2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007

Morning Sitting

Volume 22, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Private Members' Statements

Forest lands on Vancouver Island

J. Horgan

R. Cantelon

Pluralism

J. Nuraney

D. Cubberley

“Time to clean up” the meat regulations

C. Evans

V. Roddick

Coping with future growth

D. Hayer

S. Hammell

Second Reading of Bills

Minimum Wage Fairness Act, 2007 (Bill

M214)

C. James

Standing Order 67 (Speaker's

Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007

(Bill M202)

S. Fraser

R. Cantelon

M. Farnworth

L. Mayencourt

L. Krog

Speaker's Ruling

[ Page 8671 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FOREST LANDS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise in this House today to

represent the people of Malahat–Juan de Fuca and to talk about a very important

issue for people in my constituency, for the people of south Vancouver Island

and, in fact, for all the people of British Columbia, and that has to do with

the land giveaway with respect to Western Forest Products and tree farm licence

25, and tree farm licences 6 and 19 here on Vancouver Island.

People have asked me: "What exactly happened there?" What happened

was that the Minister of Forests gave away the tree farm.

In the 1950s the people of British Columbia, through their

government, invited forest companies to bring their private lands into a

management process called a tree farm licence. The point of that was to put

public lands with private lands to create employment, to create milling

capacity, to put British Columbians to work, to bring taxes to the treasury and

to protect and preserve those forest lands in perpetuity.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

"In perpetuity" are important words, hon. Speaker. You'll be aware

of that. Perpetuity seems to me to be a long time, but to the B.C. Liberals,

it's about 50 years. That's how long it took for the B.C. Liberals to say to

their corporate backer Western Forest Products, a contributor of some

significance to the B.C. Liberal Party campaign team: "Here are 28,000 hectares

of land to do with as you will."

In February of this year the Minister of Forests, without any

consultation, without a peep of public notice, announced quietly on a Friday

afternoon that the government of British Columbia was giving a corporate donor

28,000 hectares of land on the west coast of Vancouver Island and on the north

coast of Vancouver Island.

In my constituency it represents some 12,000 hectares, five

kilometres of waterfront. I don't know about you, hon. Speaker, but on south

Vancouver Island, five kilometres of waterfront is worth a couple of bucks —

worth a couple of bucks, indeed.

I got my assessment recently for my little plot in Langford — a

great distance from the coast, I have to tell you. If I had five kilometres of

waterfront….

My friend from Shuswap is smiling. I'm sure he'd like a piece of

that as well. Who knows? Maybe his friends at Western Forest Products are going

to give it to him.

[1005]

With the creation of the tree farm licences in the 1950s, what the

government of the day was trying to do was build industrial capacity to keep

people working, to keep money coming to the treasury. That covenant, that social

agreement, that economic agreement between company and community, has been

broken. It was broken without a peep of consultation from the people on the

other side.

It's not just the New Democrats who are concerned about this.

There was a public meeting in my constituency, in Jordan River, last week — 140

people in the little town of Shirley spilling out onto the streets. The hall

holds about 80 people. They were looking in the windows and standing on the

streets, wanting to hear how this could have happened. How could it have

happened in British Columbia in 2007 that the government of the day, without

even speaking to a person in the community, would give away 12,000 hectares of

very, very lucrative development land? So it's not just New Democrats.

I want to quote to you from the Victoria Times Colonist ,

the journal of record here on the south Island, in an editorial. "Forest-land

Deal Shortchanges B.C." is the headline. The end result of that editorial is

that the government sold the farm.

Later a columnist, Paul Willcocks, put it in better words. I'll

quote from him, September 25 in the Times Colonist , "Taxpayers and

Vancouver Island communities actually were the donors. Forests Minister Rich

Coleman just wrapped it up and handed it over on our behalf" — a gift and a

giveaway for no reason other than to shore up the bottom line of a B.C. Liberal

contributor.

Last week another editorial in the Victoria Times Colonist

— that's two in less than a month on this particular issue — was headlined

"Forest Land Fiasco Betrays Taxpayers." The editorial concludes as follows:

"This deal has been a shocking betrayal of the interests of Islanders and

British Columbians. It's up to local politicians and the public to repair the

damage done and hold the provincial government to account." Shocking.

What in the world were the cabinet ministers from southern

Vancouver Island doing on that day when the Minister of Forests came in and

said: "Good news, folks. I'm giving away the farm. The tree farm is going to our

friends at Western Forest Products"? Where was the Minister of Advanced

Education? More importantly, where was the Minister of Community Services?

The challenge we see on the west coast of the Island now is that

45 percent of the official community plan in Otter Point, Shirley and Jordan

River is for sale. Would that happen in Vancouver-Langara? I rather doubt it.

Imagine 45 percent of your community on the real estate market at one time.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: My good friend from Kamloops is talking to me

about partisanship. Happy to hear it.

I'm recording — for the record, hon. Speaker, as you know — the

views of the journal of record in my community, and I'm asking where the

Minister of

[ Page 8672 ]

Community Services was. I've been speaking to her for two years about lack of

capacity on the west coast of the Island to deal with development applications,

and she sat at the table when the Minister of Forests released 12,000 hectares

for development.

How does that advance the coastal forest sector? How does that

advance the treasury? Maybe the property transfer tax. Maybe the Minister of

Finance is seeing this as an opportunity to shoot up the property transfer tax.

We're certainly not going to get money from stumpage. This is

private land all of a sudden. Snap, the stroke of a pen — the covenant between

company and community was broken.

The moneys that will be raised from strip-mining this property

before it goes into condo development will go straight offshore. It'll go

straight to shareholders in Toronto. Not a dime will come to the people of

British Columbia. Not a dime will come to the people on the west coast of the

Island.

The challenge we face as legislators is to do the right thing. In

this case the government…. Unabashedly, the Minister of Forests said just as

much on Thursday. "I will not reverse this decision. It's in the interests of

Western Forest Products."

What about the public interest? Isn't that what we're here for? I

thought we were here for the people of B.C. Apparently, the people on that side

are not here for the people of B.C. They're here for the shareholders. They're

here for the shareholders of Western Forest Products, the shareholders of

TimberWest, not for the people of Vancouver Island — certainly not for forest

workers, because there are not going to be any jobs on this land other than

framing.

They're turning foresters into framers. They're turning land that

has been used for recreation, for surfing, for walking on trails and for viewing

wildlife into condominiums, gated communities on the west coast of Vancouver

Island.

The Liberals say: "How do you win seats on Vancouver Island? Plant

more Liberals, more rich people." That'll help you.

[1010]

R. Cantelon: It should be no surprise to this House that I

am not only diagonally opposed but diametrically opposed to the views expressed

by the member opposite. But let not the distance between us indicate any lack of

distance of views. We are very distant on this.

I can tell you…. First of all, the member opposite talks about a

land giveaway. Generous as the forest companies have been in agreeing to

designate areas for conservation, and parks in some case, they weren't so

generous as to actually give the land away.

In fact, what has actually, technically happened is the land has

been removed from the tree farm licence and is still under the ownership of the

forest company. It is now no longer part of the tree farm licences. This does

not mean, however, that the land is now suddenly open for development. Au

contraire .

In fact, it's under the jurisdiction, as well it should be, of the

people in the local communities. That land can't just be put into gated

communities, as the member so gratuitously suggests. I do sympathize with him,

by the way. He indicated that he wants a piece of it as well. Well, I'm sorry.

They didn't give it away. They didn't give it away to anybody. They kept it all

themselves, though I'm sure you would have been happy to disclose such a gift to

the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner, should the company have been so generous

as to give you just a few hectares of waterfront out of that entire parcel.

It does remain, of course, in the ownership of the forest company

that owns it, but that does not mean that it's immediately a giveaway to other

uses. In fact, no log exports can be effected for three years, even if the land

title transfers. But now it's up to the community, and I think that's very

appropriate. In my community — and I'm sure your community will be as responsive

— the regional district placed a 50-hectare minimum parcel size on land that is

zoned for silviculture. What this means in the regional district of Nanaimo is

that you can't chop those parcels up into parcels smaller than 50 hectares.

The first intent of that is to send a clear signal to the forest

companies that in the regional district of Nanaimo they wish to continue with

land that's under forest silviculture to remain so. That, of course, is the

prerogative of the local regional district in the southern area as well. I'm

sure that they'll respond, as the member has found, very quickly to any

community meetings that will be required to be recalled. Of course, if it's not

within the official community plan, if it's not zoned, then there will have to

be proper rezoning applications. There the people of that community will

certainly have their effective say, and it won't just be some sort of random

unstructured meeting as may have happened. It will be a meeting focused on a

goal, focused on a purpose, and that purpose will be: what are the best

interests of the people in that community?

