2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Holocaust Memorial Day

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

B.C. teams at National Aboriginal Hockey

Championships

Hon. M.

de Jong

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Health and safety initiatives at

Victoria Chinese Public School

Fleming

Holocaust Memorial Day

I. Black

Child care

Trevena

University designation for

Capilano College

McIntyre

Housing and homelessness

Chudnovsky

Richmond Rotary Club gala for

seniors

J. Yap

Oral Questions

Child in the Home of a Relative

program

C. James

Hon. T.

Christensen

Simons

Karagianis

A. Dix

Government action on forest

industry

Routley

Hon. R.

Coleman

Simpson

Macdonald

Second Reading of Bills

Medicare Protection Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 21) (continued)

Hon. G.

Abbott

Health Care Costs Recovery Act

(Bill 22)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Ralston

Hon. G.

Abbott

Election Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 42)

Hon. W.

Oppal

L. Krog

Ralston

Chudnovsky

Puchmayr

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Horgan

Routley

Conroy

[ Page 11941 ]

MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: With us are today are four members of the

Provincial Child Care Council: co-chair Amy Collum, Little Ferns young parent

program in Nanaimo; Brenda Gottfried, Freedom Child Care Centre in Victoria;

Rebecca Scott, Our Children's Centre Society of greater Victoria; and Bruce

Hallsor, our parent rep from Crease Harmon and Co., Victoria.

It was my pleasure to join them for lunch and to share with them

copies of the proclamation to proclaim May as Child Care Month in British

Columbia.

I would ask the House to please join me in thanking them for their

valuable contribution to children and families in the province of British

Columbia and to welcome them to the Legislature today.

[1335]

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me make three

guests welcome. First, Jesse Winfrey. Jesse is a Duncan city councillor. He and

I go back to, I think, seven years old as Cub Scout buddies. I think our troop

was expelled from the church we were in. That tells you a little about our

behaviour at that point. We're much better behaved now. I would like everybody

to help me make Jesse Winfrey welcome from the city of Duncan.

Then if I could add two of my guests. Jenny Martin and Liz Peters

are Cowichan Tribes elders, and they've come to join us and visit with the

opposition to discuss some of their issues.

Statements

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

Hon. G. Campbell: Today we have representatives of our

Jewish community here to help remember the Holocaust and Holocaust Memorial Day

— in the House, as they have been here for the last few years. We remember more

than six million victims lost in the Holocaust. We pay tribute to the men, women

and children who were victims of racism and intolerance, and we honour those who

have survived.

In the gallery today, we're honoured to be joined by survivors of

the Holocaust and the families of survivors: Rita Akselrod, Ben Akselrod, Zev

Bak, Nikki Basuk, Amalia Boe Fishman, Bob Boekbinder, Lillian Boraks Nemetz,

Alex Buckman, Charles Carl, Saul Cohn, Sophie Cymbalista, Jody Dales, Dr.

Abraham Deston, Susi Deston, Mark Elster, Sara Engelberg, Arieh Engelberg, Izzi

Fraeme, Diana Friedman, Matilda Gertner, Jason Gertner, Debbie Gertner, Esfira

Golger, Benji Gorodnitsky, Gregory Gorodnitsky, Myer Grinshpan, Pola Hister,

Vladimir Hopner, Frances Hoyd, Jane Janson, Lisa Kafka, Rachel Katz, Katusha

Khmelnitsky, Dr. David Kirk, Vladimir Levit, Ella Levit, Maurice Lipkavitz, Sara

Mendelbaum, Lola Mendelson, Goldie Miller, Joseph Polinsky, Alla Polinsky, Maya

Rivkis, Yakov Rivkis, Edith Rothfels, Horst Rothfels, Jack Rozen, Doreen Rozen,

Robert Rubenfeld, Gertrude Rubenfeld, Shelly Seidelman, David Shaffer, Sidi

Shafer, Rita Shapiro, John Sitwell, Raya Sitwell, Gerald Stanford, Elizabeth

Stern, Bente Thomsen, Michael Vainer, Leo Vogel, Jacob Wardy, Veronica Winkler,

Rachel Wosk, Sally Zimmerson, Voron Zoia and Iakov Zoia.

