Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 5

Part 1

[ Page 6107 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

K. Whittred: Visiting me today for a couple of days is my daughter, Susan. I ask the House to join me in making her welcome.

J. Sawicki: I'd like to introduce one of my constituents this afternoon. He's a fairly high-maintenance constituent who calls me to task from time to time, but he's also someone I work closely with. That is the federal member for Burnaby-Douglas, Svend Robinson, who's with us on the floor of the House today. Svend is over here and has been discussing with the Premier, as our federal party's Fisheries critic, dealing with the very serious issue around the Pacific salmon. I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

G. Wilson: We have as our guest in the gallery today Mr. Ken MacRae, who's the public affairs and road safety regional manager for ICBC. Along with Mr. MacRae are his office colleague Charlene Humber, Maurice McFadden and a group of people who are with the Premier's youth initiative program at ICBC: Ms. Christina Wilson, Krista Hawes, Paul Spencelayh, Bryce McFadden, Sheilagh Smyth and Robb Tones. Would the House please make them all welcome.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today are a number of people from the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, coming here to witness the proceedings. I'd like to introduce all seven of them and apologize in advance for my inability, perhaps, to pronounce the names correctly. The individuals are Richard Mercer, who is their ESL teacher, Ferran Arruga, Orio Juvé, Asier Benito, Marc Gajnas, Vicky Stacco and Lynn Do. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD

(MURPHY CASE)

M. Coell: The Murphy family has been fighting for more than a year to keep their foster daughter at home with them. We have learned today that the ministry has been forced to back down from its plan to move their foster daughter back to Saskatchewan. The Murphys hired lawyers and private investigators to ensure that all relevant facts in this case came to light. They fought against, I believe, a cold bureaucracy intent on moving their foster daughter out of the province to a family that she didn't know.

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: why do foster families have to go to the lengths that the Murphys did in order to ensure that children's best interests come first?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I gather the hon. member knows, the acting director of child protection talked to the Murphys and told them that we will be acting on the direction of the Child and Family Review Board, which is what that review board is there for: to make an appeal to. We will work for them and with them to take forward a proposed plan.

Nobody should have to go through either exorbitant time or exorbitant resources in order to ensure that their child is safe. But nobody who works in this ministry, including the director of child protection, does not make every effort to view it through the eyes of the child.

M. Coell: The Murphy's five-year-old foster daughter has lived with them since she was five months old. She calls them mom and dad. She doesn't know the aunt and uncle who were to become her guardians. This special needs child does not react well to change. Even the ministry's expert psychologist that they hired said: "She cannot tolerate change to her environment without falling apart." But the ministry was intent on moving her, for over a year.

How can the minister say today that her ministry was always putting the interests of the child first, when that certainly and clearly wasn't the way it was for a year?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's clear that these are the most difficult decisions the ministry has to make. The director of child protection had to make some very weighty considerations in this and many other circumstances, as well. In this set of circumstances, he had to decide whether this little girl would live with her natural sister in Saskatchewan or stay with her foster brother in British Columbia. It is very difficult to try and balance those decisions about reuniting an aboriginal child with her aboriginal family, and to look at what is in the best interests of the child.

But if you look at the best interests of the child, you must also then include such issues as bonding, length of time with family, etc.

G. Farrell-Collins: Consistently we find that the minister isn't looking at things through the best interests of the child but through the best interests of the ministry, and this is another case where exactly that was done.

This case has been extremely badly handled from the start. Two home studies were done on this issue. Nobody seems to know why two separate home studies were done on the people in Saskatchewan. Numerous extensions for submissions to the board were allowed -- for unknown reasons. A gag order was issued against the foster parents. Relevant information failed to come to light and was not offered to the review board initially, until they were forced to by public pressure.

Can the minister commit today that she will have the children's commissioner conduct a full and complete and independent investigation into the incredibly poor, incredibly dishonest and inept actions of her ministry in handling this case?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We're not going to have a dialogue across the way.

Hon. P. Priddy: The Child and Family Review Board has done an extensive investigation regarding the future planning for this little girl. The fact that it has taken six months now speaks to its complexity and the fact that it took the investigator that long to identify the information. We sent people to Saskatchewan to gather more information at his request, and we did that as best we could.

In their report, the Child and Family Review Board commented on how the process could be better -- how it could be better by a variety of parties, including the ministry but including other parties who have been involved in this.

It's very easy to have opinions about what we should all do about children. But when you are the director of child protection, you actually have to have accountability for those responsibilities and decisions.

[ Page 6108 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: In addition to accountability, what those people need is proper information. This decision was about to come down several months ago -- three or four months ago -- and the minister is aware of that. It was within days of a decision coming down from the Child and Family Review Board. It became clear that pertinent and critical information to this case was withheld by the ministry and not forwarded to the board until it was raised in this House. I don't think that's something the minister should be proud of.

Will the minister commit that these irregularities and the attempted obstruction of information going to the Child and Family Review Board will be the subject of an independent and complete and thorough investigation by the children's commissioner, rather than just another sweeping under the carpet, another cover-up, whitewash investigation by her ministry?

[2:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: As I said before, there has been a thorough investigation of what information came forward in a timely way. I have not read the whole report yet but have been briefed on it. What information came forward in a timely way and what information may not have come forward in a timely way has been done by the Child and Family Review Board investigator and I assume has been signed off by the children's commissioner. There is much to learn from that, and we will learn from that.

This is a new ministry. I feel absolutely no obligation whatsoever to cover up for any actions of people in this ministry or for anybody else who is involved with or responsible for children. That is irresponsible; it takes risks with children's lives. I'm sorry, but I absolutely reject the fact that anybody that is responsible to me and works with me is going to cover up something that is dangerous to a child.

If there is information that did not come forward in a timely way, we will indeed be dealing with that, as recommended by the board.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS

J. Weisgerber: British Columbians are greatly concerned with the health of our salmon stocks. Overfishing by the Americans and high, muddy water in the Fraser River have captured public attention this year. Urban sprawl, poor forest practices and domestic competition for fish are ongoing threats that must also be addressed.

My question is for my favourite straight man, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recommended that commercial fishing components should not be included in future treaties and that allocations of fish be addressed in negotiations based on watersheds, basins, regions or the entire province. Has the minister decided to accept that unanimous recommendation of the committee? Has he decided to accept the advice of his own caucus members on this important issue?

Hon. J. Cashore: The select standing committee has done an outstanding job.

As I pointed out to the hon. member last week, I have not had the opportunity to review the findings with cabinet and caucus, which is necessary in order to be able to bring in a response to this question. All the points that are within that report are taken very seriously, and we look forward to having that further discussion.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed, the select standing committee reported to this Legislature nearly three weeks ago. The recommendations covered a full range of recommendations on this important issue. Committee members travelled extensively around the province and heard from British Columbians in every region of the province. I think they now deserve a response from this government and from this ministry.

Has the minister decided to make a formal response to the select standing committee recommendations? And when might the members of this Legislature and the public expect to see that response?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Speaker, there will be a response. That response will be done in a very timely way. I will not commit with regard to time, because it is simply not possible to do so right now.

STANDARD OF CARE AT

SKELEEM VILLAGE TREATMENT CENTRE

S. Hawkins: Yesterday the Health minister tried to dodge questions about Skeleem Village, so let me make the question perfectly clear. The Ministry of Health's chief licensing officer for the area said she didn't have the resources to monitor Skeleem Village last year. Contrary to what the Health minister said here in the House yesterday, the licensing officer specifically said: "There was an eight-month gap in which I was not able to deal with Skeleem Village; I have no knowledge of what went on there during that period."

So my question to the Health minister is: with 300 RCMP incidents last year, why didn't anyone in her ministry investigate what was going on at Skeleem Village?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it is exactly that kind of situation that is being investigated by the provincial health officer. The licensing officer to which the hon. member refers will be talked to. Her opinion will be examined, and that will form part of the report after the investigation is complete.

S. Hawkins: Information continues to surface about this facility, Skeleem Village. According to one of the former employees, staff at Skeleem Village engaged in illicit drug use with patients and took patients to strip bars. Despite such activities, the facility not only retained its licence but received almost $700,000 from this government last year.

My question, again, is to the Health minister: why did her ministry continue to fund and refer patients to Skeleem Village when it had no idea whether patients were going to be safe there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Once again, in a very serious situation, the Liberal opposition continues to rely for their research on the Province newspaper.

I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that I am more than willing to be held accountable for this situation. There is an investigation ongoing; the medical health officer has been investigating this since early June. The situation is under close examination.

[ Page 6109 ]

The provincial health officer is in there conducting his own examination, and frankly, actions have been taken around this matter, as well. We are talking about very vulnerable people, and we're talking about services that require . . . . There are very specialized services required there.

But I would also say that in the context of what needs to be done in this province for the proper delivery of health care in a way that makes sense for those who have been injured or harmed, our government is committed to actually delivering on the funding, as we have done, unlike the Liberal opposition.

The other thing is that we have also said that we will not sit back and just let things go on as they may. We have ordered a full and independent investigation of all licensing matters in this province.

G. Plant: We know that the RCMP have been called to Skeleem Village virtually every day to face suicide attempts and illicit drug use. And yet, despite all of this, children in the care of the Ministry for Children and Families were being sent to this facility.

So my question is to the Minister for Children and Families: did her ministry perform any kind of inspection before it sent children in the ministry's care to Skeleem Village?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two children -- or youth, if you will -- who are there. They're actually not there at the moment, but are in residence in that facility. One of those youths has no contact with the ministry . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. P. Priddy: What I'm saying is that one of the youths there has nothing to do with the ministry. Her parents placed her there at their choice, not at ours.

Secondly, for the other youth that is voluntarily in care there, the parents saw the facility. We made sure that they were aware of the concerns, as the Ministry of Health did, immediately they were raised, and we offered particular supports for them to ensure their safety.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Petitions

R. Neufeld: I ask leave to present a petition . . .

The Speaker: Please proceed.

R. Neufeld: . . . signed by 3,449 residents of Fort St. John and area, concerned parents and grandparents of British Columbia.

"I am against the BCTF resolution 102 to create a program to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism within B.C. public schools."

Tabling Documents

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the honour to present the "Report on Multiculturalism" for the year '95-96.

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. C. McGregor: I am pleased to table the annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board for '96-97.

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. D. Miller: I am tabling the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation for 1997.

The Speaker: Minister tables report.

Hon. A. Petter: I have the honour to present a number of reports: first, the annual report of the British Columbia Securities Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997; the annual report of the British Columbia college pension plan for 1996; the report of the Vancouver Stock Exchange to the government of British Columbia for 1997; the 1996-97 financial statements of the Provincial Capital Commission -- I commend them for members to read; the annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission for 1996; and the annual report of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission for the period ended March 31, 1996.

