping, siding melting. They saved everything except the hotel that was on fire itself, and it's since been rebuilt. I was at the grand opening, and the president of the Delta chain mentioned that it was their, I think, 23rd hotel. I said it was actually the 22nd and the 23rd, because they had to build that one twice. But the volunteer fire department again held that fire at bay, and nothing else was lost.

As I say, I've been speaking to firefighters for ten years about their desire and their case for this presumption. I'm so glad we're doing it now. Last night at the reception I met a number of firefighters I'd never met before. One group was telling me about one of their colleagues who has just retired, and he has cancer. They told me that he was one of eight firefighters who trained in a training exercise in Richmond some years ago. Although science hasn't established yet that from one incident, one exposure like that, firefighters could contract cancers, they say that of those eight people, seven have already died of cancer. He's the eighth, and he has it.

Four of them died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which is a pretty rare cancer. Although it might be called anecdotal, it's awfully coincidental if it doesn't relate to the fact that they were all exposed at the same time, and they've all died. They've been very concerned for a long, long time that this presumption wasn't there and that families who have lost firefighters, or sick firefighters who know they're dying, have to have the additional stress and worry of not knowing if there's going to be coverage for their loved ones after they're gone.

The opposition has been raising a couple of issues that are in our hearts as well. I certainly think about volunteer firefighters and the fact that I have a whole string of communities where those people take these risks all the time. They never know for sure what's burning when they go to a structural fire. It is different with a forest fire. You know what's burning, generally, although there are some chemicals involved — fire retardants and so on — and there might be other things burning in the bush. But a forest fire is a bit more predictable — the combustible that's there.

We're told that the number of different compounds, chemical compounds, that are invented and that go into everything from plastic around us to basically everything that we're…. Even the wood of these desks, if it's not solid wood, may well be a particleboard that includes some chemicals. Firefighters never know what's in the smoke. It's probably changing, even if they knew, because those chemicals change when they interact with each other in the heat of a fire. Certainly, nobody can say for sure how many exposures or how much exposure it takes to cause cancer in an individual.

But my volunteer firefighters in all those communities certainly go to burning buildings. Those buildings certainly contain things that they don't know about, either before or after, and they're at risk.

The government is not ruling out extending this presumption to volunteer firefighters. Some could argue — some actually have, I believe — that it's still early for us to be allowing the presumption at all, because science isn't completely conclusive. We have a lot of science results. We have the precedents in other provinces. We paid attention to what they say. We didn't want to wait until we had closer to a black or white answer. This government feels there is enough scientific evidence available. We're proceeding. Nobody's ruling out eventually, and maybe not in the distant future, extending the presumption to volunteer firefighters as well. I hope to see that happen.

[1640]

Some folks would argue that a full-time professional firefighter probably is subject to greater risk and more frequent exposures than a volunteer firefighter, but it's not necessarily so. My little communities that I represent can't afford full-time, professional, paid firefighters, so these people do it for free or something close to it. I'm awfully pleased that they do and grateful and proud of that, and I'd like to see them have the same kind of coverage.

So the government will continue to gather data, and the presumption may well be extended, but we wanted to move now on the things we feel more certain about. I'm very pleased that the government's doing that.

The general principle for workers compensation legislation in British Columbia has been, and is, that changes which could affect entitlement to a benefit are not retroactive. There have been some exceptions, such as when legislation has been found to infringe on constitutional rights. But the approach in this bill, with limited retroactivity to April, is consistent with past practice in B.C. When Alberta and Saskatchewan allowed a presumption, they did not provide any retroactivity for their firefighter cancer presumptions, as we understand it.

You'll notice that the specific cancers for which the presumption is provided are listed in regulation rather than in the legislation itself. The reason for that is to allow for additions without having to come into the House and do legislation, if that is deemed appropriate, as our knowledge and the scientific evidence come to hand.

Just because a firefighter doesn't automatically have coverage because of the presumption doesn't mean that that firefighter's claim will be denied, either. The Workers Compensation Board is required to look at each case, and each case where people don't necessarily come under the presumption will still be adjudicated on a case-to-case basis. We don't want people to think there is no hope if they don't fit foursquare within what's set out in this legislation. People such as police officers or paramedics, who also get exposed to smoke and these hazards in situations they find themselves in — probably less frequently than firefighters — never-

[ Page 1482 ]

theless can also present claims. They aren't covered by the presumption, but their cases also would be adjudicated on a case-to-case basis.

The non-inclusion of forest firefighters in the presumption is consistent with what other provinces have done thus far. Forest firefighters generally don't have the same exposures as firefighters who deal with structural fires, car fires, chemical spills and all of those things. But as some of the members opposite mentioned, there are fire retardants. The