Rightly, they should have the opportunity to say that, and they

will, as they did in the Nanaimo regional district, where clearly the hand was

held up to the forest companies and said: "No smaller than 50 hectares. Don't

come here with your subdivision plans." So I'm sure the people in this community

will also respond quite well to any proposed changes in official community

plans, to any proposed changes in zoning. They will have the say.

Let me also add to that the fact that one of the major

considerations in all of these subdivisions will be services.

J. Horgan: There are none.

R. Cantelon: I think I heard across the way that there are

none. Well, indeed, in order to subdivide or do anything with these lands, one

of the prime considerations of the local governments, of the local communities,

of the local administrations, will be: in what way can we subdivide and use

these lands? How do we

[ Page 8673 ]

service them? How do we provide adequate services — sewer, water and other

amenities?

What may well come out of it…. There might well be some land that

might actually provide opportunity for the residents of the area for what has

become a rich tourism area. Maybe some of the facilities are needed, but I

hasten to add that that will be the decision and the prerogative of the local

communities. To find a new balance as the economies change, it may well be that

the uses have to be adjusted within the desires and plans of the community so

that everybody has a better opportunity and a more diversified economy.

So to sum up, Madam Speaker, the land was not given away. Forest

companies may be generous in the uses that they put to their lands, but they

didn't transfer the title.

[1015]

In fact, the member opposite also mentioned property transfer tax.

Well, that only applies if you transfer the property. The member well knows

that. There was no transfer of property here, and there was no tax payable.

However, should the land be subsequently resold, although I hasten to add that

no log exports from the affected land can be done for three years, they would

then have to pay property purchase tax.

J. Horgan: I asked the Minister of Forests at the time what

the public benefit was, and what was going to happen to forest productions on

these lands, and he said the following: "I don't think any effect, quite

frankly. This isn't a removal from forest production."

That's the one line of comfort I got from the Minister of Forests.

Here's an inch-thick book from Colliers International selling 2,500 hectares of

this property. They're selling it for development.

Did the forest companies magnanimously give their private lands to

the people of B.C.? Pish posh. Pish posh. They got 50 years of tax breaks. They

got 50 years of no taxation. They got 50 years of access to the best land on

Vancouver Island — public land.

It wasn't a giveaway. It was a compromise; it was a consensus.

This government threw it away without a minute of consultation.

Did you talk to first nations? No. The Premier had an epiphany

about climate change. What did we do? We gave 12,000 hectares for urban sprawl

on the west coast of Vancouver Island. That's good thinking. That's using your

head.

We're going to alienate forest lands. What about carbon sinks?

What about thinking about the future? What about reconciliation with our first

nations people? Some of the best reed grasses on the coast of the Island are in

this area, and now it's going to be a gated community.

Did you talk to the Beecher Bay band? No. Did you talk to the

people of Jordan River? No. Did you talk to the people of Port Renfrew? No. You

gave it away for political contributions. It's that simple.

Western Forest Products did very, very, very well by tree farm

licence 25, and they're going to do very, very well again. Why? Not for any

public benefit. Corporate benefit. We have to shore up their bottom line. That's

what the Minister of Forests said. They made $16 million last quarter in profit.

They must be really suffering in Toronto.

Where are CEO bonuses? We need a higher return on our investment.

Let's ask the government to give us back the land we put into a tree farm

licence for all the people of Vancouver Island and all the people of British

Columbia. That's what we would have done.

What did they do? Gave it back. What did we get out of it? A

three-year moratorium on log exports. Well, thank you very much. Thank you very,

very much.

Holy cow, are we going to ask for any of those taxes back?

Apparently not. Are we going to ask for any stumpage on the land after they

start strip-mining it before they plant their condominiums? Apparently not. Not

a thing comes back to the people of Vancouver Island, and not a thing comes back

to the people of B.C. — except the Minister of Finance, who will get some

property transfer tax when they sell 2,500 hectares of it today.

There's a meeting in my community tonight to talk about this

issue. I encourage all those who may be listening at home — I encourage the

Minister of Health, who likes to come to public meetings — to drive out to

Shirley tonight. The Minister of Tourism — come on out and take a look at the

new condo developments. All your buddies are going to be buying them.

PLURALISM

J. Nuraney: The subject that I've chosen to speak on today

is pluralism. I have in the past spoken in this House about our diversity and

multiculturalism. The concept of pluralism goes beyond this. Whilst

multiculturalism advocates tolerance among groups of different ethnic

backgrounds, pluralism promotes energetic engagement with diversity.

Diversity can mean and has meant creation of religious ghettos

with little traffic between or among them. Today multiculturalism and diversity

are a given, but pluralism is not a given. It is an achievement. Mere diversity

without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our

societies.

[1020]

Secondly, pluralism is not just tolerance but the active seeking

of understanding across lines of differences. Tolerance is a necessary public

virtue, but it does not require Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and other

ardent secularists to know anything about one another.

Tolerance is too thin a foundation for the world of religious

differences and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one

another, and it leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truths and the fear

that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we

live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.

Third, pluralism is not relativism but the encounter of

commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our

identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of

commitments.

[ Page 8674 ]

It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not

in isolation but in relationship to one another.

Lastly, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism

is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism.

Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common

understandings and real differences.

Dialogue does not mean everyone at the table will agree with one

another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table with one's

commitments. In the words of His Highness the Aga Khan: "The challenges of

tolerance today are manyfold. People who once lived across the world from one

another now live across the street. Societies which have grown more pluralistic

in makeup are not always growing more pluralistic in spirit. What is needed all

across the world is a new cosmopolitan ethic rooted in a strong culture of

tolerance."

In Canada and, in particular, in British Columbia we have

witnessed in the last decade a significant change in the makeup of our society.

With immigrants making British Columbia their destination of choice, we are

seeing enclaves of different ethnic groups taking shape. It is, therefore,

important that we not only welcome our new neighbours but work with them to make

them feel part of our fabric.

Language must be the centre of our efforts. Being able to speak

place in our society.

I am also an immigrant to British Columbia. The fact that I have

the privilege today of representing my constituency in the Legislature speaks of

the opportunities of those who seek to excel.

Burnaby has truly become a microcosm of Canada. We have over 70

different ethnic communities living in our area, and each one of them strives to

espouse the Canadian value of tolerance and inclusiveness.

I am proud to see that our government has had a number of positive

accomplishments over the past years supporting immigrant communities. WelcomeBC

represents a total of $217 million over two years and brings together the

province's comprehensive immigration, settlement and multiculturalism strategies

under one umbrella.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak

about a subject I feel very passionately about. While we have many successes to

celebrate in this matter, we also have challenges.

[1025]

Indifference, lack of understanding and sometimes even racism rear

their ugly heads. It is, therefore, incumbent on all of us to make sure that

these destructive elements should not be allowed to thrive.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate both having the opportunity to

respond and the tenor of the member opposite's remarks on this important topic.

As it happens, it was an immigrant to British Columbia who made the remarks

about the importance of pluralist democracy and the need to build toleration and

a society of toleration and to grow it, and it is indeed an immigrant to British

Columbia and to Canada who will respond to the remarks and who will agree with

the sentiments expressed by the member opposite.

I would say as a whole that there was a little in what the member

had to say that I would disagree with. I do believe he's correct in

characterizing the challenge we have in front of us to secure the integration of

peoples coming from a broader and broader array of backgrounds to our society —

to secure their integration, and to secure their integration into the values of

the dominant society. Those values, in fact — pluralist democracy and tolerance

— are what Canada has been about and needs to be about in the future. There is,

indeed, a challenge to secure that kind of integration.

Canada has the highest level of immigration per capita of any

society on the planet. We absorb greater per-capita numbers of immigrants than

anywhere else in the world — a quarter of a million people, I believe, last

year, and we are plus or minus that number in most years now. That's like

bringing a Regina into our little polity every year, and we do that in

perpetuity. I see some members opposite have never thought about it in that way,

and I encourage them to reflect upon that.

Canada and Canadians, I believe, have an openness to this. I think

if you look at the latest opinion surveys, the deep research on attitudes in

Canada, the younger generations coming up in Canada are increasingly colour

blind and increasingly open to the diversity of cultural backgrounds that they

see in the schools they go to in this country. I think that's something we

should be very proud of and that we should continue to enlarge upon.

The member also made the comment, and I think it's absolutely

correct, that language is the key. Before I comment in the positive sense on

what I think needs to be done in this regard, I want to say that the history of

western democratic pluralist societies, in receiving large populations from

other countries and trying to integrate them and to build tolerance, has not

been entirely happy. If we look at the history of countries like England and

France, for example, there have been some significant problems because there has

been a lack of effective integration into the society.