The Speaker: Minister cleans desk.

Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to interrupt this fascinating tabling of reports to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. C. Evans: The Premier and I have a friend, Donovan Kuehn, in the audience. He's here today with his mother Sadie, his brother Damien, and Gail and Jean Johnson. Would the House please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

I call third reading of Bill 31.

[2:30]

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Bill 31 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS -- 59

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Boone

Hammell

Streifel

Pullinger

Farnworth

Kwan

Waddell

Calendino

Stevenson

Goodacre

Giesbrecht

Walsh

Kasper

Orcherton

Hartley

Priddy

Petter

Miller

G. Clark

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Cashore

Ramsey

Brewin

Sihota

Randall

Sawicki

Lali

Doyle

Gillespie

Robertson

Smallwood

Janssen

Gingell

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Plant

Sanders

Stephens

[ Page 6110 ]

Coell

Anderson

Nebbeling

Whittred

Thorpe

Weisgerber

J. Wilson

Reitsma

Hansen

C. Clark

Symons

Hawkins

Abbott

Weisbeck

Chong

McKinnon

Neufeld

NAYS -- 9

Dalton

van Dongen

Penner

G. Wilson

Barisoff

Krueger

Masi

Nettleton

Jarvis

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 37.

TOBACCO DAMAGES RECOVERY ACT

(second reading)

G. Plant: Before we embark upon second reading of Bill 37, I rise pursuant to

section 10(1) of the Members Conflict of Interest Act to disclose a possible conflict of interest in respect of Bill 37, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. The general nature of the conflict arises out of the fact that prior to my election on May 28, 1996, the law firm of which I was then a member was retained by a client in respect of matters which are related to the subject of this bill. I have done no legal work directly for that client, and of course, as of June 30, 1996 -- over a year ago -- I ceased to be a member of that law firm.

Given those circumstances, I don't believe that in relation to Bill 37 there is an opportunity to further my private interest. However, I acknowledge that some persons may perceive otherwise.

In the absence of a lawfully appointed conflict-of-interest commissioner capable of providing me with an opinion on the matter, I think the course of prudence is for me to disclose an apparent conflict and, in the language of the act, to withdraw from this meeting without voting or participating in the consideration of this bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm sorry that I have to start the debate this way. Of course, there is an acting conflict-of-interest commissioner appointed. He has the full duties of office, and the member opposite could have easily received an opinion, as every other member of this House does. It's very unfortunate.

The Speaker: I don't believe there's any debate, given that the member simply decided to absent himself. I'm sorry, minister, I didn't realize that . . . .

Vancouver-Little Mountain, on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would just say, then, that I suppose the member has given up her place in speaking, because she just spoke to the bill.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I said "before speaking to the bill."

G. Farrell-Collins: Then before I speak to the bill, I'd like to say something, too. The minister took her seat . . . .

The Speaker: Members, I am going to . . . . Excuse me, members. I think I will take the blame for the fact that I didn't establish whether the minister was rising on a point of order. The member has declared what is a perceived conflict and has done the appropriate and honourable thing and said he will absent himself from the debate. There is no further point of order and nothing to be gained by having a debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Vancouver-Little Mountain, I have told you that I am perhaps in error. I do not need gratuitous comment reminding me of that possible fact. It seems to me that you don't need to do that, and, quite frankly, it's not acceptable for you to maintain that running commentary.

Having said that, on second reading, the Minister of Health.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act will assist the government and individuals in British Columbia in getting the tobacco industry to pay for the devastating effects of its harmful products. Last year over 5,800 British Columbians died from the effects of tobacco, and that number will increase this year. Many of them have been addicted to a product the tobacco industry has promoted with images of excitement, glamour and fun.

We know now that the health effects of smoking are not glamorous. But the tobacco industry captures its victims while they are young. Ninety percent of people who smoke started before the age of 19. Our British Columbia government is assisting young people so that they remain non-smokers. Funding for our tobacco reduction strategy has more than doubled this year to $5 million, to protect children from the devastating effects of tobacco. We will double the funding again next year to protect young people. We know that tobacco companies target children with their products, and we know why.

Each 15-year-old who starts smoking will represent at least $25,000 in direct revenue for tobacco companies over their lifetime. That's to the tobacco companies. Every day another 20 B.C. kids take up smoking. The tragedy is that of those who keep smoking, half will die as a result of tobacco use.

Tobacco-related illnesses and disease cost the health system, and us as taxpayers, half a billion dollars every year. This legislation will assist government in making the tobacco industry pay for the health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses. Our government is working to ensure that tobacco companies are forced to take responsibility for the devastating effects of their harmful products. The initial responses of the tobacco companies to our challenge is unsatisfying, to say the least. There appears to be little willingness to recognize, own up to or provide compensation for the harm they inflict on our citizens. If this attitude on their

part continues, it is our intent to proceed with legal action against the industry when this new law is in place.

This legislation, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, gives the government and individuals the legal authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other prescribed costs resulting from tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. With this legislation, we are trying to ensure that court action is not thrown out on technical grounds. For too long, the tobacco industry has had an unfair advantage in court. Our proposed legislation allows for the introduction in court of statistical or epidemiological evidence. This will allow the case to be made even more strongly and more clearly that tobacco causes illness and death.

In addition, we are including a

section regarding liability based on risk contribution. It will mean that the government or individuals involved in court actions against tobacco companies don't have to prove that each individual cigarette brand caused the harm, but that cigarettes generally cause harm. There have been situations where many people with tobacco-related illnesses have wanted to take the tobacco

[ Page 6111 ]

industry to court. Understandably, those people have had to concentrate on fighting their illness and getting well, but the Limitation Act states that the time has run out for most court actions while those persons were ill.

With this legislation, we are extending the limitation period to give those persons more time to file an action against the tobacco industry. An amendment that I've handed to the Clerk today provides that potential claimants will have a full two years following proclamation of this legislation to initiate their claim. The amendment also provides that prior dismissal of an attempted claim is not a bar to commencement of a new claim pursuant to this legislation.

All of these actions are designed to make the tobacco industry accountable for endangering the health of children, teens and adults. It's time tobacco companies provided just compensation to British Columbia's health system for the treatment and prevention of deadly tobacco-related illness. I'm proud that British Columbia is a leader in Canada in declaring war on the tobacco companies.

S. Hawkins: I agree that smoking is addictive; I agree that tobacco poses a serious health hazard. I certainly agree that our children are vulnerable. I agree that the government should be doing more to address this very serious public health concern.

But I'm a little skeptical about the government's reasons for bringing in this legislation. I question whether it isn't the budget mess and the shortage of dollars that required the government to look at new ways to get money. When I think of the hypocrisy that we've seen in the last year with this government . . . .

This government introduces this legislation to allow the government to sue the tobacco industry, as a means of recovering the costs associated with tobacco addiction. The government proves its hypocrisy by planning to sue the companies, the tobacco industry, while it moves ahead with massive expansion of the gambling industry. Both cigarettes and slot machines destroy the health and well-being of families. If the Premier and this minister believe that addiction needs to be addressed at the source, then they'll stop the casino expansion plan.

We know that the health care system is screaming for money; we know that. I travelled around the province. Every community, every hospital, every facility and every patient I meet tell me that they're not getting enough resources in the health care system. Yet this minister and this government say that they care about the health and well-being of British Columbians and that they're going to provide the resources.

We know that this government collects $500 million, almost half a billion dollars, in tobacco taxes; we know that. You know what? Does that money go straight into the health care system that this minister is so worried about -- and the impact that tobacco has on health care with heart disease, cancers, lung disease? Does she put that . . . ? Does her government . . . ? She sits on the executive council. Do they make a decision at the cabinet table, saying: "We collect half a billion dollars from the tobacco companies"? Does this money go directly to the health care system? No, it doesn't.

We need to know that the money derived from any lawsuit under this legislation that the government is proposing will be dedicated to health care, not just channelled into general revenue, because we know what they do with that. They've made a total mess of our provincial budget and programs that are supposed to be helping patients. We don't have money for those programs.

When they announced this proposed legislation, we had really hoped . . . . I'm still hoping; I'm waiting for the announcement from the Premier and from this minister. I'm sure she's listening very intently at this moment. I'm waiting for an announcement from this minister and from that Premier that the money -- any money, any penny -- that will be gotten from a successful lawsuit will be channelled right back into the health care system to help patients and people with smoking-related diseases. Without that commitment, the NDP's legislation is just another desperate effort by the Premier and the NDP to bail itself out of its budget mess.

[2:45]

Tobacco is not illegal. It's a lifestyle choice, just like gambling. Gambling isn't illegal; it's a lifestyle choice. Again, I really struggle with the hypocrisy of this government where they say they're dealing with one addiction and they're at war with the tobacco industry. They seem to be at war with everybody these days. They're going to deal with one addiction -- cigarette smoking and tobacco addiction -- but they're going to expand another.

I know that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has been very passionate in this House talking about the ill effects of gambling on families, of that addiction on its social and health care costs. They have not put one penny into looking at the health costs of that addiction. I sincerely believe that it's government's role to recognize public health risk and to encourage and assist people in making healthy choices. If this minister and this Premier were serious about helping patients and people who have tobacco addiction, they would do some things about it.

But the Ministry of Health, through MSP, which is medicare, does not fund lifestyle counselling by practitioners. It specifically excludes smoking-cessation counselling as an MSP benefit. You'd think that if they were serious about helping people, maybe some of those kinds of courses or counselling sessions would be on medicare, but that's not on there.

The single most effective smoking-cessation strategy clinically is the application of transdermal nicotine replacement therapy, or the so-called patch. You may have heard of Nicoderm and Habitrol, to name a couple. But that's not covered by Pharmacare as a benefit. You'd think, if they were really serious about helping people stop the smoking and tobacco addiction, they might offer a couple of those kinds of patches on Pharmacare. But they're not there; they're not being funded.

The next most effective smoking-cessation strategy is the use of oral nicotine resins, or nicotine gum. You've probably heard of that. The stronger strength, which is required by most heavy smokers, is not covered by Pharmacare, either, and it requires a prescription. The weaker strength is also not a Pharmacare benefit, although you can get it over the counter. Hypnosis and acupuncture for smoking-cessation purposes -- guess what -- are not covered by medicare.

We know that smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death in our society. I would personally and vigorously support measures directed at reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in society. I would personally and very vigorously support strategies to help educate and help our children to choose healthy lifestyles.