Together today in this House and in this time in this province, we

honour their experiences, their sacrifices and in doing so reaffirm our

collective commitment to never forget and to never waver in our defence of

freedom and our condemnation of hatred, violence and intolerance.

We will never forget, Mr. Speaker.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: I'd like to take this opportunity to

introduce members of the Council of Tourism Associations. We very much

appreciate the work that they do, and we enjoyed joining them this morning. I

hope members will join me in making them feel welcome.

K. Whittred: On behalf of yourself, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce some special visitors who are in the gallery this afternoon.

Marcus Kurschat and his wife Janis are visiting from Qualicum Beach. They are

here with their three sons Marcus Jr., Jack and Michael.

They have enjoyed a very special tour of the building today, and I

hope they will also enjoy watching our proceedings this afternoon. Would the

House please join me in a very warm welcome for this family.

[1340]

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to

introduce Rick and Shelley Fontaine from Fruitvale. Rick is the financial

secretary for Local 480 United Steelworkers, and he is also a carpenter at Teck

Cominco. Shelly works for the school district in Trail. I know that this is

their first time to Victoria, so please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. G. Hogg: I am delighted to introduce ten individuals

who do a great deal to promote the city of White Rock. They are Evan Palmer,

White Rock ambassador; Katie Dolmat, White Rock ambassador; and Emily Davies,

White Rock ambassador; the friendship ambassador, Alexa Posch; White Rock

princess, Kyaelim Kwon; Miss White Rock, Courtney Crowson; and B.C. ambassador

Samantha Schapp; along with their coordinators and support, Debbie Ward, Donna

Beaudry and Sharon Crowson. Would the House please make them most welcome.

C. Trevena: I had the pleasure of having lunch with two

members of the Council of Tourism Associations:

[ Page 11942 ]

Craig Murray, who is a director and also runs the fishing lodge Nimmo Bay,

and Brian Gunn from Strathcona Park Lodge. They are in the precincts for

meetings to promote the importance of tourism to our province's economy, and I

hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: I have the privilege of introducing Lee

Morris today. Lee is the CEO of Tourism Kamloops. She grew up here on the south

Island and made her fame down here and was inexorably drawn to the Thompson

valleys to continue her career. It's a place where she owns cows, horses and

acreage and does a wonderful job as CEO. Would everyone please make Lee Morris

welcome.

C. Wyse: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a

constituent of mine from the Williams Lake area, Kimberley Burgoyne, who is with

the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association. She has joined her colleagues

today to promote this great industry of ours, tourism here in British Columbia.

Please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: Because seating was so difficult in the gallery,

my guest is actually sitting across the hall in my office watching this on TV.

So I'm hoping we can send a good welcome to Linnea Battel, the co-director of

Aboriginal Tourism B.C. She is also the director of Xa:ytem, which is a

9,000-year-old Salish village in Mission, where I live. For those who were

interested in seeing what life was like 9,000 years ago, I commend you to an SFU

website, www.sfu.museum/time. There is an unbelievable website that shows the

whole Salish village.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are actually 50 representatives from

COTA, the Council of Tourism Associations, in the House and in the precincts

today. They are representing all sectors of the tourism industry. They are

spending the day meeting with cabinet ministers and with MLAs.

I would like to thank Jim Storie, who is the chair of the board of

directors, and Stephen Regan, president and CEO, for organizing COTA's visit and

for the excellent work that they do on behalf of the many tourism associations

and businesses in the province of British Columbia. Would the House join me in

making Jim, Stephen and all of the COTA representatives feel very welcome.

J. McIntyre: Since it appears to be COTA day, I just wanted

to add good wishes to Dave Clark and hope the House will make him feel welcome.

He comes from a hotel background and works at Tourism Whistler, and he is also

here for the meeting.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to ask the House to acknowledge

the presence in the legislative precincts of a group of 202 grade 11 students

from the great school Robert A. McMath Secondary School in my riding of

Richmond-Steveston.