One of the key factors that affects integration into the society

is access to language. Access to language is the key to participation in the

economy. We have to be concerned about the potential for alienation from our

society to trump integration and to become a force for intolerance and for

claims against the society that would undermine its democratic and pluralist

nature.

In that regard, all of Canada has a great deal of room for

speaking to acquire language and to participate effectively in our economy. The

member knows, because he chaired the Standing Committee on Education which

looked into the topic of adult literacy, just how many adult British Columbians

suffer from low literacy. What I would remind him of is that at level 1, which

is the lowest, there are 390,000 British Columbians. Two-thirds of those are

immigrants who are stuck at the lowest level of literacy. There is a

[ Page 8675 ]

much broader group of people who are at the second level of literacy, equally

and adequate for full participation in the economy, and 32 percent of those are

immigrants.

[1030]

What we need to have…. I know the member referenced some

increasing investment in ELSA for immigrant adults. That's very good. Let's make

sure that that's to benchmark 8 — Canadian benchmarks, level 5 to 8,

are not half-year or one-year waits to get access to that language. Let's remove

the tuition fee from it and not penalize people and say that you have to have

communities are that the people are integrating into, the cultural communities,

and let's make sure we have day care available to people so that women can

participate in the economic benefits that will flow from acquiring language.

J. Nuraney: I am really encouraged to hear the remarks from

the member opposite. It is increasingly important, as I laid down in my

arguments earlier on, that as our Canadian fabric begins to change in terms of

different ethnic groupings, we not only have that understanding of the basic

Canadian value of pluralistic and multicultural values, but we also need to make

sure that these groups are not isolated.

This, I would say, also includes our first nations people. It has

been our experience that over the years, even though the first nations people

are not true immigrants…. They are actually the owners of this land, and we are

the immigrants. But what has happened in history is that the first nations

people have always been isolated and have never been accepted in the mainstream.

I had the opportunity to ask some of the students in a school: how

come the first nations people and the children leave school earlier and do not

complete their graduation? The biggest reason I heard across the table was that

it is because these children do not feel part of that educational group, the

society. They feel isolated. It is that question of isolation that I feel could

be quite dangerous and costly, as I said earlier on.

The integration, the learning of the language, understanding the

education that needs to be done among all kinds of communities to make sure that

we understand each other's values, that we respect each other's values, that we

understand the different religious beliefs and that we respect those beliefs —

it is that kind of freedom that we need truly to exercise in our societies.

At the same time, I may also say that freedom is not a licence.

Freedom also has its boundaries. We need to make sure that our freedom includes

the freedom of speech, the freedom to practise religion, the freedom to bear

your cultural garments, if you so wish. Those are the kinds of freedom that I

would say really emphasize what Canada is all about.

Canada is the envy of all different nations across the world

today. People outside Canada would like to understand how come we in Canada have

this great, integrated, multicultural society without any conflict. So there are

lessons to learn from this great country.

“TIME TO CLEAN UP” THE MEAT REGULATIONS

C. Evans: I rise today to speak on the subject of the meat

regulations that came into effect three weeks ago in British Columbia, making it

a criminal act for a farmer to kill his chicken and sell it to me or to kill her

cow, cut it up, and sell it to me or to you, hon. Speaker, or to anybody else in

the province.

For those folks at home who may be unaware of the history, or

those urban members whose mailbag may not be full on this particular subject,

let me just help you with what we are experiencing, both on the back benches on

the government side and the opposition.

[1035]

Rural people are incensed. They woke up three week ago and found

out that what their family had been doing for three centuries is now a criminal

act. Raising cattle or poultry or pigs and selling it to the community in which

you live makes you a lawbreaker.

Before I carry on to say what I think about this legislation, I

would like to say, on the record, thank you. I mean, this is a haywire, silly,

ridiculous, over-burdensome, unnecessary regulation brought in by the Minister

of Health, who couldn't, at the time, cite a single example of a person getting

sick or dying by buying their neighbour's meat. It's a completely unnecessary,

indefensible law with no backup to prove that we needed it.

But I would like to start by saying thank you to all the wonderful

people in the Ministry of Agriculture and those hired by the minister and

working out there in the communities and the consultants, Kathleen Gibson and

her folks. Everybody is working to try to make this really stupid law work, and

thank you to those folks who are working so hard.

Why the citizens find this law so difficult to comprehend is

because it's so counterintuitive. This is, after all, the government of

deregulation. Statistically, we know that photo radar saved lives. But in the

interest of deregulation, to get the government off people's backs, the

government came in and wiped out photo radar. Everybody got that. That was

deregulation.

This is the same government that said: "The forest companies are

burdened by the Forest Practices Code. It's too big; it's a bit of a cookbook.

Let's go to" — what do they call it? —"performance-based forestry." Deregulate

the forest industry. Right, everybody gets that. That's what the government is

about.

The people cannot comprehend why a government that believes in

deregulation would do the opposite to farmers as what they do to the forest

industry. Why say that the forest industry should be deregulated, the entire

criminal justice system should be deregulated, get rid of photo radar — even

though it saves lives — and then impose on agriculture a criminal act for doing

what you have always done — raising animals and selling it to your…? People

don't get it.

[ Page 8676 ]

I've been to dozens of public meetings in the Cariboo, in Quesnel

and in Comox. In Duncan — on a sunny summer day when people should be making hay

— with 24 hours' notice, the hall was filled with a hundred people, every single

one of them engaged in the agriculture industry, and everyone against this

legislation.

Meetings in Metchosin, meetings in Creston, meetings in Nelson and

hundreds of letters from people who don't get it. Why would this government

impose on them a regulatory regime that is completely unnecessary and that they

don't need? In the meeting in Nelson, farmer after farmer after farmer got up

and said: "Show me one person who ever got sick or died from buying what I raise

with love and sell to my neighbour. No antibiotics in it. It's fed organic food.

We treat it and sell it to our neighbour, who wants to buy local food. Show me

one example."

Finally, the civil servants got kind of annoyed because everybody

was beating on them, saying: "Show me why." So the civil servants — wonderful

people, great people — said: "Look, it's not about safety. It's about BSE and

international trade. We had to do this to make Japan and the United States and

the European Common Market buy our food."

The farmers all said: "Well, we want you to solve BSE. We want to

resolve the trade crisis. But how come, while you were trying to do something

for the United States and Japan, you said that what I do for a living here in

British Columbia is illegal?" In 130 communities in B.C., where the municipality

borders on ALR land it's now against the law for the farmer to sell food to the

people in the city.

That's just the municipalities. What about all the unincorporated

areas like Tlell, for example? We have hundreds. People, farmers, farm groups

wrote in for two years. The B.C. Food Systems Network wrote in with eight

wonderful examples of how to make this work, because farmers don't want to just

make it go away. If it's solving trade crises, they want to make it work.

I've talked to hundreds of people, and probably only two, three,

four have ever said: "Make it go away." The others said: "Make it work." People

write in with good examples of how to make this work, and the government ignores

them — for two years.

Hon. Speaker, even if you believe this is important public policy,

this is the worst enforcement regime, regulatory regime and most mismanaged

piece of government-forced policy I know of since the federal gun act — and

imposed on the same rural people.

[1040]

Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it's important public policy, and

they just completely botched the implementation so it is offensive to people.

The most wonderful suggestion I know, out of the hundreds, to make

this work comes from a farmer in Tlell who farms on the land that his family has

been farming for 88 years. He says: "All I ask is for the ability to continue

our family's 88-year tradition. Please allow my farm to sell to my neighbours

until such time as I have reasonable access to one of the many licensed

facilities that the minister is so proud of." There are 71 people who are trying

to become a licensed facility — probably hundreds that we need.

What this fellow is saying is: "Given that they are not anywhere

near my home, allow me farm-gate sales, freezer sales, until the government can

put a legal, licensed abattoir close to my house." It is simple, it is doable,

it would make it work, it would get the people off the government's back, and it

would stop killing the businesses — the real business that farming is. If you

kill those businesses, they can't participate in the farm income. They will no

longer be legal farms, and you know what will happen to them, hon. Speaker?

Every single one of them is going to say: "Let me out of the ALR. You made my

business a criminal act. Let me out of the ALR, and I'll become a subdivision."

Government, please, move to common sense in order to make the

regulation work now, or see the farms go down and the ALR die.

V. Roddick: I'm pleased to respond to my colleague from

Nelson-Creston on the issue of meat regulations, because despite what the member

may think, the provincial government is enhancing food safety in British

Columbia with this new meat inspection regulation. Supported by the B.C.

Cattlemen's Association, the meat inspection regulation under the B.C. Food

Safety Act, 2004, will strengthen the province's meat surveillance and

inspection system.