What this government proposes is not a measure to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use in our society but rather to increase its share of profits from that industry. That's why

[ Page 6112 ]

I'm a little skeptical about the government's reasons for introducing this legislation. If they are serious about reducing the addiction and about helping people, they would find ways and programs for doing that.

I have serious reservations about that. If they were serious about their smoking strategy, they would bring forward Bill M203, the Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, which was introduced by one of their own members, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. They would bring that forward and support it. We would pass it, because what that bill does is forbid the sale of flavoured tobacco. We know that the companies out there are marketing this flavoured -- I think it's cherry- and strawberry-flavoured -- tobacco. They're trying to entice our children into buying it and to get addicted.

If they were serious, they would bring that bill forward. We would have passed it by now. But we haven't seen that in this House, either. So I have serious questions.

We've even heard the Premier; he's been on record as saying he thinks that if there are any lawsuits brought under this legislation, they're probably unlikely to succeed. Why is he saying this? Why are we bringing this bill forward in the House when he's saying that?

Notwithstanding those concerns, I have serious concerns about the implications of this bill and the precedent it sets for other litigants. There are concerns -- and we'll certainly raise them at committee stage -- with respect to the limitation period, issues of foreseeability and causation with respect to evidence, and restrictions placed on the court with respect to admissibility of evidence. These are all precedent-setting sections of the legislation.

I also have serious considerations about fiddling around with time-tested and legally challenged rules of evidence and the judiciary's impartial role in weighing and ruling on evidence in this bill. But we'll get into those in committee stage.

I think it's important that we do recognize that smoking is addictive. We need to make sure that we provide programs and a smoking strategy that deal with the health of British Columbians and with prevention and real strategies for real people -- not just looking at ways that the government can bring more money into their coffers and do with it what they will.

We hope to get a commitment by this government -- and perhaps the minister will listen now -- that any moneys that are recovered through any of these successful lawsuits will go directly back into the health care system, because that's the only way that we're going to ensure that diseases that impact on our health care system are then funded through our health care system. We need to help people make lifestyle choices. We need education strategies, we need counselling, and we need treatment strategies around those kinds of issues.

Hon. Speaker, I don't oppose the bill. I have serious concerns about the way the bill is written, and we will take up some of those in committee.

I'll let the member for Kamloops-North Thompson perhaps speak to a concern he's raised in the House many times. With that, I'll defer the rest of my concerns to committee stage.

K. Krueger: Who could disagree with people who bring harm upon society having to pay the cost of that harm? The government of British Columbia is proposing to set a precedent with this legislation. I've asked this minister in the estimates debate, and I ask her now: how will she deal with the precedent that she's setting when the very same argument is used against this NDP government, against the cabinet, that was in power at the time that the massive expansion of gambling was ordered and authorized and launched in British Columbia on March 13, 1997?

We know, when the minister has said from the throne speech on forward, that tobacco is a dangerous and addictive product; we also know that gambling venues offer dangerous and addictive products. There is a huge body of evidence throughout North America that the more venues that are available to people in which to gamble, the greater the prevalence of problem and pathological gambling in a jurisdiction. That's a fact.

I've produced many papers in this House, quoted from many journals, many articles -- all by people who would have no personal axe to grind with the industry were it not for the facts that they are duty-bound to present and that this government is duty-bound to pay attention to.

But it either hasn't done so or has deliberately chosen to go ahead with the dangerous expansion of gambling in the face of that evidence, putting even more onus on them and even more liability, I suggest, should this same pattern of thought and this same rationale be followed in future cases brought on by victims of gambling addiction -- the addicts themselves and their victims, and they are many.

The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry recently published an

article entitled "Diagnosis, Neurobiology and Treatment of Pathological Gambling." And there are a great many signatories . . . .

The Speaker: Member, excuse me. I'm going to just give you a caution. Will you take your seat for a moment, please. As you know, our practice in this chamber is to allow wide-ranging debate about the principle behind any given bill during second reading. If your comment, however, is going to be an extended dissertation on the subject of your very legitimate issue of gambling, then it is out of order. So I must ask you to please confine your remarks to this issue -- namely, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. I'll ask the member to please take that caution and compose his comments accordingly.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, I'll endeavour to do that. I'm sure that if I begin to stray, you'll alert me, because I have no desire to contravene your instructions.

The general point I'm trying to make on the principle of the bill is that if the principles that the Minister of Health was talking about are valid and hold, then those same principles will be discussed in some future legal proceeding, where this government will have to face up to the consequences of decisions that it's taken this very year.

The people who introduced the tobacco products to the consumers who have subsequently experienced health problems -- tobacco products on which this government and governments previous to it collected a wealth of taxes over the years -- doubtless didn't do so with the deliberate intention of killing their customers, but that's what the product has done. That's the point that the Health minister was making to us recently. So the Health minister feels, obviously, that British Columbia is entitled to recover for the expenses that have flowed from production of that product.

I'm endeavouring to make the point that it's irrational and, I think, irresponsible for this government, on the one hand, to make that argument and, on the other, to create a whole new class of problems, a whole new type of addict, a whole new preponderance of social costs and of grief within families.

We see that youth are susceptible to advertising and to what's supposed to be cool and what society pushes at them. The Health minister was making that point herself a few

[ Page 6113 ]

moments ago. Well, look at the advertising that this government does with regard to its gaming products: the Leslie Nielsen ads; the "I'm sorry, so sorry" ads that ridicule people for not buying the product; the "Hey, you never know," which you see on billboards all around the province. Surely, if the minister thinks that it's wrong for the tobacco industry to make its advertising exciting, glamorous and fun, as she just finished saying, then it's wrong for the government to be doing the same thing with products that are potentially dangerous and addictive, that are identified as dangerous and addictive.

Just the other day, MLAs throughout the lower mainland and Vancouver Island got a letter from a gentleman named Henry Jung, chartered accountant, general manager of Network Gaming International Corp., pressing his dangerous and addictive products and bragging about them. He actually says: "Our state-of-the-art and very user-friendly system for electronic hall bingo allows players to track up to 1,000 bingo cards automatically and increases players' spending three to four times over paper bingo play." Well, there we have it: exciting, glamorous and fun. Right?

This government and its agents are deliberately promoting something that is a dangerous and addictive product while bringing on this piece of legislation, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, wherein the government sets out to establish its right to engage in a lawsuit against another industry that's done the same thing in the past, according to this government -- and I agree with them. I agree that that's happened.

The experts that I began to quote a few moments ago -- and I won't take the time of the House to name them all because the

article is certainly available from me or from the library to anyone who wants it -- include PhDs and medical doctors. They say things like this: "Prevalence estimates of probable pathological gambling from state surveys range from 1.2 percent to 3.4 percent with increased rates in states that provide increased opportunity for legal gambling." Well, look what's been happening in British Columbia since March 13, 1997: betting limits increased 2,000 percent; an Employment and Investment minister who says he's going to net revenue of 1,800 percent more than he has in the past.

Well, this government and governments before it have been enjoying that type of revenue from tobacco for years. Does that make those governments complicit? Does that eventually make those governments, this government, co-defendants?

Hon. J. MacPhail: You just don't get it, as usual. The opposition doesn't get it.

[3:00]

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, the Health minister says that I just don't get it, as usual, and the opposition just doesn't get it, as usual. Frankly, that's the truth: I just don't get it. I can't understand why a government that purports to have a social conscience, that purports to care about the people of British Columbia, that purports to hold forth health care as one of the highest responsibilities of the provincial government, along with public security, just as we do -- those are two of our top three priorities as far as what this government should focus its programs and its spending on . . . .

That that government could turn around and launch a massive gambling expansion such as it has, knowing that there are tremendous negative effects for youth just as there have been with tobacco, just as the minister attempts to deal with in this legislation, but it kills people quicker . . . . The evidence suggests that it only takes between six and eight years for a full-blown gambling addiction to develop, and pathological gamblers tend to turn to crime to support their habit -- three out of four of them do. Pathological gamblers commit suicide more than any other type of addict.

The spouses of male pathological gamblers commit suicide, or attempt to, at triple the rate of the normal female population and have eight times the frequency of many very serious health ailments -- many of them stress-related because of the addiction in their families. So how in the world can the government of B.C. do something that exacerbates that problem -- indeed, that will exponentially increase those problems?

These experts, the doctors that I referred to earlier, go on to say that there is a generational factor to this. I don't think anyone says that about smoking. I hear that about alcohol addiction, but I don't think anyone says that about smoking. But these doctors say that female pathological gamblers are an understudied and underserved group, representing approximately one-third of pathological gamblers.

Interestingly, 14 percent of the female gamblers' fathers and 4 percent of their mothers were also pathological gamblers, as such familial influence may be an important predictor of the development of pathological gambling. So here we have an even greater danger to society than anyone seems to suggest flows with tobacco, in that there's a generational effect to this addiction.

I see the Health minister shaking her head. Once again, I don't understand why someone who I genuinely believe cares about the people of British Columbia and is genuinely concerned about the cost to our health care system of tobacco, alcohol, drugs -- and in her heart, I believe, of gambling as well -- has been willing to go along with the Premier and the Employment and Investment minister and vote in favour of this expansion when it's going to do the very type of destruction to society that she's concerned about in this act.

Then these doctors talk more about youth, and they say: "Pathological gambling among adolescents and young adults has been on the rise. Prevalence estimates of pathological gambling among high school students are as high as 5.7 percent." We already know that before the expansion in British Columbia we had a frequency of problem and pathological gambling of close to 4 percent of the population, and we know that the percentage will increase with the number of venues that are added -- and this government has thrown the number of venues wide-open.

There are tremendous concerns about this, and I suggest that this is a time, when the government is pouring its intellectual capacity into studying and promoting this bill and advancing the cause of this bill, for the government to have a sober second look at its gambling expansion plans. It's not too late to change those; it isn't legislation. In fact, there isn't adequate legislation dealing with gaming in British Columbia. It doesn't exist at all.

This government is flying by the seat of its pants on the issue, and it's incurring a tremendous social cost, and one that in the spirit of this bill and following the very thought process that has gone into Bill 37, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, I think it's incumbent upon this government and this Health minister to reconsider.

There are particularly negative effects on aboriginal populations of gambling addiction. There are also particularly negative effects on youth, and there's a particular proclivity amongst poverty-stricken groups to try and rise from their misery by turning to this pot at the end of the rainbow that gambling seems to represent.

[ Page 6114 ]

There are tremendous issues of child abuse and child abandonment, of spousal abuse, of suicide, of people dying because of the addictions that flow from this dangerous and addictive product.