[1345]

They're here to visit the legislative precincts, the museum and

other important parts of our capital city as part of their program on learning

and being here in the Legislature to learn firsthand about our parliamentary

traditions in their courses at school. They're with about 20 adults led by Ms.

Monique Vonk, who is a grade 11 socials teacher. Would the House please welcome

this group of young people.

I'd like to add, if I may, a special welcome to the precincts to

my favourite grade 11 student, my son Michael Yap, who is with his group of

classmates on this visit. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

B.C. TEAMS AT NATIONAL

ABORIGINAL HOCKEY

CHAMPIONSHIPS

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the weekend, the National Aboriginal

Hockey Championships took place in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and British

Columbia sent two teams. These were bantam- and midget-age players. We sent a

men's team and a women's team. They hailed from across the province with a

little bit of help from a few players from the Yukon.

I had a chance to meet them on their return to British Columbia at

YVR, Vancouver, yesterday and got a chance to see the bronze medal that the

women's team won. I know that everyone in this House wants to send to the

players, the coaches, the support, the parents — everyone who made the trip

possible — a hearty thanks for representing us so well and congratulations for

their success.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: I see my friend Marcia Braundy upstairs there.

Actually, the last time I introduced her, she was Marcia. Now she's Dr. Marcia

Braundy. Could everyone please welcome her with the appropriate due respect.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HEALTH AND SAFETY INITIATIVES AT

VICTORIA CHINESE PUBLIC SCHOOL

R. Fleming: I'd like to inform the House about an

initiative that the Capital Region Housing Corporation is undertaking as part of

their activities for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week.

In previous years the housing corporation has worked with children

living in housing complexes to promote safety at home. Last year focused on what

tenants can do for emergency preparedness. This year the housing corporation

decided to reach out to their corporate neighbours. Across the street from the

CRD building on Fisgard Street is the Chinese Public School, a historic building

with religious, cultural and educational significance in our community and an

enduring icon of Victoria's Chinatown.

[ Page 11943 ]

The school was delighted to have their students participate in

promoting health and safety, and the housing corporation is proud to be working

with the school in the year that they will be celebrating their 100th birthday

in the city of Victoria.

The project with the school has two main components. The first

component is fire safety. The school has arranged with the city of Victoria fire

department for a full simulation fire drill. The successful drill involves the

use of fire trucks and gives students the opportunity to explore firefighting

equipment, hear about fire-containment strategy and talk with real firefighters.

The fire safety aspect also involved the housing corporation assisting with the

school's preparation of a fire safety plan that includes what to do in case of

The second component of this project involves the school children

themselves creating posters about any safety theme they choose that is related

to fire. The housing corporation has provided all of the art materials. Three

weeks later, I'm proud to say that 60 posters have been returned by the

students.

Today David Ganong, who is chair of the Capital Region Housing

Corporation, and Whyte Cheung, a prominent member of the Chinese community, are

making the selection of the winning posters for the three different student age

groups. The posters are going to be displayed in the main lobby of the CRD

headquarters building before going back to the school for a celebration on

Thursday, May 8, which will honour the winning posters with prizes for the

students.

I invite all members of this House to join me in thanking the

housing corporation, who do so much for their residents and their families in my

community, and to extend wishes to the Chinese school on their 100th birthday.

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

I. Black: The Holocaust — a horror the size and scope of

which defies comprehension. Six million Jews, 1.5 million children and thousands

of Jewish communities obliterated forever. In addition, the Nazis also

persecuted and murdered hundreds of thousands of others based on their physical

or mental disabilities, race, religion, politics or sexual orientation.

[1350]

A memorial was held today in the Legislature with approximately

100 guests in attendance, including Holocaust survivors and their children. We

observe and we honour Holocaust Memorial Day to remember and support those who

perished, those who suffered and those who survived.

The Holocaust is a solemn and poignant reminder of how important

our own individual roles are in fighting injustice — how we all have individual

responsibilities towards our fellow citizens, regardless of their ethnicity,

gender, religion or sexuality. We must take heed of the importance of

remembering such atrocities. Simply put, never again can we let hatred, racism,

persecution and genocide take root and harm our fellow human beings. Never again

can indifference and inaction trump courage and moral righteousness.