The act supports the rapid identification, tracking and

elimination at source of food-borne risks to public health and promotes public

confidence in the province's $22-billion-a-year agrifood industry. The

Ministries of Health and Agriculture and Lands continue to work closely with the

small producers and processors in rural and remote areas to support the

viability of local food production. The regulatory system has remained flexible

to accommodate small-plant operations while ensuring that B.C.'s food safety

standards are now consistent across the province and are in line with other

jurisdictions in Canada.

The member opposite should note that provinces including Alberta,

Ontario and Quebec have meat inspection systems in place similar to what has

recently been implemented here in B.C. The few provinces lacking a complete meat

inspection system are also re-evaluating their meat safety systems in light of

concerns over the safety of the meat supply, including mad cow disease and avian

influenza outbreaks.

As part of a commitment to help small producers make the

transition, the province has been allowing temporary transitional licences to be

issued — that will expire after six months — to processors whose facility

upgrades to the new standards are already in process. This is in addition to a

one-year extension of the original 2006 deadline, plus a $5-million meat

transition assistance program. Government has allocated this $5 million to

assist small meat-processors to make the transition to the new standards —

$50,000 and up for individual plant owners, and up to $100,000 for

community-based projects to develop regional slaughter capacity, including

mobile abattoirs.

[ Page 8677 ]

Government has also agreed to cover the costs of all inspections

of these small facilities until 2012. As of Friday, October 19, there were 44

licensed slaughter plants in B.C., including three transitionally licensed

plants. There is prospect for another ten to become transitionally licensed in

the next few weeks.

[1045]

There was a total of only 25 licensed plants, both federal and

provincial, in B.C. when these announcements were made in 2004. The meat

industry enhancement strategy and the MTAP program will continue to work with

small producers and processors to help them adapt to the new regulatory

environment.

One innovative example is in Fort St. John, where a mobile

abattoir for the slaughter and processing of red meat will travel to several

docking stations to serve the area's meat producers. Lars from Ladner, a

first-class chef at La Belle Auberge in beautiful downtown Ladner, is the

spearhead of this mobile abattoir.

We have not forgotten about small producers and processors in the

development of these new meat regulations. I feel the government is doing

everything in its power to make this transition as smooth as possible. No one,

no matter what jurisdiction, does business the way they did 30, ten or even five

years ago. I know that from my own agribusiness. The majority of all those

required upgrades and improvements have been funded by the private sector.

Let's not forget that if, heaven forbid, in the future there were

to be an instance of contaminated meat due to poor meat regulations, it would be

the members opposite that would be asking why the government hadn't implemented

protections to ensure a safe food supply for British Columbians.

This is about public safety. The Public Health Agency of Canada

issued a report titled Provincial-Territorial Enteric Outbreaks in Canada,

1996 to 2003 ." In this eight-year period nearly 180,000 cases…

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

V. Roddick: …of enteric or intestinal diseases were

reported across Canada. B.C. was significantly higher than any other province in

Canada.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member.

V. Roddick: This is concerning, and we should do everything

we can to promote public safety.

Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired, Member.

C. Evans: I actually quite enjoyed the member's discourse,

including the extra time. I would say it proves my point. I was arguing that the

government imposed a stupid regulatory act that they didn't need and then didn't

do a darned thing to make it work for two years because they didn't care and

didn't pay attention. The hon. member proves the case in point.

This is the hon. member that chaired the government's agriculture

committee, travelled all over the province and heard the farmers say that it

doesn't work and explain to her the regulatory regime. Then two weeks ago, after

ignoring their complaints, she went on the radio and said, "Oh, it's perfectly

legal for a farmer to sell to their neighbour," and then later found out she was

incorrect and had to retract.

She's a lovely person, a wonderful person, an intelligent person,

and it proves that the government did not consider this issue for the entire two

years that they had to fix it.

Now there is an argument that we have to deal with this in order

to solve BSE, and I agree with that. I agree with the trade issues. But if we

have to make it against the law to do on-farm sales in British Columbia, how

come Nova Scotia gets to do it while Canada claims that all of the meat is

trackable? Why wouldn't our government, our Minister of Agriculture, stand up

for farmers here the same as the Minister of Agriculture in Nova Scotia? Why are

there two kinds of equality in Canada?

The speaker could only name two provinces where they imposed a

regulatory regime like ours. Why can't we be like the other places that say that

farming is a good idea and producing healthy, organic food in the community is a

good idea? What is the government's real agenda in wanting to make what we do

for a living where we live against the law? Why is raising chickens starting to

look like raising marijuana?

Why doesn't the government say: "Okay, we want it all to be gone

through a legal processing facility, and so we'll see to it that they get built,

and until there's one within 50 kilometres of your farm, you can do farm-gate

sales"? Then you win.

[1050]

Then the Minister of Health gets what he wants — every piece of

meat inspected — but it forces the government that brought in the regulatory

regime to see this job through, to actually put an abattoir within 50 kilometres

of every farmer's door, or until it gets there, they can sell to their

neighbours like they want to and always have done.

COPING WITH FUTURE GROWTH

D. Hayer: In less than 25 years the city of Surrey will be

the largest city in British Columbia and the fourth-largest in Canada. By that

time, the population of cities located south and east of the Fraser River will

be approximately 1.3 million. That is almost twice the entire population of

Vancouver Island.

Surrey and its neighbouring communities, the townships of Langley

and Abbotsford, are already the fastest-growing areas in the province, if not

the country. The growth they are facing is incredible. More than half a million

people are expected to be added to the South Fraser population over the next

couple of decades. That is more new people than are currently residing in all of

Vancouver.

This growth is fuelled by the incredibly buoyant economy this

government has created over the past six years. Today we have the highest bond

rating, the best bond rating, the lowest unemployment rate in our

[ Page 8678 ]

history. The average hourly rate for workers is $21.73, and for the youth it

is $12.97.

Our government has created the largest boost in B.C.'s standard of

living in two decades. Disposable income rose by 4.3 percent in 2006, which

leads the country. B.C. created more jobs than anybody else. B.C.'s job creation

rate is 1.5 times the national average, and we have the second-strongest growth

in job creation after Alberta.

These factors are the ones that are fuelling our future population

growth as well as our commercial industrial development. Surrey is working hard

to develop options to accommodate commercial industrial areas that provide the

workplace and economic stimulus for jobs closer to home. One of the key areas

for that is the industrial commercial centre of Port Kells in my constituency,

along with the potential for new industrial and commercial lands throughout

Surrey.

Having this exceptional growth has not been overlooked by our

government. We understand the need for short-term planning, mid-term planning

and long-term planning — planning for as long as 50 and 100 years into the

future. In fact, this government is always ahead of the curve, particularly in

transportation infrastructure. That is why we are developing the Gateway

program. That is not just a bridge, as the Leader of the Opposition has led you

to believe.

Gateway is a comprehensive transportation plan that involves

twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, adding more lanes to the freeway from

Vancouver to Langley, building the North and South Fraser perimeter roads,

adding new underpasses such as 156th Street on Highway 1, and upgrading all

interchanges and overpasses in my constituency and other places around Highway

Linking into all this are huge transportation projects that are

already underway, such as the Golden Ears bridge connecting Surrey and Langley

as well as Maple Ridge and north of the Fraser. The Gateway program will connect

to Pacific Highway, 176th Street, which is now being four-laned from the U.S.

border to Highway 1 to enhance cross-border trade; and the four-laning of the

Fraser Highway and Highway 10 four-laning.

This is a fully integrated transportation system that will improve

the lives of people in Surrey and of our neighbours. It will improve and enhance

economic stability for all British Columbians and all Canadians. Best of all, it

will dramatically improve the environment. It will move people and goods quicker

and eliminate those day-long traffic jams that see thousands of cars and trucks

stuck idling, spewing emissions into our airshed, particularly in the air space

of Surrey-Tynehead residents. They daily endure vast quantities of pollutants

caused by cars and trucks waiting in frustration to cross the overcrowded Port

Mann Bridge.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

First and most, Gateway is about moving people. It will

provide dedicated bus lanes for commuters on the new Port Mann Bridge. Plus, the

new Port Mann Bridge is designed to include bicycle lanes and has provisions for

a light rail rapid transit system, a system that will serve the future

population of Surrey and the valley well into the 21st century. That system will

link up to SkyTrain.

[1055]

I fully support the Minister of Transportation and his vision to

extend the SkyTrain to Langley and the Guildford area. My constituents believe

it is needed; it is needed as soon as we can get to it. These are current and

future high-growth areas that need a rapid transit system to serve the growing

population of Surrey and rest of the valley south of the Fraser. As the area

south of the Fraser River grows, so too will the employment opportunities. As we

grow the population, as the population increases south of the Fraser River, so

will the employment opportunities.