The Speaker: Member, excuse me. I'm going to interrupt you again. I advised you of what the rules were, and I'm certainly prepared to acknowledge that you can indeed make comparisons for illustrative purposes, and that's fine. However, it seems that you are talking about something quite different from this act, and I must remind you to please make the focus this particular piece of legislation. I think you owe that to the rules of the House, member, and I hope I don't have to interrupt you again.

K. Krueger: It's not only possible to anticipate, but I've already seen a draft of it being done. One could take the word "tobacco" out of the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act and bring on one very similar called the "Gambling Damages Recovery Act," and the principles would be very much the same.

I'm going to wrap up shortly, in fear that I am trying your patience. But I feel a responsibility to ensure that this government realizes that it has set the framework for victims of gambling addiction to come back to the government's partners in gambling, and the government itself, for redress for a host of very serious issues that are going to flow as a result of gambling expansion. Indeed, the gates are already open; those things are already happening in British Columbia.

So I join with my colleague from Okanagan East in admonishing this government to be responsible in these matters. If it's wrong for tobacco industries to flog their dangerous and addictive product and hurt people as a result, then it's wrong for an NDP government to flog gambling and hurt people as a result.

It's not too late to reconsider, and I urge them to do that, no less so than I would if they were pushing drugs; no less so than I would support this move to hold people to account for the damage that their products have caused to our health care system and to our society and to many of the people who look to us and trust us, as 75 elected individuals who are responsible for looking after the interests of four million people and the interests of future generations -- and indeed of our whole society and this beautiful province.

It's wrong that people produce products that hurt the citizens of British Columbia, and it's even more wrong for governments to produce products that do so. I put that to the Health minister in good faith, and I hope that she will consider it.

M. Sihota: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Sihota: Just while that debate was going on, I noticed Mr. Sundher and Mr. Manek walking into the chamber, both educators in this province. I know a little bit about tobacco and gaming, but that's another story we'll talk about somewhere else, except to say that it's probably in the wrong chamber, because Education estimates are just down the street in the Douglas Fir Room. But I'd love to invite them to come downstairs and have a cup of coffee, after all members give them a warm welcome.

A. Sanders: I'd like to rise to address Bill 37, the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act. Tobacco has been one of those substances that's been around as long as we've been in North America. We brought North America the smallpox virus from Europe and brought back tobacco in the other direction. I don't know which was the worst of ways, but it's been an addiction that has been in North American society and transmitted all over the world.

There is nothing as addictive as tobacco. I have worked with a number of people on various addictions, and I can assure the Speaker that tobacco addiction is one of the most serious and difficult addictions to overcome. There doesn't appear to be an age at which this becomes the case. It is something that can become the case almost as soon as someone starts utilizing the substance.

However, I think the main issue of Bill 37 is really to delineate whether government is introducing this particular bill for the benefit of reducing the prevalence of tobacco use in society or whether, in fact, it is to increase their share of the profits from the industry. I think that really is the thesis of the entire argument, and the illustrious points around what it would do in order to combat tobacco in the face of young people using it is a moot point, I think.

If we look at tobacco illness, it does have a tremendous morbidity and mortality, and in terms of health care dollars, it is often the morbidity that is more important. In other words, those people who die from tobacco use, and do it quickly, probably save the health care system money. It is, unfortunately, those who suffer from the sequelae -- the consequences of years and years of smoking behaviour and the pathology they manifest, having done so -- that cause us the health care dollars.

I would very much like to see all the money raised through legislation such as the Tobacco Damages Recovery Act not go into general revenue but in fact go into health care. I think that if we had an instance of that kind of planning, we would find very few problems in terms of funding the health care that we all wish to maintain.

Like my colleague from Okanagan West, I'd like to mention my concern about the parallels between the use of metaphor concerning tobacco smoking and the other addictions that we as government purport to carry forward -- one being the selling of alcohol and the second, of course, being the increasingly massive gambling expansion within British Columbia. The minister again mentioned the metaphor of excitement, glamour and fun -- how smoking captures young victims with advertisements of excitement, glamour and fun -- and how this was certainly a problem, yet we do that with both of the other substances I mentioned.

I am very interested in the member for Kamloops-North Thompson saying that in a few years we could take Bill 37 and just change the name to "Alcohol Damages Recovery Act" or "Gambling Damages Recovery Act." The parallels are very profound. You wouldn't even have to write another bill. You could just use that as the prototype for all three pieces of legislation.

The sequelae of long years of smoking are heart attack, stroke and cancer. Both of these diseases are causes of early preventable deaths in both men and women, but I think the other two that we've mentioned -- gambling and alcohol consumption -- are also possibilities. Parallels need to be drawn between whether the actions of government here are for the purposes of reducing the prevalence of addictive substances or just to increase government's share of profits in every industry, because we have a government that cannot manage its books and the finances of British Columbia.

[ Page 6115 ]

What we looked at, if we're looking at preventive measures . . . . Again, this was discussed by the Health critic. If we are looking at tobacco, the most important measure is prevention. Prevention means putting money into those areas that would discontinue, stop or prevent people from smoking at all. The second preventive measure would be that of moderating activity, so that those individual who do in fact smoke cigarettes would have available substances that could moderate, decrease and hopefully cessate their behaviour.

Nicorette is one that very commonly does help, along with the nicotine patches and other smoking-cessation methods. Most British Columbians don't realize that when they go to their family doctors to get information on quitting smoking, the government does not fund that information. In other words, the family physician or health care worker in any other way is not able to give that information to the patient under the British Columbia MSP billing situation.

This is probably one of the areas where we have the most opportunity to stop smoking. In one-on-one contact with patients, at any level in the health care system, giving information on quitting smoking would be far more advantageous in terms of dollars spent than anything else we could do, yet none of these services are funded. Nor is hypnosis or acupuncture funded, or several other ways that people can help to get rid of cigarette smoking in their lives.

[3:15]

We need to look at the standard of behaviour, and we need to recognize that there is a double standard here with the introduction of Bill 37. There is the standard that we as government are doing something good for patients, when really what we're doing is something good for government. I would truly like to see that we had legislation that is focused on patients, focused on getting rid of addiction substances and on helping those who have problems with addiction to tobacco. Unfortunately, this bill falls far short of any of those scenarios.

I will support this bill mostly because I think there is some good that can come out of it, but I will make it one of my personal interests to follow whether the money raised from the legislation in fact goes anywhere near health care or whether it goes into the large NDP funnel of trying to pay back all the things in our province that have been managed poorly.

R. Thorpe: I'll be brief in my comments here today. With respect to this bill, the most concerning thing to me is that it's not about health. It's about cash. That's the disturbing issue, because British Columbians have entrusted billions and billions of dollars to this government, and on two occasions they have not been told the truth about the budgets.

The balanced budgets that British Columbians were promised did not happen, and huge deficits did happen. This government is in a tremendous cash crunch, and when one cash grab fails, they move to another one. That's what they are doing here -- make no mistake about it. It's fashionable in the United States, and as we know, they get advice from the gurus there, so it must therefore be fashionable to do in British Columbia. That's what this government has chosen to do.

Also, as some people may have noticed -- we on the official opposition side certainly have -- the word of this session is "war." If it moves, the NDP government wants to have war with it. Now the latest target of war is the tobacco companies, because somebody in the States made a deal, and the Premier and the Health minister -- probably being concerned about her future and trying to get some finances in place for perhaps the next role -- are now mounting this war.

The fact of the matter is that this government takes out of the pockets of British Columbians $500 million a year for cigarette tax -- the second-highest in Canada -- and then they have the audacity to stand in this House and tell us they are concerned about people's health care.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: They are telling us . . . . And perhaps the member over there could just listen for a bit. When that member speaks, we usually try to listen attentively, because we never know what she's going to say . . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You got that right.

This government takes in $500 million, and the minister stands in this House today and says how proud she is that they are going to double their commitment to stop smoking. That is now going to go to $3 million -- less than 1 percent. That is not a commitment to health care. That is not a gesture that shows they are concerned with the young people. It's just not.

Tobacco is a cash cow for this government. As I said earlier, it's about this government going to war with anything that moves. It's about this government, primarily the Premier, trying to get someone on the other side of the table so he can make his deal of the day or his deal of the week: "What is going on? We need our juice; we need a deal." It's about grabbing the cash, and that is wrong.

Then we see, to help fix the Premier's sagging image -- his much-warranted image, I might also add -- the Ministry of Health gets onside and writes this intimidating, aggressive, big-bad-bully letter and just happens to have it published in the Vancouver Sun so that we can show everybody in British Columbia how tough we are, how scandalous some of these people are.

Yet this government has no problem taking $500 million while putting back a mere $1.5 million to assist people who may have an addiction to tobacco problem. This is not a government that's concerned about health care.

Of course, they use threats. It's my understanding that this government has not yet even had the courtesy to sit down with the tobacco companies and see if there is an opportunity to work together to resolve the problems of the young people being addicted at an early age to cigarette smoking, or being attracted to cigarette smoking. As a former smoker, I personally had no problem shaking the smoking habit, but I understand other people do have some difficulty.

I guess my concern is that when this minister claims -- I'd better just get the words here, correctly -- "evidence of wrongdoing, improprieties by the industry; that is shocking," I would like to suggest that that is just posturing. That is just trying to give the image that we're fighting all evil -- this NDP government against the world. Because I'm sure -- no, I'm not sure, actually, now that I think about it -- that this minister is probably not aware that there was an independent study commissioned by the federal Department of Health two years ago that said cigarette companies in Canada were not tinkering with nicotine levels. The federal Minister of Health had to apologize.

Also, I believe this minister and her government have alluded that the companies may be putting something into the tobacco. If in fact that is true, we all know that is wrong. But

[ Page 6116 ]

I'm not so sure that the minister is aware that the tobacco companies in Canada have to come clean on what they put in their cigarettes. I asked the minister if she was aware that under federal law, the tobacco companies must report all ingredients to Health Canada every three months. Those lists are publicly available.

But no, we don't get that side of the story, because we want to make sure they're seen as bad, evil people so the government can scoop the cash and put it in general revenue. If this was a government concerned with health care, they would be directing the money to health care . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: . . . not into general revenue in the hope that the new Finance minister can have a huge, new cash grab.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Harry, you're in the wrong seat. I'm sorry, my impetuosity carried me away. But, Yale-Lillooet, in your seat next time.

Sorry, Okanagan-Penticton. Please continue.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You do have the opportunity, when you sit in that chair, to say what many of us would like to say from time to time to the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.

I've heard -- and I would ask the minister to confirm or deny this -- that in British Columbia we want to model our system under what the minister, I'm led to believe, has said are some of the successes of California and Massachusetts. That's what I've been told that the minister said. Well, I trust -- before we go much further -- that the minister in fact does her homework on what's happening in those two states with respect to smoking and does not just throw out the rhetoric to win the war. Some of the very people . . . .