We must actively stand against victimization and persecution, no

matter how apparently benign the form or isolated the case. As time continues

its steady march and the voices of the survivors become fewer, the mantle passes

to us to ensure that our children and then their children are taught the

individual and active obligation to oppose such hatred.

Noted philosopher and Holocaust historian John Roth wrote:

"Questions about the fate of Holocaust memory should concern us…because the

quality of human life itself depends greatly on what we remember, how we

remember and why we remember." And so we remember. In doing so, we also incubate

hope that this great reminder of past injustices will provide greater assurance,

one person at a time, that we can live in a truly peaceful and just society.

I would ask all present to stand and join me in a moment of

silence and recognition of Holocaust Memorial Day and all those it commemorates.

CHILD CARE

C. Trevena: Jason was sitting on a little chair at a low

table at a child care centre while his ten-month-old son tottered around, eager

to explore all the possibilities as young minds and newly stumbling bodies are

wont to do.

Jason's daughter goes to the centre for two days a week, and he'd

love it if his infant son could also attend. It would mean that he and Melanie,

his wife, could spend some time together. At the moment they work on opposite

shifts at the hospital so they can look after the children. He's a manager

working days. She's a maternity and pediatric nurse on nights. They are both

exhausted.

Jason knows it's not just his family who faces this daily problem.

As a manager, he says it's hard to get nurses and almost impossible to get them

on overtime, and lack of child care is one of the reasons.

The child care centre we're meeting in has 12 spaces for infant

and toddlers — that's for babies from birth to 18 months — but only four of

those spaces can be used. That's because the centre can't find the staff to work

there. Like everywhere in child care, the pay, which starts at $12 an hour, is

too low to live on as a single income, and there are no benefits. In this

community of 4,000, there are 34 parents on the wait list at this centre.

Fourteen of them are looking for infant and toddler care. But the trained early

childhood educators are leaving child care for other work.

For all the mind-inspiring puzzles and activities, the bright

rooms hung with kids' art, the picture is bleak across the province. Wait lists

are long in centres in every community, parents are frantic, and care providers

are burnt out. City halls and chambers of commerce recognize the crisis, and the

child care community is finding unlikely allies. But allies alone are not

enough.

May is Child Care Month. It's a time to salute the hard work and

dedication of those child care

[ Page 11944 ]

providers. It's a time to recognize the role that child care plays in our

communities and in all our society. Let's also make it a time for celebration.

[1355]

UNIVERSITY DESIGNATION FOR

CAPILANO COLLEGE

J. McIntyre: I rise today to applaud the significant dream

that after tremendous community collaboration has been realized for the North

Shore, Howe Sound and Sunshine Coast region.

On April 25 the North Shore MLAs were honoured to attend a

historic ceremony at Capilano College, where the Premier announced to a packed

house the exciting news that Capilano College would soon become Capilano

University.

Capilano College was established 40 years ago in a high school

setting in West Vancouver and has now grown to campuses in North Vancouver,

Squamish and the Sunshine Coast. Not only does it have a growing reputation

across the province, but it has received significant international attention,

boasting hundreds of international students.

Capilano College and its president, Greg Lee, are leaders in

expanding 21st century post-secondary education, in meeting training needs in

the region and in continuing to increase their reputation in teaching

excellence. Capilano College is already recognized in key areas of

specialization including tourism and outdoor recreation programs, not to mention

that they have the biggest film program in western Canada.

I'm delighted that our province has taken the necessary steps in

several communities across the province to recognize the important role of

teaching-intensive community institutions, the calibre of their staff and the

top-quality programming by raising them to university status. Thanks to a

well-supported public campaign following the release of the Campus 2020 report,

thousands of students will have the opportunity to gain access to degree

programs closer to home.

With the university designation, Capilano will be in an enhanced

position to attract students, faculty and donors. They're anticipating

increasing the number of degree programs offered, an upwards spiral. In the Sea

to Sky corridor Capilano has been working to build a new campus in downtown

Squamish to expand offerings and to consolidate its designation as a B.C. centre

for tourism, leadership and innovation.