Already many people commute east. With population growth many more

companies and industries will be locating to Surrey and its neighbouring

communities. I can see one day when more people travel from Vancouver and

suburbs to the jobs in my area rather than the other way around.

My city has a long-term future, and it is full of hope and promise

because of the role this government has played in encouraging investment,

encouraging the 2010 Olympic bid and encouraging the immigration needed to fill

the jobs that will go wanting for workers as our economic growth creates more

than one million new jobs — 350,000 more jobs than we will have people to fill

them with over the next decade.

Too often I hear Vancouver and Burnaby municipal politicians

adding their voices to the Leader of the Opposition's, saying that they don't

need change, that they don't need improvements, that they don't need

transportation infrastructure. Well, this government understands that change is

acting on it for today and for our future, and for the exceptional growth that

we will see today, in the future and over the next 25 decades. We are planning

not just for today; we are planning for the future. We're planning for the 21st

century.

Now I will allow the member from the opposition to respond to my

comments.

S. Hammell: It gives me pleasure to respond to my colleague

across the floor.

As the member for Surrey-Tynehead has identified, there certainly

has been significant growth south of the Fraser. In fact, there's been

significant growth in all the Vancouver region going back as far as 1986.

We saw growth of 2.6 percent in the Vancouver region during that

time. An average of five new residents per hour had been entering, up to the

year 2001. The growth over that period of time went from 1.4 million to two

million. The consequence of this huge growth resulted in challenges in managing

the influx of new people.

As the member has said, on the south side of the river and, in

fact, on the north side of the river outside the immediate Vancouver area we are

going to see…. There is a population forecast of 68-percent growth in the metro

region, with the Fraser Valley being the place

[ Page 8679 ]

where the growth is centred — in Surrey, Abbotsford, Langley township and, of

course, across the river in Coquitlam.

We are actually going to see a huge expansion of growth that moves

now from outside of the Vancouver area out into the valley. That provides

incredible challenges, because one of the significant containments of sprawl has

been, over the last number of years, the agricultural land reserve. Without the

presence of the agricultural land reserve our city would look more like Seattle,

where there's unlimited sprawl and unlimited gobbling up of good farmland by the

suburban region.

What we need to do as a province and as the cities that are

managing this growth is reaffirm our commitment to the agricultural land

reserve, and we have to turn our attention to transit. We will never manage the

growth in this region without a significant investment in transit. The Evergreen

line has to be built. We have to build transit. We have to add 500 buses to the

city of Surrey. We have to look at light rail.

There is an existing light rail route from the Scott Road SkyTrain

station that goes through Newton, Cloverdale, Langley city and eventually ends

up in Chilliwack. It was the old interurban.

[1100]

Instead of trying to re-manage and reinvent the wheel, what we

need to do is take a look at the existing transportation corridors and see how

we can enhance them so that we are turning our attention to light rail. There is

no way we will manage to move around that kind of growth using a single strategy

of the automobile. You have to take a look at transit and figure out how it will

enhance and maintain smart growth.

Smart growth is not sprawling out where you have a lot of people

per acre. Smart growth is where you're contained and you have a significant

density in those town centres or city centres that you're identifying, which are

being identified by both the speaker across the way and myself.

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that transit is the key to

the future, and we have a huge distance to go. We need to extend the Millennium

line out to UBC. We need to look at whether we should extend the SkyTrain that

ends at King George station to Guildford and then on to Langley. We have to look

at the light transit situation.

Yes, all of us know growth is coming. The question is how to

manage that growth so that you end up with cities that are dense on the uplands,

the farmlands saved on the lowlands and you have a region that is livable where

people can get out of their cars into their community.

D. Hayer: Thank you to the member for Surrey–Green Timbers

for her comments. I appreciate her comments. At the end of the day I was hoping

she would say something about supporting the Gateway program. I was hoping she

would say that she would like to see the Port Mann Bridge twinned, Highway 1

widened and the South Fraser perimeter road…. But she didn't say that.

She does support extending the SkyTrain to Langley and to

Guildford, which is good to see. We are going to extend the Evergreen line. We

are also going to have more buses. We're going to have more bicycle lanes. We

will have more walking lanes. We will have more sidewalks available. Some of the

local systems we have, the highways we have…. We want to make sure people have

different options. They can walk, they can take a bicycle, they can take buses,

they can take a light rail system, or they can take other options.

Otherwise, the city of Surrey is the largest city with the largest

area in Canada. It is a municipality that has the largest area in Canada. When

you talk about putting more buses in the city of Surrey…. If we were to take 500

buses and put them in the city of Surrey tomorrow, it will not work because our

roads are not there to accommodate that.

We have to make sure we can work in the long term putting in a

mass rail system such as SkyTrain, such as a light rail system, and also improve

the buses. One of the reasons we never had more buses for a long period of time

was that there were no major road improvements. This is why our government has

made major investments in transportation such as the twinning of the Port Mann

Bridge and other infrastructures as well as widening Highway 10. This is the

first time in a long period of time that somebody is actually doing it. It was

talked about for more than 15 or 20 years, but nobody did it.

So 176th Street is the same thing. Nobody looked at it — same

about the Fraser Highway. I think we have to work with our cities to make sure

the density is there, that we have a higher density. We work with our developers

to make sure…. Rather than spreading the houses all over Surrey, we should put

them in certain centres and have a higher density so we can put more buses and

maybe connecting the light rail system or the transportation system.

We have to make sure we all work together, not just look at other

towns, and start supporting the politicians and councillors from Burnaby or

Vancouver. We should look at the city of Surrey first.

I think this is very important. We need all the MLAs from Surrey

and North Delta from the NDP side to come out there and say that we really

should be twinning the Port Mann Bridge so our brothers and sisters who use the

Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 don't spend so much time stuck in traffic burning

fumes.

We also need to make sure we have designed a program that looks

after our future growth because this province is an economic tiger in Canada,

probably in all of North America. We want to make sure that when the Olympics

come over here in 2010, which is only about 22 months….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Hayer: We appreciate them, celebrate them.

[1105]

Hon. G. Abbott: I call public bills in the hands of private

members — specifically, second reading of Bill M214, Minimum Wage Fairness Act,

[ Page 8680 ]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Bill M214 without disturbing the priorities of

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Second Reading of Bills

MINIMUM WAGE FAIRNESS ACT, 2007

C. James: I am very pleased to stand and speak to the

Minimum Wage Fairness Act. November 1 marks the sixth anniversary of the last

minimum wage increase, and B.C. is the only province in Canada that hasn't

raised the minimum wage in the last two years.

I don't think there's a member in this Legislature who would say

that over the last two years or over the last six years they haven't seen costs

rise in British Columbia. Whether we're talking about price of housing, the

price of gas, ferry fares or MSP premiums, we have seen huge increases in cost

of living over the last six years. Simply put, it's time to give B.C.'s

lowest-paid workers a raise.

After all, the Premier gave himself a raise worth $65,000 a year.

That's almost four times what a full-time minimum-wage worker makes for an

entire year. How could anyone say that that was fair? It needs to change. A

quarter of a million of British Columbians make less than $10 an hour. They come

from all walks of life.

I often hear arguments on the other side of the Legislature from

people saying that it's simply students who are starting their first jobs who

are making minimum wage. Well, that's simply wrong. People making minimum wage

under $10 an hour come from all walks of life: students, parents, immigrants,

seniors. They work hard, they pay their taxes, and they live by the rules. They

should be rewarded for their efforts.

The B.C. Liberal government has made every excuse in the books to

keep the wages low for minimum-wage workers. But I ask you: if not now, then

when? When is it a good time to increase the minimum wage?

If we accept the Premier's logic, there's no time that is a good

time to increase the minimum wage. Apparently, the Premier believes that

minimum-wage workers should never get an increase in their wages, that there

should be one standard for him and another standard for all of the people making

minimum wage.

It's offensive. It's offensive to British Columbia's basic sense

of decency and fairness.

It's also bad economics. Letting B.C.'s lowest-paid workers slip

further and further behind contributes to the growing divide that we see in

British Columbia and is a threat to the fabric of our society.

We already know that B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in

Canada. Children don't live by themselves in poverty. Families live in poverty.

We have the fastest-growing income gap in the country, and as the

economy moves ahead, the benefits aren't trickling down to large numbers of

hard-working British Columbians and communities.

I'm sure there are some decent people on that side of the House

who are embarrassed, who are embarrassed and ashamed by their Premier's refusal

to raise the minimum wage — if not, they should be — people who, like New

Democrats, can't believe that the Premier would take a huge 54-percent increase

for himself and would deny others a basic increase in their wage.