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: There can't be many more people left for the NDP government to declare war on, Mr. Speaker. I know it's hard, and I can understand why you're rubbing your head because of the noise that's taking place over there. I'll see if I have any Excedrin in here and send them over to you.

Very, very seriously -- this is a serious issue -- I urge this government to listen to the constructive solutions that we're putting forward. If you are concerned, you have an opportunity to show British Columbians that it's not the cash you're after. I know it's going to be hard for you, but show the people. Don't show them the cash, because you've got enough of it. Show them that you're concerned about health, that you're going to take whatever money you may or may not get from what I understand could be lengthy and costly litigation in Canada. I'm sure you'll make those decisions. You may make some for the wrong reasons.

My colleagues from Okanagan West, Okanagan-Vernon and Kamloops-North Thompson have made some very constructive suggestions to you today, hon. minister. Hon. Speaker, if this minister is concerned about helping young people who may have addictions or who need assistance in getting away from this product, spending a measly $3 million when you are taking in $500 million is a crime, one that you should not trumpet but one that you should hide from. Take this money and put some meaningful resources into it, and stop attacking everyone. Stop all the wars.

I trust that this minister would look to what some other very prominent people in Canada are saying -- elected people. In fact, today, by coincidence, I note that the Premier of Alberta is quoted in the Vancouver Sun with respect to this very subject.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Try to listen. I quote: "I do think it somewhat hypocritical for governments to continue to collect very, very healthy and generous taxes from the tobacco industry and at the same time sue the same industry that provides that cash." One of the questions that is going to be asked is: who are you going to go after next in your grab for cash? Grab for cash -- that's what it's all about. You know it and we know it.

I urge this government and some of its members to stop declaring war on everyone. Get people to the table, stop the rhetoric and build real solutions for real people who have real problems.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

G. Wilson: In speaking to Bill 37, I'd like to direct my remarks very specifically to the principle of what we're dealing with here. I think this is going to be a very important bill with respect to the way that jurisdictions, not just this one but other jurisdictions in North America, Canada in particular, are going to look at how we deal with the recovery of rising health care costs as a result of tobacco addiction.

I think it is an interesting approach that the government has taken, on the surface. What the bill essentially says is that the government is able to recover some or all of the costs associated with illness that is created as a result of somebody who has been addicted to smoking. On the surface, one would argue, you know, that that doesn't sound like an unfair proposition. However, I think we have to think this through a little bit with respect to what that means in terms of our direct approach to public policy.

At some point, I think that the company -- if you read the case history, and having gone through the case history . . . . For those people that are paying attention to this debate, the companies' defence is that while they may reluctantly now admit -- what they have steadfastly refused to admit, up until very recently -- that tobacco is indeed an addictive substance, or at least that their cigarettes are and the content that they put into the cigarettes that is added to the tobacco . . . . Their argument is that people aren't forced to smoke. Nobody's forcing you to pick up a pack of cigarettes, and nobody therefore is forcing you to smoke.

Their argument has been that therefore people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Being responsible for their own actions, if they choose to smoke -- if it's a choice -- means that if they become sick as a result of making that choice, then that's something that at a minimum they have to have shared liability and responsibility for, and at the optimum, from the company's point of view, the company should be absolved from.

The difficulty with that argument when it's advanced -- and certainly in terms of the broad principle one might argue: "Yes, we are all, each of us, responsible for the choices we make" -- is the fact that companies have deliberately targeted people with respect to the promotion of their product.

Sec-

[ Page 6117 ]

ondly, it would appear, according to information that is now coming out of court rulings, predominately in the United States, that they've even added substances that make cigarettes even more addictive than they ordinarily would be.

[3:30]

At that point you have to step beyond the everybody-is-responsible-for-their-actions argument and really start to address some of the root issues that are involved with respect to the provision of addictive substances in the marketplace and ask whether or not those people who directly contribute to a person's addiction should not hold some liability for that addiction. To that extent, frankly, the analogy that was drawn by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson is an accurate one.

It doesn't matter what the addiction is, whether it's smoking, drinking, gambling or whatever, people who become addicted first of all need assistance in combatting the addiction, and secondly, if there are any ill effects as a result of it, have to be treated. Those are costly to society as a whole.

Purists would argue in this debate that if we're going to look at that argument, then the obvious thing for government to do is to make cigarettes illegal, to just say: "This is a detriment to society, this is a huge cost to health care, and therefore we are simply going to make cigarette smoking illegal in Canada and close it down, shut the industry out and say that that's the decision that has been taken."

There are two problems with that approach. First of all, there is a long history of legality with respect to tobacco; and secondly, it would be almost impossible to enforce. Thirdly, I suppose -- if you added a corollary to that argument -- is that people who are already addicted are already in the system, so we still have those costs incurred to government, even if we were to say: "All right, from this point forward there will be no more cigarettes sold." Those purists take a simplistic view in that to alleviate our problems, all we have to do is simply make the substance illegal and somehow it's all going to go away. I don't think that's the case.

We come back, then, to the root of the defence that the companies have taken with respect to this question. They suggest that each of us is certainly responsible for our own actions. Frankly, I don't disagree with that. All of us have to take responsibility for what we do. For those of us who choose to smoke, that is a choice that is made.

I should say, by way of a disclaimer, that I've never been a smoker, so I don't know what it's like to be addicted to cigarettes. I made the choice early on that it was foul. I didn't like it. Even though I was under considerable pressure to start, I could never tolerate it, so I didn't choose to start. From that point of view, I can't speak from the position of somebody who has been addicted to the substance and then tried to get off it, unlike the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who found it reasonably easy to quit. I did, however, have two parents who both smoked, and I found it enormously disruptive.

They eventually combatted it and got off it, but it wasn't until -- in the case of my father -- there was an issue with respect to health.

The real kicker comes when you realize that this addicting yourself to tobacco does have an immediate and direct effect on your health, and that is a real incentive to get off tobacco. At that point, I suppose we wade into a very complex and very difficult set of legalistic arguments, which, speaking to the principle of this bill, gets us into a bit of a quagmire. How is it possible to determine why a person starts smoking? It is impossible to note whether or not they start as a youth because they are under peer pressure. Do they start because they have been lured by seductive advertising?

Do they start because they are under stress? Or, as is the case of people living in British Columbia today, did they start because they were recommended to start by physicians? What people do not know is that it wasn't too, too many years ago that doctors -- practising physicians -- actually prescribed smoking as a cure for certain nervous disorders and those sorts of things -- "Well, take up cigarette smoking" -- because it was considered to be a drug of sorts that would be able to provide some minimal cure for that condition.

We have come a long way as a society in recognizing the evils of addicting yourself to tobacco. For those people who would try to argue the principle that we're each responsible for our own action and therefore the government has no right to wade in and try to reclaim revenue from the company to offset the cost of this addictive substance . . . . They simply try to march us into such a complex and difficult argument, on principle, that it almost becomes impossible to regulate.

That leaves the direction that the government has taken. That is, we need to serve notice to the companies that if they are going to market addictive substances -- in this case tobacco -- the government is going to seek to recover costs associated with the health costs that are related to people who become sick -- or in this case "injured" is the definition in the act -- as a result of people's addiction to smoking.

From this point of view, and as somebody who has always steadfastly said that government should not wade into the lives of individuals and should be extremely careful about trying to be the "super-parent" to people -- if you can accept that concept -- and that people have to be responsible for their own actions, I can see the benefit to going in this direction.

It strikes me that what we're really attempting to do is to not absolve people of the actions that they have taken with respect to the cost. We're not saying: "Okay, go ahead and willy-nilly smoke; we'll simply try to recover the cost when you become sick." What we're hearing from the minister and what we're seeing from other statutes that are in this Legislature -- and have been in previous sessions past -- is that we are now, as a society, genuinely trying to put efforts in place to restrict people from starting.

That is the key: to get it in people's heads, especially young people, that this lure of getting addicted to tobacco is something that they must, above all, try to resist. That is beneficial.

There has been some hardship with respect to this policy, because as we know, tobacco companies have historically supported the arts, they've supported sporting events, they've supported a lot of things in society and have poured a lot of money into society in an attempt to be seen as a "good corporate citizen."

But the facts of the matter are absolutely indisputable. The fact is that (

a) tobacco is addictive, and cigarettes are addictive, (

b) they are harmful to your health, and (

c) the rising costs of health care as a result of that addiction is something that society is now finding overwhelming and must try to deal with.

On the principles that I've outlined in this bill . . . . What I've done is attempted to try to trace my line of thinking in terms of whether or not this is good public policy or not, recognizing that there must be the right of an individual to make choices and that individuals must be responsible for the choices they make. I can accept the fact that in this case, in the case of tobacco and cigarettes, we must at this point move forward and take some action and put the companies on notice that there will be an effort made to recover costs associated with the addictiveness of their product.

[ Page 6118 ]

I hope that those who might hear or read this . . . . A number of people have approached me and said: "How can you support a bill that effectively says we are eliminating a person's responsibility or individual responsibility with respect to that choice?" I hope that the line of argument that I've presented is helpful to those who would now accept -- or at least understand, if they don't accept -- why I can support this bill.

It is important, notwithstanding the fact that each of us is indeed responsible for our own actions, that we also have to recognize that there are other factors out there that make it very, very important that we now take seriously the addictive nature of cigarette smoking -- the direct physical cost to those people who are addicted and more broadly speaking, the financial costs that are borne by all of us as a result of those addictions.

So with that said, in second reading, hon. Speaker, I stand in support of this bill. I think it is a different approach with respect to public policy; it's one that is, no question, going to be a landmark with respect to how governments are going to start to deal with some of these larger and broader social issues with respect to health care costs. I think it will be interesting to see how this progresses and, if it is challenged -- and it likely may be challenged in a court of law -- how judges would read this bill in terms of the individual right of a corporation and also, more importantly, the right of government to act on behalf of all society.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Health, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I very much appreciate the debate that's occurred in the House. I must say there are times when I disagree vehemently with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and this is not one of them. In fact, this is one time when I have actually listened with a great deal of intent and made some notes, because the arguments put forward by him are, to say the least, compassionate. The arguments put forward are actually what this government is trying to achieve in dealing in a compassionate but responsible way with the very, very serious health issue here. So it's not often that we do this, but I'd like to say thank you to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Having said that, I am extremely disappointed in the Liberal opposition and the position that they have taken on this. Let me tell you why.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, you know, I actually think it's time that they actually listened. As has been articulated by some members opposite, this is a health issue. It is, without question the most important health issue facing British Columbians. Anyone who suggests that there is another health issue that in any way begins to approach the serious nature of this health issue does not understand in any way the addictive and destructive nature of tobacco. Frankly, I think it is irresponsible for any member to suggest that there is another health issue in this province that in any way approaches the damage done by tobacco.