The good news will boost efforts and provide a complement to Quest

University in creating a hub of educational opportunities in the area.

Congratulations to all those who worked in the region to secure the designation,

and a special tribute to Dr. Greg Lee and his active team.

HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS

D. Chudnovsky: On Saturday in communities across the

province, British Columbians met on street corners to hold more than 75 Stands

for Housing. These non-partisan events were organized and supported by groups

and individuals that reflect our province's incredible diversity — the Citywide

Housing Coalition; Anglican, United, Unitarian and Lutheran churches; teachers

associations; the Carnegie action project; Streams of Justice; the B.C.

Federation of Labour and the CLC; the North Shore Shalom Seekers; Renters Voice;

Faith in Action; the Vancouver and Victoria Labour Councils; Community Advocates

for Little Mountain; and many more.

Perhaps most significantly, the students council at Woodlands

Secondary School in Nanaimo sponsored and organized one of the stands.

Most counts put the homeless numbers in B.C. conservatively at

more than 10,000. That's about the population of Williams Lake. If tomorrow

there were a flood or fire in Williams Lake and everybody lost their homes, we

as a province would do something about it and quickly. Because we are decent and

caring, British Columbians would make sure that those people had somewhere to

live.

That's what we face. We have a population in our province equal to

or greater than the population of Williams Lake with nowhere to live. We as

legislators have a special responsibility when it comes to homelessness. British

Columbians expect that we will do everything in our power to resolve the crisis

and quickly.

I ask everyone on both sides of the House, all 79 of us, to commit

ourselves to ending homelessness in our province. I thank all of those who took

part in the Stands for Housing, who called our attention to the crisis and

reminded us of our responsibility to find solutions.

RICHMOND ROTARY CLUB

GALA FOR SENIORS

J. Yap: Charity and volunteerism abound in our province and

in my community. Today I would like to recognize the charitable work of a group

of Richmond individuals. On April 20, I had the honour of attending the Rotary

Club of Richmond inaugural Tribute to Seniors Gala, which was the brainchild of

Peter Raju, the club's president.

When visiting his 85-year-old mother in a seniors care facility

some time ago, Peter came to realize that many seniors are lonely and do not

have friends or family to visit them. He decided to make it his priority to

better the lives of seniors in the community. So the Tribute to Seniors Gala was

born. The exquisite black-tie evening well surpassed the fundraising goal of

$100,000 as funds pledged totalled $350,000. The funds will help to enhance the

various care facilities in Richmond, including Lions Manor, Rosewood Manor and

the Salvation Army Rotary Hospice House. The money will help with renovations

and pay for new equipment for the facilities.

[1400]

The soirée not only raised money for seniors projects but showed

appreciation for the contributions that seniors make in the community — seniors

who helped

[ Page 11945 ]

build our province and served our country in peacetime and in war, seniors

who sacrificed and worked hard to provide us with what we enjoy today.

I would like to extend a big thank-you especially to Richmond

philanthropists Milan and Maureen Ilich as well as Eugene Greczmiel, who each

donated $100,000 to this cause. I ask the House to join me in thanking the

Rotary Club of Richmond, Peter Raju and all the Rotarians, sponsors, volunteers

and donors who helped to make this gala a tremendous success.

Oral Questions

CHILD IN THE HOME OF A RELATIVE

PROGRAM

C. James: Mr. Speaker, today British Columbians were once

again shocked and saddened to learn about another child whom this government

failed. She was four years old when the government took her out of a foster home

and placed her with her grandmother. This little girl was then beaten and

neglected. She never should have been placed in that home, but the government

moved ahead without a home study.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance. Can he confirm that this Prince George child was placed under his

ministry's Child in the Home of a Relative program? And can he further confirm

that once placed under this program, children receive no protection services or

monitoring?

Hon. T. Christensen: Clearly, the circumstances of this

case as reported by the media are unacceptable. This is a horrendous situation

of neglect and abuse, and it deserves society's strongest condemnation. We do

condemn it.