[1110]

Today I'd ask those MLAs on the other side of the House to raise

their voices with us. I ask the Minister of Labour, the person who is actually

in charge of the well-being of B.C.'s workforce, to make the case for a

minimum-wage increase, to tell the Premier that the time has come, to tell this

side that they can't stall any longer.

If the members on that side of the Legislature can't appeal to the

Premier's sense of decency, then perhaps they'd like to appeal to his place in

history. Does this Premier want to go down in history as the only Premier who

never, ever gave an increase to the minimum wage — our lowest-paid workers — the

Premier who kept the minimum wage as low as he could for as long as he could?

We all have heard that this Premier seems intent on changing his

image. He says, in fact, that it was wrong to fight against justice for

aboriginal people. This Premier says he now sees the light when it comes to

climate change. Now, both of those reversals, as we all know, are bogged down by

the Premier's short attention span and his penchant for getting headlines

instead of actually taking action. But I'm going to give this one to the

Premier, because here's one where he can actually show that he has a commitment

to do something different.

On November 1 the Premier can increase the minimum wage to $10 an

hour, index it to inflation and reward B.C.'s lowest-paid workers with their

first raise in six years. While he's at it, he can scrap the $6-an-hour training

wage. That was an insult to everyone in our province.

The minimum wage is a reflection of our society's sense of

fairness. All over this province we've seen British Columbians saying that the

time has come. Over 30 municipalities passed motions supporting an increase in

the minimum wage.

Just two weeks ago Radio India sponsored an event for an entire

day to look at increasing the minimum wage and to raise it because they

understood it was an important community issue. They understood. Unlike the

other side of the Legislature, they understood it was important to people in

their communities.

We've seen petitions signed by thousands and thousands of people,

and I would ask every member of this Legislature to join with those people, to

join with New Democrats and support this important bill, to do what's right, to

do what's just, to do what's good for working families and good for the economy.

I would urge support to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

[ Page 8681 ]

Standing Order 67

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, this bill provides for an

increase in the minimum wage and a reduction in the rate of income tax payable

by corporations other than credit unions. The reduction in the rate of tax

payable is an interference with the Crown revenues and out of order in a private

member's bill. The increase in the minimum wage imposes on many employers.

Standing Order 67 would require a recommendation by a message of

the Lieutenant-Governor to validate such a bill, and I note that only the

government can obtain such a motion. Accordingly, the bill is out of order.

Hon. G. Abbott: In light of your ruling, I call private

member's bill M202.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Bill M202 without disturbing the priorities and

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Second Reading of Bills

PROMOTION OF SAFE

ANTIFREEZE ACT, 2007

S. Fraser: I am speaking today on second reading of Bill

M202. That's the Promotion of Safe Antifreeze Act, 2007. I introduced this bill

in the spring with the apparent support of the Premier and members of the other

side of the House, as was noted by their applause.

[1115]

My private member's bill is intended to save the lives of

companion animals and wildlife, and to prevent poisoning of humans, especially

children. It's also a dangerous toxin in the environment. Ethylene glycol–based

antifreeze tastes like candy, and it kills. The deadly combination is linked to

the killing of thousands of companion animals — these are pets, dogs, cats;

thousands of poisonings of humans, often children; and linked, the literature

shows, to the death of wildlife as well.

When ingested, ethylene glycol antifreeze is converted to oxalic

acid, which attacks the kidneys and in a few hours will usually kill — in a not

very pleasant but very painful way — the animal or the person that may drink it.

The fact that it tastes like candy, that it is a deadly poison and that it is

readily available is a bad combination by anyone's estimation.

The statistics speak for themselves. We have people from across

the province that have written in to the Premier, to government members and to

myself. I've submitted petitions with signatures in the range of 20,000 in

support of this bill.

It is essentially a no-brainer. The combination of a toxin that

tastes like candy and is everywhere in our society must be addressed. My

intention is to bring this forward to committee stage to discuss options to

minimize the danger to companion animals and the poisoning of children and also

to protect the environment and our wildlife.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I note that the cost of propylene glycol–based antifreeze, which

is the safer alternative, is $3 more per gallon. That's retail. I know because I

have switched my vehicle over to that propylene glycol–based product. It does

not taste like candy; it is bitter to the taste. It has very low toxicity

comparatively. The use of propylene glycol antifreeze would save the lives of

thousands of companion animals and would prevent the poisonings of children —

and adults, because it's not exclusively children — and also protect our

wildlife and environment.

I note that the support for my bill is not just from the 20,000

B.C. residents that are concerned about this. It's obviously had an effect on

them personally and tragically. I have received the support of groups like the

Pacific Assistance Dogs, who for 20 years have been providing support for people

with the need of assistance animals. My bill has the support of the Western

Canada Wilderness Committee. It has the support of the David Suzuki Foundation.

It has the support of the Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. chapter.

I note that there is some opposition to this from groups like the

Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association. Their arguments against it run

in the range of: "We would have to stop cars at the border and drain their

antifreeze out," or that there's no evidence to show that there is a need for

such a bill. I consider those spurious arguments at best.

That is why this bill needs to be brought forward for discussion

and deliberation at committee stage to protect the wildlife of this province,

the environment of this province. That's the fourth great goal, I believe, of

this government. If it's to be made more than a slogan, I would suggest that

this bill must be brought forward to committee stage.

[1120]

During my time of deliberations on this bill I have received, as I

mentioned, thousands and thousands of letters of support and signatures on

petitions. The most difficult and challenging part for me has been receiving the

events that have occurred to people tragically. Seniors have had a delivery van

show up in their yard that happened to have a leaking radiator, and they've lost

their cat — their family member — or their dog. You've got to know that anyone

who has faced the death of a companion animal…. It is a tragic event in the life

of any family. The most difficult stories I've heard of have been from seniors.

In some cases the companion animal has been their family.

I ask all members of this House to consider being proactive,

raising the bar in protecting the environment. Consider this bill for second

reading. Bring it forward to committee stage. Let us suss out the details on how

to make this work.

There are so many organizations and so many B.C. residents waiting

for this decision to be made, hoping that the loss of their companion animal,

their pet, their

[ Page 8682 ]

family member will not be for nothing but that their story will represent a

change for the better so that this won't happen again, so that our environment,

our wildlife, our family members, our children, our pets, our companion animals

are all protected.

It's quite simple. Ethylene glycol–based antifreeze tastes like

candy, and it kills. It is its own attractant, and it's lethal in small

quantities. A teaspoon will kill a cat. An ounce will kill a dog. A similar

amount will poison children. The product is everywhere.

Propylene glycol–based antifreeze does not taste like candy, is

not lethal in small amounts and would save the lives of countless animals — our

own, feral cats and wildlife — and prevent the poisoning of thousands of humans

as well. This is a no-brainer. We must promote the use of propylene glycol–based

antifreeze and ensure that we remove the products that are killing wildlife and

our companion animals and poisoning humans.

I note that one of the other arguments to the contrary for this

bill, put forward by the CCSPA, is that there is limited and inconclusive data

supporting any danger. That is patently false. The SPCA in B.C. supports this

bill, of course, and they do so for good reason. The American SPCA has also been

trying to deal with antifreeze poisoning as one of the primary causes of death

of pets and companion animals for years.

The statistics are there. They've been there for years, for

decades. A 1989 survey done by the British Columbia Veterinary Medical

Association showed that 1,589 cats and dogs died in this province alone as a

result of ethylene glycol–based poisoning. This figure only includes the

diagnosed cases.

[1125]

The nature of the poisoning often means that the companion animals

don't manage to crawl home. They do not get veterinarian help — what limited

help is available after they've been poisoned. So the statistics are clear.

As for wildlife, there's a well-documented case of a California

condor — a species on the brink of extinction, making a comeback, one of the

most endangered species on the planet — being killed by ingesting leaked

antifreeze off a highway. So in the most stark terms, the statistics are there.

The worst statistics are from those who have just lost a pet, and as I'm

speaking today, that is happening.

Somebody's rad is overflowing. Some fender-bender has caused

ethylene glycol–based antifreeze to be running down a gutter and being licked up

by a dog or a cat, or going into the gutter and killing ducks and fish. And it's

preventable.

To not discuss in this House making it preventable, protecting our

companion animals, protecting our children and protecting our wildlife would be

ludicrous. We must bring this forward for debate at committee stage, and it must

be voted on in this House for second reading.

I note that the product, ethylene glycol–based antifreeze, is

readily available. There is enough product in the parking lot of this building

to kill every companion animal in the city of Victoria if it were to enter the

environment. All it would take would be for the animal to come upon the product

because the product is an attractant. It tastes like candy.