I heard the members opposite from the Liberal opposition support big business once again. They supported the tobacco companies. In fact, the member for Okanagan-Penticton was, I think, reading from the tobacco company propaganda. It actually stunned me that any politician would be silly enough to rise and use those same arguments that the tobacco companies . . . . But you know what? I think maybe their words will come back to haunt them -- I actually do -- when the public gets hold of what the Liberal opposition position has been on this.

They supported big business in the form of tobacco companies. They supported big business again -- as with the pharmaceutical companies -- in their arguments against this bill. But you know what? I'll tell you something. It's very interesting that they've added a new twist to their support of big business. What they have said is: "NDP government, please don't in any way hold big business accountable for their costs to society. But while you're not holding them accountable, please spend a whole bunch more tax dollars" -- big spenders, the Liberals opposite -- "to let big business off the hook." It really was stunning.

[3:45]

There was a litany of increased tax expenditures from the member for . . . . Okanagan West, is it? Well, Okanagan West had a litany of more and more expenditures: "Spend more! Spend more tax dollars so that the tobacco companies are not held accountable."

Let's talk about who actually is paying the health care costs, because this goes to the nub of the problem that the members from the Liberal Party opposite simply don't understand. There is $480 million of tax money raised from tobacco products -- $480 million -- and do you know who pays that? It's the same people who are addicted to and being harmed by the product. It is the most cruel of all possible aspects of this issue. And they don't understand it. I wish they could actually set aside their partisanship in order to understand this issue.

The same people who have been manipulated and lied to by the tobacco companies are paying the $480 million, and they're paying it to look after their own illnesses.

They are paying to die. It is as simple as that. People in British Columbia are paying taxes to die, and somehow these members opposite do not understand the seriousness of this health care issue.

Our government is on record saying that this is a health issue. If we could eliminate the death and the carnage associated with tobacco use, we would gladly not collect another nickel of revenue in tobacco taxes. And you know what? They simply don't understand that.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I must tell you that the members opposite actually would hold our government accountable for the weakness of their federal fathers.

I heard a member there saying: "Well, why don't you ban it?" We have done that; we actually have done that in every possible area that we have jurisdiction over. We have the strongest tobacco prohibition laws against the sale of tobacco to minors. Now, if we actually wanted to make the product illegal, I hope the members opposite would rise up and demand of the Prime Minister of Canada to make the product illegal.

But they'd be hard-pressed to do that at the same time as defending the tobacco companies. It would be what I would call a mixed message: "Please, don't attack the tobacco companies and make them accountable. But could you make the product illegal, Mr. Prime Minister?" You know, I think they'd actually

[ Page 6119 ]

have to caucus on that. I don't think they'd be allowed a free vote on that, do you? I think they'd actually have to make a decision. I think they'd actually have to get together and figure out a strategy on how to attack this issue.

This is a health issue of serious proportions that I think has probably affected every family in British Columbia -- 5,800 people die every year. Twenty kids a day take up smoking. Your daughters and your sons are taking up smoking every day, and they're not doing that because they have a choice.

I fully accept what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said about our having to be held accountable for ourselves. But I'll tell you that when you're a 12-year-old girl and you're being bombarded with advertising and propaganda, and where there is evidence over and over again that that's what the tobacco companies do -- they target kids, they target girls . . . . When you're being bombarded every single day to make a choice to start to smoke, I would say that a 12-year-old girl can't be held accountable for falling prey to that kind of propaganda.

We have asked the tobacco companies three simple things. One is to stop targeting our kids. You know, for anyone to stand up in this House and defend the tobacco companies, saying that they don't do that, is to really contribute to these massive, horrendous health outcomes themselves.

The other thing that we've asked the tobacco companies to do is to list what they actually have contained in their products.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: And one member stands up again and defends the tobacco companies and says: "They've done that." Well, they haven't. Their parent companies in the United States have done it; the same parent companies that have little subsidiary companies here have actually done that, but the Canadian companies have not.

The last thing we've done, in order to avoid the use of this legislation, is say: "Pay your share of the health care costs, tobacco companies. Don't make the victims pay." The victims are already paying. They're paying $480 million a year. They're paying.

We're just saying to tobacco companies: "Stop making your huge profits." It was interesting to note last week that . . . . I think it was R.J.

Reynolds that, at a shareholders meeting, said two things: "We're making unprecedented profits, and oh, by the way, we're not going to pay one red nickel, and we'll use all of your shareholder profits to fight any government in court that tries to make us accountable for our health care costs." Boy, that was an interesting message: "We get massive rising profits from this horrible product, and by the way, don't you dare hold us accountable for our product." That's what they said to the shareholders and that's what they're saying to every single British Columbian.

So it does take our government, I guess, to go to war. I guess it does take us to go to war and stand up for the health of British Columbians against the tobacco companies. If we have to go to war without the Liberal opposition, so be it. We're getting used to it, quite frankly. We're absolutely getting used to having to defend the interests of British Columbians in spite of the Liberal members opposite.

Second reading of Bill 37 approved unanimously on division. [See Votes and Proceedings. ]

[4:00]

Bill 37, Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 52, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997.

VANCOUVER CHARTER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Bill 52 is the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act that deals with a particularly specific and pressing issue in the city of Vancouver. It is an amendment that will give the city of Vancouver, through the amendment to the Vancouver Charter, the authority to regulate the conversion and demolition of single-room accommodations within the city of Vancouver.

This piece of legislation has come about because of a request by the city of Vancouver. It is not a piece of legislation that has been driven forward by the province. It's come about through a request by the city of Vancouver and by working with the staff of the city of Vancouver and within the ministry to develop a piece of legislation that will address the issue of conversion and demolition of single-room accommodation within the city of Vancouver.

As all of us know, the city of Vancouver -- indeed, the lower mainland and the province, but particularly in the area of housing -- is undergoing great, enormous changes these days. Over the last few years we've seen an explosion in the population. We've seen all different kinds of demographic changes take place. Nowhere has this had a greater impact than on the downtown east side. We have seen the rise of brand-new condo buildings in the west end of Vancouver. We've seen the demographic change in terms of a large Asian population on the west side of Vancouver.

We are seeing gentrification take place on the east side of Vancouver around Grandview, Woodlands, Commercial Drive -- all kinds of changes taking place.

In some of these areas it has involved new people moving in and old people moving out to other parts of the lower mainland. We've seen an exodus in some ways, if you like, as a result of falling interest rates, where young families have moved out of the city of Vancouver to take advantage of cheaper land prices and cheaper housing prices in the Fraser Valley. That's resulted in a huge growth in population in those areas, as my own constituency of Port Coquitlam can well attest. We've seen a 25 percent jump in our population over the last five years.

What we've seen are demographic forces at work, market forces at work and change taking place. For many people, they're able to adapt to that change and they're able to cope with that change. But there are neighbourhoods within the city of Vancouver -- and they also occur to a lesser extent in different communities in the province like Victoria, Prince George, Kamloops, New Westminster; in general, the older settlements in the province -- around single-room occupancy hotels for people in the downtown east side who have nowhere else to go. They're on social assistance; they have substance abuse problems.

There are all kinds of social problems that they're dealing with. There's a strong community there because the people need a good support network; they

[ Page 6120 ]

need access to services. These services have developed and grown in the downtown east side to provide a support network for the community that lives there.

What's happening is we're seeing increasing pressure on neighbourhoods like the downtown east side as gentrification takes place -- as this dramatic change within the city of Vancouver takes place. Forces and pressures that were always in different parts of the city are now encroaching on their home -- on the area, the neighbourhood that they traditionally call home -- on their community. It's a community that's poor in terms of financial dollars, but it is a rich community in terms of support, looking out for each other and trying to hold on to a sense of what it is they've got.

Key to that are the rooming hotels. More and more this stock of housing has been depleted. We're seeing it under greater pressure as it's being looked at to be sold off to be converted into either high-income condominiums or to make way for new developments. So the city of Vancouver needs tools to deal with this problem.

What they've requested is an amendment to the charter that will allow them to regulate the conversion and demolition, so that they can accomplish a number of things. They can take stock of what's available, what type of accommodation is there now. They can say to the development community: "We know that change is going to take place; we know that this is not going to be a static neighbourhood; we know that there is change in the works, but we want to be able to regulate it.

We want to be able to manage it; we want to be able to control it so that we can ensure that the primary interest -- which is the residents and the needs of the residents of the downtown east side -- can be protected; so that we can ensure that if housing stock is taken out, demolished or is replaced, we can make sure that either an equal number of rooms is put back in or more rooms are put back in, more units are made available; so that we can say that we understand why you may want to redevelop a particular piece of property, but we want to make sure that the interests of the people who are currently residing there are looked after and are protected -- and are recognized as such." A lot of people seem to think that all you have to do is build units.

That's not necessarily the right thing. Single-room accommodation is an important component of the residential housing stock in the downtown east side, and it needs special measures to protect it.

The city has indicated to us what those measures are, what powers they want, and we've responded by agreeing to that request through this legislation. Some people have said: "Oh, you know, the world is going to end by introducing this legislation. There's going to be massive . . . .

The city is going to act like Big Brother and all of a sudden clamp down on everything." What the city has committed to is putting in place a process, once this legislation is introduced, to go out and to talk with developers, with residents associations, with neighbourhood groups and community groups, and to look at where this legislation may be most applicably applied -- whether it be just the downtown east side, whether it be in other neighbourhoods within the city of Vancouver -- and after having once gone through an extensive consultation process, to bring forward a municipal bylaw that will deal with the priorities that they've been able to identify in discussions with people in the community, with community groups, with housing groups, with the development community, with the hotel owners.

That's a very important step, because this piece of legislation is an enabling piece of legislation. It is giving the authority to the city of Vancouver. It's not saying: "Thou shalt do this, or thou must do that." It's saying: "Here are some broad powers that we believe that you can exercise responsibly in ensuring the preservation and ensuring the control over the responsible renovation and change in an important neighbourhood within the city of Vancouver."

This piece of legislation is not going to solve all the problems either for the downtown east side or for housing in Vancouver. It's part and parcel of an overall long-term strategy, it's part and parcel of an overall long-term thrust, of which all three levels of government have a role to play. Unfortunately, some levels of government . . . . One level of government, in particular, seems to want to vacate the field and abandon the traditional role as a provider of housing and shelter in this country and in this province, and that's the federal government.