As members opposite will know, privacy considerations under the

Child, Family and Community Service Act do limit the information that we're

allowed to make public, but I can advise members that this was not a child that

was in care of the ministry. When the ministry was advised that there might be a

child in need of protection, the ministry acted immediately. The child was

removed. The RCMP investigated. Charges were laid.

The ministry's involvement in this case has been the subject of a

director's review within the ministry that resulted in five recommendations, and

I am pleased to advise the House that all of those recommendations have now been

completed.

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

C. James: It's critical that lessons be learned from every

one of these tragic cases. It's critical that we take a look at all government

programs, whether it's the Ministry of Income Assistance or the Ministry of

Children and Families, to look at where there are gaps. There are gaps in the

Child in the Home of a Relative program, whether with this specific case or

other cases in British Columbia.

This is a case that is being done to save money. Kith-and-kin

programs, Child in the Home of a Relative and other out-of-care options are

being done because they're cheaper. Under this government, the number of

vulnerable children who've been placed into these kinds of out-of-care options

has increased 14 percent. That's hundreds of children, not just this specific

case but hundreds of children.

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

Can he please explain to us why more children are going into programs without

child protection services, without monitoring, without accountability and

without home studies? How does that protect the vulnerable children that the

minister said he wants to protect?

Hon. T. Christensen: It's unfortunate that the Leader of

the Opposition completely mischaracterizes out-of-care options. All research

suggests that we need to be looking for ways to keep children safe with their

families, with extended family, rather than taking them into the care of

strangers. Certainly, there will always be circumstances where children must

come into care to ensure their safety. But the ministry will continue to work

with extended family, with relatives and with others in the community to try and

place children safely in homes that are familiar to them, because that is what

best practices require.

That is not an excuse to not be vigilant in ensuring a child's

safety, and the ministry will continue to be vigilant in ensuring that safety.

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: Looking after children means making sure that

checks and balances are in place. Looking after children — whether they're

placed with a relative or in a foster home, but they're placed by government —

means making sure that those home studies are in place. It means making sure

that those children are being checked on. That's not happening right now. There

aren't enough checks and balances.

If we take a look at this specific case, in fact, the government

made the decision to put this child into her grandmother's home. The government

made the decision to cut the Ministry of Children and Families budget, and the

consequences in this province have been tragic. This government looked at

cutting costs rather than looking at protecting the most vulnerable.

So my question is to the minister. Will he stand up in this House

today and take a look at out-of-care options, whether it's Child in the Home of

a Relative or kith and kin, and insist that those programs put in place the

supports that the most vulnerable children need in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The ministry is continually reviewing

the different care options to ensure that they work for children and ensure

children's safety. The

[ Page 11946 ]

Leader of the Opposition wishes to characterize cuts in budgets. The reality

is that today the budget for child and family services within the Ministry of

Children and Family Development is 30 percent higher than it was in 2000-2001.

We have over 300 additional FTEs dedicated to child and family

services within the ministry than we did two and a half years ago. We have a

full staffing complement in the north, which is a dramatic improvement over

where we were — at under 60 percent — a decade ago.

Improvements are being made. We will continue to be vigilant so

that in any circumstance where things do not go the way that anyone in this

House would like, we learn from those, and we can ensure that we continually

improve services to ensure that children in our province are safe.

N. Simons: This government has had seven years to learn

from its own mistakes. They've had opportunity after opportunity to close the

gaps. The opposition has been demanding it, the people of the province have been

demanding it, the media is getting on the case of the minister, and he still

refuses to act. In the case of the Child in the Home of a Relative or

out-of-care options, we know that it's cheaper and it's faster, and it makes the

workload lighter. But we know of the damages and the dangers involved.

When will this minister do what he said he would do and allow the

Representative for Children and Youth to have oversight over this program for

the 4,000 or so children who are placed under this program?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Child in the Home of a Relative

program is a program that assists people who require financial support when they

have a child relative living with them. We have implemented a screening process

that the ministry undertakes for those who are applying to get benefits from the

Child in the Home of a Relative program through Employment and Income

Assistance.