A dog, if it gets a little flavour of this product on a container

of antifreeze in the garage, will chew the cap off and drink it and die by its

kidneys being destroyed. It is a terrible death. It is a painful death, and for

us to allow a lethal toxin to be used readily — that is its own attractant to

animals, to children, to wildlife — is appalling. It's our chance now to address

that.

From this House, from this B.C. Legislature, we have the

opportunity to change that, to make a difference in the world, because others

are watching. The support I've received for the bill has come from a lot farther

than within our borders.

With that, I shall sit and hope that all sides of the House will

consider this bill based on its merits and not based on politics. This is not a

political issue. This is a health and safety issue. This is an issue of

protecting our environment. We all must care about that. British Columbians

demand it.

R. Cantelon: I appreciate the comments from the member

opposite for Alberni-Qualicum. I certainly have the greatest respect and,

indeed, support for the intent of what legislation he puts forward and supports

today.

There's no question that we all love our pets. I won't be

supporting the bill in its present form, and I need, I think, to qualify my

credentials to a certain extent as a pet lover, lest my comments be mistaken in

the context of what I put forward.

[1130]

In fact, not long ago, my wife came home with a cute little

kitten, a little black cat, and it's a wonderful little animal. We weren't

totally supportive of that, but once this little animal — we call him Zipper —

crawls up on your chest and puts his nose to your face, you quickly become very

attached. He became an instant hit in the household. We call him Zipper because

he just flies around the House from one room to the next.

His very cute way of getting your attention is to run right across

your path of walking, just to try and catch your feet and cause you to stumble

forward. But you have to laugh. You have to be amused. You become quickly

endeared to these small animals. They're very important to people. Cats

particularly are very important.

My wife worked for a time in an extended care wing of the Nanaimo

regional hospital. There they have a resident cat, which is very comforting to

all the residents. When the member speaks of the therapeutic values, it's

certainly more than just affection. The cat is actually improving the health,

well-being, mental stability and mental outlook of patients as it moves from

patient to patient in the ward.

Animals and cats can be very beneficial, as can dogs. So I only

have the greatest respect for the member's comments regarding that. Certainly,

there's no doubt that the SPCAs will and do and should and must support any and

all moves to protect animals, because they perform great benefits to society.

[ Page 8683 ]

In fact, I didn't mention, but probably should mention, that this

cat is a black cat. But that didn't affect my immediate acceptance of it as a

householder, because some of my family is of Irish descent. Despite what you may

know or hear about black cats being unlucky, to many people in the United

Kingdom black cats are a sign of luck. I embrace that characteristic.

One thing I appreciate about these debates is that members can

freely express their views from both sides of the House. Today I'm encouraged

and delighted that I seem to be receiving what would be called heckling comments

from this side of the House. I take them only in good measure and good faith,

and I know that it all contributes to the debate.

It's unfortunate, though, that this licence to talk to all issues

and perhaps confront them across the House with comments isn't open to all

members of the House. I think it's very important that members be free to speak

their views, and I regret that this is not a courtesy or right or privilege and

that what should be part of our protocol is not extended to both sides of this

House.

Notably, the members opposite are not permitted to speak on all

issues. But I won't dwell on that, Madam Speaker. I have been in the House when

you have redressed members who have attempted to defend that right, although I

reserve the right to defend that right.

To the issue. The reason I'm not supporting it is because,

although the member opposite refers to this as a no-brainer, I think it requires

a little more thought put into it than there was in the legislation. It's for

technical reasons. Of course ethylene glycol is poisonous. We know that. And I

won't dispute the fact that it's a horrible death in the bodies of small

animals.

It's a very deadly thing, and that is why I, and I'm sure many

responsible people on both sides of this House and in their communities, take

special note and special care with regard to the integrity of their cooling

systems. It's not just a matter of cost, because it's cheap enough to top up

your antifreeze, but it's a matter of the risk that any drippings from a leaking

and faulty cooling system cause — the danger that it causes to people.

I know that people are more aware. I'm certainly more aware of any

drippings that might happen. Fortunately, I would say that these occurrences

with modern equipment and modern engines are, of course, substantially reduced.

The quality with which motor vehicles are now put together and put forward on

the road is considerably improved.

You know, it used to be said that they don't build them like they

used to. Actually, that's not the case. Motors run much longer without regular

maintenance. Cooling systems operate considerably better without any accident or

incident. It used to be a common occurrence, back when I was working in service

stations, that a thermostat would plug or stick and cause the pressure to build

up, and the rad hose would explode at the most inopportune times. That's a rare

occurrence today.

[1135]

All the components are built to a much higher standard and operate

with much higher reliabilities. It used to be that regular draining and flushing

was required of the cooling systems. Of course, this could often be done in a

back yard, where the person would just dump it into the ground and make the

material available to a wide variety of animals and even wild animals.

I was visited by a three-legged raccoon on our back step not long

ago. That animal had certainly fought hard for its survival, and it would be a

shame to see an animal like that accidentally fall victim to ethylene glycol.

The reason is really quite simple — that it does require further

thought and that the bill, in its present form, should not go forward and

doesn't deserve to receive further consideration. That's simply this. Let's take

the example of a car that you buy — whatever brand. It doesn't matter. We don't

make any cars in British Columbia. All the vehicles that we use in British

Columbia are brought into this province from Japan, the United States, Ontario

and other jurisdictions, even Europe in many cases. They already come preloaded

with ethylene glycol. That's a standard coolant they all use.

We can ban the sale of ethylene glycol, but we're actually only

furthering the risk and continuing the risk to the animal. If you do have a

minor leak and the ethylene glycol goes on your driveway or on the roadway or

wherever it might go, you go to the store and buy propylene glycol. The member

opposite clearly described its characteristics, which are non-toxic.

Well, I'm not sure it's non-toxic, but it's certainly

non-palatable. I would seek further clarification of that. That is another issue

that needs to be clarified. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol are very

similar in chemical composition. Before we move to something, I think we need to

know that in fact propylene glycol is less harmful to animals. Therefore, we

should be careful that before we jump to a blanket solution, we're not really

moving from one set of problems to another.

The other question I would raise on the chemical nature — and I

would admit to you that I am not an expert in this area — would be the taste.

The member opposite indicated primarily that one of the big attractions of

ethylene glycol is, of course, its taste. It is a sweet taste. It's basically a

sugar-related compound. It has a sweet taste that does appeal to animals and

perhaps even to small children, were they to taste it on somebody's driveway.

But I take most of the other comments as to the incidence.

Although they're greatly diminished by the reliability of the cars and the

extent of the problem is no longer of the magnitude that it once was, it does

represent a real concern.

Perhaps the answer is not in transferring holus-bolus to a

completely different type of antifreeze, because this may very possibly engender

a lot of resistance from the automobile industry, who will make the usual

complaints about cost, changes and so forth.

I come to the point about how enforceable it will really be. How

effective can it really be? Someone loses a few litres of antifreeze, and he

tops it up with propylene glycol. Well, I presume that cutting it with a little

propylene glycol won't render the rest of the system

[ Page 8684 ]

less toxic. This is very likely to be the kind of vehicle that the member

opposite wants fixed.

We can require them, once they achieve a certain level of

depletion, to not add more than a litre. That would cause us to control the

amount of fluid put into these antifreeze systems so that people couldn't top up

faulty systems.

Now, this raises a question of regulation. I don't know how you

would do that. I don't know how you could compel people, once they encounter a

certain amount of leakage from their systems, to flush the whole system and

replace the ethylene glycol with propylene glycol.

I think this is the core problem with this. Yes, you can ban the

sale. That's very easily done. But I would submit to you it isn't a no-brainer

that this will fix the problem and remove it. What we really need to do — well,

perhaps really need to do; it might be another solution — is insist that no

vehicles brought into the province of British Columbia have as their principal

coolant medium ethylene glycol.

Well, this is where it isn't so much a no-brainer. I don't know

how we do that. I don't know how we impose on other jurisdictions the

requirement to convert everything to propylene glycol so that every vehicle

brought into British Columbia now comes in only with propylene glycol.

[1140]

S. Fraser: That's as spurious as the other idea.

R. Cantelon: It is an absolute core…. Despite the spurious

comments from the opposite member, it is essential. If they're coming in with

ethylene glycol and every vehicle running on the road still has ethylene glycol

as the principal component of its coolant, then how will we save animals by

banning the sale?

Perhaps we might have another answer.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: Perhaps another answer is to change the

flavour of the ethylene glycol. The member opposite mentioned that the principal

attraction to ethylene glycol is its sweet taste. I don't, this time, hear any

complaints or challenges to that concept. That is indeed the case.