They have abandoned their role as a builder of housing in our communities and in our province. They've abandoned that role, and it's a role that the poorest in our communities counted on. It's a role that those who are most in need counted on. They have abandoned it, for whatever reason. They've left it to communities and to the provinces to pick up the pieces.

You know, this province has picked up and carried forward the mantle of responsibility. That's why I'm proud that this ministry, this government, is building more units of housing than any other province in this country. In fact, we are one of two provinces in this country that are still building housing for those in need. Last year we built over 600 units, and I expect soon to be able to make an announcement on the number of units we'll be able to build for this year.

But those units -- while important and while fulfilling an important need -- don't solve the whole problem either, because the demand is greater than what we're able to build at this time, what we're able to afford. The cities, the local governments, have important roles to play, and they recognize that. I give them full credit for that. Just yesterday, I attended, along with my colleagues from Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Burrard, the groundbreaking ceremony of the new Portland Hotel, in which the city wrote down the value of the land by 41 percent to enable a project that will provide 86 new units to be built.

So they've recognized their responsibility, and they recognized it when they made the request of the province for this legislation. Because they know that if they don't have these powers, they know that if they don't act now, over the next few years the pressure on single-room occupancy accommodation in the city of Vancouver is going to be ferocious. It's going to be ferocious in the same way that it was during Expo, when we witnessed the demolition of three-storey walk-up apartments in Kerrisdale and in the affordable neighbourhoods of the city of Vancouver.

We saw people displaced from long-term residences where they had lived for many, many years, and there was nowhere else for them to go. At that time, the tools that the city required weren't in place, and the political will wasn't in place, to stop that or to ensure that there was an alternative for people to go to, that there was an affordable housing supply to go to.

So we're saying today: "We know change is coming, and we want to manage it. We want to ensure that the interests of the people of those neighbourhoods and of those communities are protected, that we recognize their interests, their needs, their wishes and their desires first have to be taken into account." This piece of legislation will do that. This piece of legislation is a valuable tool to the city of Vancouver, and it's one that I'm proud to stand here and introduce. I look forward

[ Page 6121 ]

to the comments of the members opposite and of all members of this House, and I look forward to the support of all members in this House.

R. Coleman: Thank you to the minister for his opening remarks. My first remark today would be that everything that we do in any marketplace, housing in particular, has an impact. If we remove one thing out of a marketplace, something always pushes back. This is particularly the case in the situation with SROs. SROs in Vancouver are not the only SRO issue in this province. There are SRO issues in Burnaby, New Westminster, Kelowna, Victoria and Kamloops and other jurisdictions. The unfortunate thing about this piece of legislation . . . .

First of all, it only deals with amendments to the Vancouver Charter and doesn't bring in legislation that deals with SROs across the province. Because at some point in time, we're going to have to deal with the entire marketplace and the entire concern that we have for that marketplace.

The other unfortunate thing is that it is July 1997, and this government was elected in 1991. In the last six years, we've seen 400 SROs per year disappear; 400 units per year have disappeared out of the Vancouver marketplace in each year that this government has been in power. We've lost somewhere around 2,400 single-room occupancy units in the last six years. In actual fact, that's not good because we are left today with about 6,000 SROs in Vancouver, which is not the number that we require in order to meet the needs of the people of our province.

Beginning in the 1970s, we saw a lot of urban renewal take place across North America. That urban renewal had a serious impact on a variety of areas, particularly on single-room occupancies in major centres. It was recognized -- as we went through this in various cities and various areas, as we changed bylaws and as we tried to flex and come to grips with this particular problem -- that there had to be something done. If you look at the urban centres across North America, the protection of SROs is directly related to the number of people on the street that are homeless.

That's why it is important that we have bylaws and we have controls with protection of SROs. This step forward with the city of Vancouver is vitally important for only one jurisdiction in the province, but it is important.

[4:15]

I can give you some examples. In the 1970s, the city of New York lost 30,385 units -- which was 60 percent of its housing stock in 160 buildings -- because of urban renewal. That has happened in various jurisdictions across North America, including our own particular province as well.

I think it's very important that we realize that that affects . . . . We saw that effect during Expo 86 -- as the minister has reflected -- on some of the demolition and changes that took place in the city of Vancouver, and we're seeing it today with some of the urgency some people have to want to redevelop sites which are SROs in Vancouver. We have to come to that particular balance between the ownership and property rights of the people that own the property and the ability to have an alternative use if the particular building is not suitable for occupancy.

One of the concerns with the bylaw -- and I'm sure the city of Vancouver will go through this as they go through their public process -- will obviously be to ensure that this balance is there between the property owner and the building itself.

The one thing I'd hate to see is us coming out with legislation and a bylaw in a municipality that actually discouraged people from maintaining their product, so they let it run down to the point where there's a forced demolition or forced loss of stock and we get into this process of having to contribute back into a fund for the reproduction of stock. I'll get into the reproduction of stock in a minute, because that is one of the critical areas that the minister and I discussed in the Housing estimates with regards to housing, in particular the SROs: how we're going to replace this stock to meet the needs of the marketplace in the future.

One of the comments the minister made is that we are one of the few jurisdictions that is still building housing as a housing program -- social housing -- in our province. That's true, although it doesn't really apply to single-room occupancies to the same level as it does to family housing and some special needs housing, because we have limited funds and limited numbers of allocation that we can have.

In estimates, we canvassed the issues with regards to how we deliver this particular housing, what uses there should be and how they should be managed with amenity space and what have you. It's important, when we discuss SROs, that we deal with that as one of the options in the future.

I'd like to just deal with BCHMC's -- our own Housing Commission's -- philosophy with regards to single-room occupancies, just so that we can have sort of an idea where they have come from. They've recognized that the threshold of downtown seniors was 45 years of age, with a more flexible definition with that age bracket disabled. Because a lot of the people that are in single-room occupancies are people that are suffering from some form of addiction or mental illness, it is a specific and very complex market that we're dealing with, particularly on the downtown east side of Vancouver.

One of the things we should look at as we go through this whole SRO discussion with the city of Vancouver -- and hopefully, the city will remember this, and other municipalities will, as well -- is that on the redevelopment of product, we have to remember that an SRO is still that. To reproduce the product, we should try to keep it to as much flexibility . . . as far as being self-contained units with a minimal amount of space and with regards to being able to produce as much product as possible to replace any product that we lose. Our critical

part is the saving of product or replacing it at the same or higher levels than we already have.

One of the first things we should probably look at is our ability to manage that particular product if it is reproduced in the marketplace. We should take into consideration that the shelter allowance today from Human Resources, for a single, is about $325 a month. And $325 a month has a debt-servicing capability at only a certain level. We look at that debt-servicing capability.

Plus we look at the municipal taxation levels with regards to these in particular, and whether there should be some forgiveness of municipal taxes by municipalities trying to protect or produce stock, and at some of the other options with regards to offsites, onsites and cooperation with regards to construction of new stock. It's important that we bring those into our thought process.

In addition to that, as we reproduce SROs we must always remember that when we're reproducing a small unit . . . . This is what we're going to end up doing if we really want to replace the stock. If we go to a larger one-bedroom unit to replace SRO stock, as we go through this bylaw and this bill discussion, we are into a situation where it costs us so much to reproduce a particular unit that we may have been able to build three instead of one, if we were more thoughtful in our approach to our construction and design of the particular units.

[ Page 6122 ]

I had a meeting yesterday with some people from the housing industry with regards to this particular issue and some other issues. I found it interesting that they were of a similar mind to me, that the replacement of an SRO stock . . . . These are the people who are dealing with it down on the east side of Vancouver, down on the streets, who are saying to me, "When you replace a unit with a small kitchenette, a bathroom area and the bedroom," which basically, even in the definition of our own reports from the provincial government that were done for us, is the ultimate replacement of the SRO . . . .

The maximum would be that you go to a one-bedroom unit, where you have a living room, dining room and all the rest of it. But if you go to the SRO itself in that description, that's the description, you know, that we'll be using.

It was interesting because . . . . I don't know if I had the discussion informally. I'd have to go back to Hansard to see whether we discussed it in estimates. But one of my contentions was that to build the SRO, remember to build some maximum amenity space in the facility for other uses, so that people who are in smaller confined units have eating areas and social areas or what have you in the facility. Interestingly enough, the people that represented the industry, who I met with yesterday, had the same thought with regards to SROs, with regards to that marketplace.

I find that it's good to see a piece of legislation come forward with regards to this, to protect this product, because obviously the loss of the product means more people on the streets, because we don't have a product that we can replace this with. What people out there should understand is that this is not the greatest place to live. If you've ever toured some of the downtown hotels that are SROs, they're not a pleasant place. To me, they're not a place that I, or probably most people in this House, would want to occupy.

It's something that makes you shiver, the fact that we do have members of our society actually living in this type of facility. It's not something to be proud of. So the protection of this stock is . . . . We're actually protecting some stock that we're not proud of. But it's necessary to protect it, because there's nowhere else for them to go.

What we should do as we move through this process is also put into establishment some inspection criteria, renovation criteria and replacement criteria, so that down the road we can actually replace this stock with the moneys that we have in our own system.

The interesting thing that I found when you're dealing with SROs is that although there are the 6,000 or so in Vancouver, there's actually 13,000 to 15,000 in the entire province. I get back again to this. Although it's amendment to the Vancouver Charter, it is something that we should be looking at. I know we've discussed this, that we should be looking at it on a broader basis with regards to this particular type of legislation. My concern is that as we go through this discussion, we remember where the situation is.

You don't have to go back very far. Twelve years ago in Vancouver we had over 10,000 single-room occupancy units. Today we have about 6,000, so we've lost 4,000 units. It will be up to the initiative of the city of Vancouver whether they actually proceed posthaste with the bylaw or whether this legislation just enables them to do it at some point in time in the future.

The concern I have with that particular comment is, first of all, that this legislation deals with a number of issues that I want to deal with in committee, but one of them is the establishment of the SRO date, which is the establishment of first reading of this bill in this House as the date that all SROs in the city of Vancouver are governed by.

The difficulty with the legislation, however, is that not only does it do that, but when it gives you this situation with regards to that date being established, the legislation also goes on to say all or part of a building can be established as an SRO.

So the difficulty, if this enabling legislation doesn't move forward to a bylaw in a fairly quick period of time, will be how we are going to go back a year to decide. I know that bylaws don't move fast in any city. They never have in any municipality I've ever dealt with. But if the city of Vancouver had optimum movement and got it done, let's say, in six months, we would be to the end of this year and early 1998 before we would actually get into the position where the bylaw was in place and we could actually start designating the SROs.

The interesting thing I find about this legislation is that it allows for a partial designation of a building, for a designation by building and for a designation by an area. So you could say the whole downtown east side of Vancouver is an area, or you could say a specific building in Kerrisdale is an area, or you could say a specific portion of a building. There are two problems I see with that part of the legislation, which we'll probably get into in more detail in committee.

The legislation only allows for the posting of the designation in the lobby of the facility -- of the unit, of the particular building that is designated as an SRO. So if I have a hotel in the east side of Vancouver, where you've designated 30 of my rooms by number because they're monthly rentals today as SROs, you will post that in my lobby. That's the only posting.

My concern comes back to a recordkeeping situation as to the loss of information of what is an SRO and what isn't. My preference would have been -- and we'll discuss this in committee -- that if you're going to deal with it, you would deal with it similar to the way you dealt with the Condominium Act conversions, where you deal on title -- dealing with something on title to deal with the designation -- and the conversion process is tied in to a broader spectrum of approach, so there's a broader spectrum of control and some more clearly defined guidelines with regards to it.

The other thing with regards to SROs is basically . . . . This goes back to what I just said with regards to title. Basically, we're trying to establish some restrictive covenants on the use of a particular building. The use goes to two things: the restrictive covenant either goes to a bylaw on conversion of an SRO to another use with regards to the displacement of people when they are displaced, when there's a remodelling that takes place with regards to an SRO; or if somebody wishes to demolish their SRO and build something else on the site, there's some form of compensation that's coming back.

These are restrictive covenants that can either be placed on title or not placed on title. But the difficulty I've always found when you get into these sorts of discussions with regards to land use and building use is that if they're not somewhere with regards to some sort of covenant, then what happens is oftentimes they get lost in

interpretation, they get lost in discussion, and they get lost in the ability to actually enforce the restrictions on the particular building.

I'm surprised that the city of Vancouver, if they were involved in the design of this particular legislation, as the minister said, has let this one slip by. Maybe they haven't; maybe they have something to put in their bylaw. I know in dealing with the city of Vancouver over the years that one of their strengths was the use of certain types of covenants to protect uses within buildings that they allowed to be developed in the city.

[ Page 6123 ]

This is not new to the city of Vancouver. There's been

section 215 covenants with regards to -- what would it be? -- a seniors' building or other kinds of uses on the facilities put in by the zoning and development department of the city for years, and this is not really unusual with regards to it. I'm surprised that the legislation doesn't make more specific reference to it. I'd be curious in committee as to whether there were discussions with the city with regards to that particular use of the bylaw.

There are two

definitions of SROs in one report I dealt with that sort of outline SROs. It gives you sort of a flavour of what we're dealing with here in Canada versus the United States. In the United States, people living in SROs are not considered to be homeless, even though they may live in inadequate shelter. In Canada, people living in SROs are considered to be relatively homeless as their shelter is for the most part not adequate. It's just a difference of philosophy. In actual fact, in our definition even people who are living in adequate SROs are living in what we consider to be a homeless situation, because it is no place where we would want citizens of our country to live.

I think it's important when we go through the discussion in committee that we recognize that. As we go through that in committee, we will find a number of objectives that have to be accomplished here. One is obviously the protection of the stock. Two is the replacement of the stock as it moves forward and how we're going to handle that. I've got some very specific thoughts on that with regards to that in committee, how we can do that. Hopefully, we can take back a message to the city and into the industry in general.

Three, how do we get the stock that exists improved so that it's better than what it is, so that we can renovate it or can have incentives to renovate or to move the marketplace to provide a better product to the people that are living in what they're living in now?

I just thought quickly, as we go through this, that we might want to take a quick look at some other jurisdictions within Canada with regards to SROs. There's a number of them. In Quebec, for instance, their housing department, in a partnership with the city of Montreal, has renovated a number of rooming houses with regards to product in the city, in cooperation with owners. In some cases they have actually acquired older buildings at smaller amounts per unit and renovated them. The debt servicing was still able to carry the units for the value of the rent of the SRO, which I found to be an interesting model in that it probably is one that could work within our particular product range.

[4:30]

In 1986 the Ontario legislature passed Bill 11, which is basically intended to protect and preserve the existing rental stock in the province against demolition, conversion or displacement due to renovation and severance for the purpose of sale, which is what we're trying to accomplish as well. I'll be curious in committee as to whether we actually reviewed Bill 11 from Ontario, when we drafted our legislation, with regards to our thinking with regards to this particular stock.

In 1986, the numbers -- interesting in this marketplace -- are hard to find. It's not like we go out and seem to research SROs on a regular basis, but in '86 there were 184,000 SROs in Ontario. So you can imagine how important it was for them to protect their stock if there were that many in that province. If you took them out of the marketplace, it would be kind of scary.

In the city of Ottawa, the non-profit housing corporation called City Living manages close to 4,000 units of SROs. In 1987 the corporation, in conjunction with CMHC, constructed a 55-unit SRO called Bronson Avenue Rooming House. I haven't had the opportunity since reading that to contact Ottawa and find out what that was, how that product was designed and what was in each individual SRO. I'd be curious to see how replacement stock is also being handled with regard to this particular marketplace.

The important thing is that most of these corporations and cities basically have the same objectives: to maintain a supply of affordable housing for low-income, single persons -- which is what we are trying to do here -- to ensure that rooming houses, if I can use that term, or rooming hotels, meet some property management standards. I don't know that we are accomplishing that here, or whether we are going to try to accomplish it in the bylaw, but at some point in time, as I say, we have to address it as a larger issue.

Maintaining a healthy and secure living environment is obviously important for people who are going to be living in these particular residences -- ensuring that the management is secure, that the management is professional, that the building is run correctly and that they maintain a liaison with the neighbourhood and community support services for the purposes of consultation and referral.

I think this comes back to the expansion of amenity space for these particular facilities. It also comes back to the discussions that we are going to have with regards to future protection of these particular items. Frankly, to protect the stock is one thing, but to have services in the community and also activities within the community for the expansion of these people's ability to have other things in life is very important.

The current policy of the city of Vancouver as it exists with regard to SROs is just basically: " . . . to maintain, upgrade and increase the stock of core needed housing in the downtown, and one-to-one replacement of SROs in the downtown south." That's the city of Vancouver, May 16, 1991. I haven't, unfortunately, been able to get any statistics from the city at this point in time as to how they have done since May 16, 1991, with regards to that particular policy. The principles are fairly good, and I think if their principles are applied to their bylaw, then frankly, we'll have some success with this particular piece of legislation, which is what we are all trying to accomplish.

They also have a standards-of-maintenance bylaw. They have made some progress on this. In the nineties, though, rather than closing down substandard hotels, the city has basically a 60-day period where the owners are subject to undertaking the required repairs by the city. There is some difficulty, evidently, with the enforcement and the pushing of this particular bylaw. There may be some strengthening that can come with regard to this as we go through this other option.

The interesting thing with regard to SROs, however, is basically that our provincial government already has draft SRO policies. They came out of a couple of reports. I'm going to refer to one which was done by some people who are well known down on the Vancouver east side. The reason I refer to it is because it was done in January 1994, and I think it's probably the most current

summary or report with regard to policy today. I just want to touch on those policies so that as we get into the committee stage of this debate . . . . I'm sure the minister will gladly read all the Hansard from this afternoon by tomorrow to remember what I have to say, because I'm sure I have his rapt attention.

The first thing is to discourage the demolition of SROs unless there is a one-to-one replacement with self-contained

[ Page 6124 ]

units or pay in lieu of fees. Obviously, when we get into committee stage of this debate, we are going to have some concern about the pay in lieu of fees -- how we are going to calculate that number so that we can protect future stock. Also, you have to remember that what we're going to have to define is a self-contained suite with regard to an SRO.

"Encourage the construction of new SRO units by withholding funding for construction for proposals that do not include self-contained units." Basically, what we are saying there is that we don't want any hotel-type units in the SRO marketplace; we want some self-containment with regard to a provincial policy. I know that when we canvassed some of these issues during estimates, we hadn't really put this policy in place provincially. We may want to look at it as a result of this debate.

We are going to encourage the retention of SROs as a low-income housing stock, facilitate the rehabilitation of SRO units for residential uses by low-income people, and facilitate the operation of SRO units by non-profit organizations or public bodies. We can get into the discussion with regard to non-profit organizations and public bodies, but obviously on the downtown east side there are a lot of non-profit groups that provide very, very good service to people living in single-room occupancies with regard to the other services that they require: drug rehabilitation, medical services, whatever the case may be.

"Provide capital grants for non-profit or public SRO upgrading and subsidies for operation," which goes back to some of the models like in Quebec and Ontario, where that has been used successfully. It was also used successfully in some jurisdictions in the United States where they managed to salvage some product.

"Discourage the conversion of existing SRO residential units to tourist or other use." I think that's the intent of the legislation with regards to the establishment of a bylaw in this particular regard. However, we don't have control over the bylaw; we only have control over the legislation. And my concern with the legislation, again, is that it's only covering one jurisdiction.

There are four more policies that we have that have been proposed to our government with regards to SRO policies. Another one is to encourage training and employment opportunities for homeless people and those at risk of being homeless, and the construction and rehabilitation of SRO units and the ongoing SRO operations. Not to provide a direct subsidy to tenants of SROs, but rather, to subsidize operational functions and those hotels operated by a non-profit or public organization . . . .

That particular policy is actually a very interesting one in the fact that it shows a different initiative with regard to how we will handle the management of product and its successful financial future. I think it's one that's worth discussion in one of the sections of the debate.

"Encourage tenant organizations and hotels operated by non-profit organizations" -- I think we've been successful in some of those areas, and we've started some of this -- and also, ensure that during housing renovation, obviously, the existing tenants are taken care of. The interesting thing about this is that a lot of this parallels what we already do for conversion from rental to strata-title. A lot of this is already parallelled; the only difference is that we're only doing it for one jurisdiction in the city of Vancouver.

We're not doing it for the entire province in this particular case, which is obviously going to be a concern in jurisdictions such as Victoria, where we have some older SROs that have very difficult and dangerous situations with fire escapes, no sprinkler systems . . . . It is a public health consideration that has been out there for some time. It's been brought forward by the city, and they've been trying to deal with it. I'm sure they wouldn't have minded having some consultation on how we might have been able to help them out with their difficulty.

There was another example in Kamloops, where an SRO was built, amenity space was required, but because there wasn't flexibility within some of the zoning requirements, they weren't able to do it, and they ended up getting a restaurant on the lower level. And in Ke