Maybe a simpler answer might be through some sort of chemical

alteration of ethylene glycol — that we insist that every vehicle coming in with

ethylene glycol have the chemical cut in a way that alters the flavour to make

it less attractive…

S. Fraser: It's called propylene glycol. That's what it is.

R. Cantelon: …to all other animals.

Now, of course, the member says to make it propylene glycol. Of

course, his suggestion probably is: "Let's make sure that banning the sale

necessarily implies that we're going to ban the sale of vehicles with ethylene

glycol."

That, of course, is an unintended consequence, and I would say

that unintended consequences are not something that is foreign to the members

opposite. They may have quick ideas that seem to be quick fixes, no-brainers,

but the unintended consequences that flow from these enthusiastic, not

necessarily well-thought-through pieces of legislation — though they may be

characterized as no-brainers…. So that is the problem.

I would like to conclude by saying that I support the intent. I

value my animals. I would rue the day that little Zipper doesn't cross my path

and cause me nearly to stumble and fall in my kitchen, because it's an exciting

interaction between me and the animals. I love it when I'm sitting in my easy

chair watching a hockey game and little Zipper jumps up on my chest and puts his

little cold, wet nose against mine. I'm not as enthusiastic when he sinks his

claws into my feet and pretends that they're some sort of new toy that he's

there to play with, but I tolerate that. It's all in good fun and jest.

I think we need to step back from this. I do support the member's

intent — that we should protect our animals, that it is very valuable — but I

can't support this going further, because I think it's basically flawed in its

implementation.

We need to consider how else we might do it, what other options

there are, without messing with and interfering with other jurisdictions —

without spreading our concerns to others.

Yet maybe there is an easy way to do that, maybe by approaching

automobile manufacturers. Certainly, the cost shouldn't be a factor — the

propylene glycol. I endorse that it is the case that propylene glycol could well

be used as a worldwide standard. I would salute initiatives set forward by this

province to support that.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence with respect to my

comments about speaking freely in the House. I thank you for allowing me to

continue. I consider this interaction between both sides of the House a

privilege and a privileged conversation, and I appreciate that all members

should have the right. With that, I conclude my remarks and give way to the

opposite side.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak in favour of this bill, which

I think is an important piece of legislation brought forward by our member from

Alberni. It's one that I would urge this House to support because — you know

what? — it does matter what happens to the thousands and thousands of animals —

cats, dogs and other animals — that are poisoned every year by antifreeze. There

is a simple solution to deal with it, and that is the issue of propylene glycol.

What I found fascinating, in listening to the argument put forward

by the government member to not support this bill, is that if you were to buy

that logic — if you were to buy that specious argument that was put forward — we

would have done nothing on Freon refrigerants in refrigerators and car air

conditioning systems.

We would have done nothing because "it may cause an inconvenience

for the car companies. British

[ Page 8685 ]

Columbia is just a small little jurisdiction, and what impact can we have? We

need to study it further. The link hasn't been proven." What a load of nonsense

that was being spewed.

[1145]

To take that logic one step further…. One of the showcases of the

government's legislative agenda has been global warming. To use that logic would

mean that we would do nothing on global warming. "British Columbia is a small

jurisdiction. It doesn't generate much in the way of greenhouse gases. This is a

bigger issue that needs to be studied further. As many people like to say, it's

not been proven. The link hasn't been made, so we shouldn't do anything."

What a load of nonsense. The link has been proven for a long time

now. Ethylene glycol antifreeze kills. It kills animals, it kills pets, and it

can be toxic to children. There is a safe alternative.

This is an opportunity for British Columbia to take a leadership

position. As we're very fond of saying, we can do anything here in British

Columbia. We should lead the way in the rest of Canada. We want to lead this

country in so many areas. Well, this is an example for us to do that — the

safety of pets, wild animals and children.

When an animal ingests ethylene glycol antifreeze, it dies in a

very horrible way. It's painful, it's slow, and it's cruel.

There are a large number of organizations and people right across

this province who are asking government to do something, to take a leadership

role. We as legislators should be prepared to do that. What's wrong with being

the first province in this country to say that we need to change and make a

shift away from ethylene glycol antifreeze to propylene-based antifreeze?

What's wrong with taking that leadership role? What's wrong with

sending a message to other provinces and to our federal government that this is

something we believe should take place? Absolutely nothing at all. That's why we

should support this particular piece of legislation.

I know the member was concerned about the automobile industry.

Well, guess what. Car manufacturers already stand behind propylene glycol in

their warranties if you use it in the cooling system of the car. They already

stand behind it, so it's not a challenge for the automobile industry.

An Hon. Member: It's a choice.

M. Farnworth: Someone said that it's a choice. What we're

saying is that it's the wrong choice to have ethylene glycol in vehicles.

We need to recognize that what we put into things can have

long-term, lasting consequences. We know how it is in terms of pets. We know how

it is with animals. We know there are thousands of animals…. People's pets go

missing, die in a very cruel way, but just as many, if not more, disappear into

the underbrush, into the dark corners, into secluded places, where they curl up,

suffer and perish. No one knows, and no one seems to care. It's not right, and

there's something we can do about it.

I want to illustrate this a little further, because this speaks to

an issue that is broader in many ways than just antifreeze. We develop tens of

thousands of chemicals every year. Many of them are tested for their safety and

efficacy, and just as many aren't. That is increasingly a major issue across

this country — in our health care system, for example. Tests done on people — on

MPs in the most recent one — revealed a toxic cocktail of chemicals in their

bloodstream.

Right now there's a documented

article in The Economist

magazine. In 1991, the year I was elected, the population of vultures comprising

three species in India numbered 40 million birds. They performed a huge service

in terms of the disposal of carcasses, of garbage, of waste. A chemical was used

in agriculture as a treatment, like an antibiotic in cattle. It was deemed to be

safe, but it wasn't. Or at least for the cattle it was safe, but not for the

birds.

[1150]

In 16 years the population of vultures in India has plummeted from

40 million to 10,000. It has been the largest decrease in a bird species in the

entire world since the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Now there is a

dramatic attempt to rescue them and save the remaining birds. In the case of one

of the species, there are only 430 left — in the space of 16 years.

An unintended consequence — this is an example of that. But we

know it has a consequence, a very serious consequence. Ethylene glycol has a

very serious consequence. As such, we need to recognize that there is something

we can do. We need to take a leadership role on this. We need to know that there

is a safe alternative — propylene glycol.

It is time now to stand up and take a leadership role in this

province and in this country and say that there's a safe alternative to ethylene

glycol, and we should push for propylene glycol. It will mean thousands and

thousands of pets and animals in this province are spared a horrible, agonizing

death. It's time to do it, and it's time to do it now.

L. Mayencourt: I'll be brief because I know there are a lot

of members who want to speak to this. I'm a pet owner, and I really applaud what

the member has brought forward here. I think this is just a sensible thing.

There may be a need to figure out how to get it done and all that sort of stuff,

but I think we're intelligent enough that we can debate that and figure out how

to get a consensus here.

I am also a private member, and I've brought forward bills. You

know, this is the work of every member of this Legislature. I really want to

applaud him for bringing this bill forward. I think it makes sense, and it's

been very clearly articulated by the Opposition House Leader and also by the

member from Parksville-Qualicum. I look forward to further debate and perhaps

even committee stage on this bill.

L. Krog: I will be brief. I was astonished this morning to

hear the remarks of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. I would have thought he

would stand in

[ Page 8686 ]

this House and compliment the member for Alberni-Qualicum for bringing this

forward.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I can't imagine a thinking British Columbian who would be opposed

to the passage of this legislation. I can't imagine a pet owner or a member of

the SPCA or anyone who cared about the environment not supporting this

legislation.

We have an opportunity to ban the sale in this province of a

substance which is demonstrably dangerous and poisonous, harms animals and

livestock, and is a threat to the environment. We have a chance to ban its sale

and protect pets. How could anyone oppose this?

For the member for Nanaimo-Parksville to go on about the auto

industry and the fact that the cars come in with ethylene glycol now and that it

would be difficult, etc. — what a lot of silly nonsense. To suggest that that's

going to be a roadblock, that the auto industry, shipping thousands of cars into

British Columbia monthly, can't figure out how to put in the appropriate

substitute for a dangerous and poisonous substance…. Unbelievable. That we would

waste our time here this morning opposing this bill — opposing this fine piece

of legislation, the excellent work of the member for Alberni-Qualicum — is

beyond belief.

On behalf of my constituents for whom I speak here today, I will

support this bill. We strongly support this bill. We encourage this Legislature

to pass it. Get it to committee stage, pass it into law, and do the right thing.

Speaker's Ruling

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I must advise you that Bill

M202, at

section 1, creates an offence under the Offence Act. The creation of an

offence is an interference with Crown prerogatives in a private member's bill.

Accordingly, this bill is out of order.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on

the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the

Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright ©

2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175