That screening is a significant improvement. It was undertaken in

direct response to the child and youth officer's report of some time ago. It is

a dramatic improvement on that program since the members opposite were in

government, and it's the type of example of how we will continue to improve

programs to ensure that they are meeting the needs of children and families

across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: That doesn't really answer the question. British

Columbians want to know if the system is getting better or getting worse, and

all evidence suggests that things are in chaos in the Ministry of Children and

Family Development. The social workers are telling us that, and it's clear from

the evidence we have before us.

Never before have social workers been asked to put children under

Child in the Home of a Relative. This is a new policy direction change, and it's

one that requires some oversight. This ministry's refusal to provide that is a

shame on this province.

[1410]

Will the minister acknowledge that all out-of-care placements,

options for children, options for social workers and options for families are

safe and secure and have the proper oversight to ensure that our most vulnerable

children are safe?

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, we reviewed the Child

in the Home of a Relative program together with the Ministry of Employment and

Income Assistance. We indicated to social workers in the ministry and across the

province that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not to be used as a

child welfare program. It is an income assistance program.

Where there is a child that is found to be in need of protection

and we're looking for a placement with a relative, we can look to the

kith-and-kin program as an option to pursue, placing them with family — again,

ensuring that proper reviews of the home are done to ensure that children are

safe in that home.

M. Karagianis: What a complete and abject failure of this

government on this file.

The Child in the Home of a Relative program. A child is placed

without a review, without a home study, and MCFD simply closes the file. The

Minister of Income Assistance opens the file but does nothing in the way of

child protection. It is simply a financial arrangement, as the minister has just

admitted. This government is placing more and more children into this program,

and it is an absolute failure.

Here we have the latest tragedy, which is a child who went from a

foster home into the home of a relative, and subsequently a tragedy occurred. I

know that when he was questioned about this in estimates by the current critic,

he said here that the Child in the Home of a Relative program is actually an

income assistance program. It's not a child protection program — washed his

hands of it completely.

The Minister of Children and Families has a responsibility. I

would like to ask him today: when will this program be transferred into the

appropriate hands? To the Minister of Children and Family Development: do the

right thing today and transfer this program into your own department, where

these children can be protected.

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, it's always helpful if members

opposite can listen to the answers before they go on to the next question. The

Child in the Home of a Relative program is an income assistance program; it is

not a child welfare program. If a child is found to be in need of protection,

placing them in the Child in the Home of a Relative program is not the avenue

that the ministry is to pursue. They are to look at kith-and-kin options.

I know that the members opposite don't like us to consider

kith-and-kin, but the reality and all best practices from around the world tell

us that we should

[ Page 11947 ]

do our best to try and ensure that children can stay safe with their family,

with their extended family, with their community before we take them into the

care of strangers. That's exactly what the ministry is doing.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, clearly the protections are not in

place, and that is the problem here. Protections are not in place. Once these

children get moved into the home of a relative, there are no protections and

oversight in place.

The Children and Youth Representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond,

asked the government back in April of 2007 — over a year ago — for jurisdiction

over these children. There are some 4,000 children — perhaps as high as 4,700 —

in the home of a relative, and they are not under her jurisdiction.

We have canvassed this repeatedly. I canvassed this with the

minister in estimates last year. The question now is whether or not this

jurisdiction is going to be extended.

Will the Minister of Children and Families stop dragging his feet

on this file, this part of the file, and extend the jurisdiction of the Children

and Youth Representative to cover children in the home of a relative?

[1415]

Hon. T. Christensen: As I indicated, in each circumstance

we will look at the option that is best to ensure a child's safety. In some

cases, that means a child will be taken into care in one of the very capable

foster homes across our province, with foster parents who provide an exceptional

service to children across our province. But we will always look to extended

family to see if we can look for a foster placement there or a kith-and-kin

agreement, because we know that those are in the best interests of the child.

We have reviewed the Child in the Home of a Relative program with

the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance to ensure that there is a

screening component before somebody is eligible for income assistance. We have

in place the proper precautions to ensure child safety across the province

today.

A. Dix: Well, the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance is responsible in this House for Child in the Home of a Relative.

He's responsible in this House. The number of children in the homes of relatives

has increased by a very significant margin — more, actually, than the total

number of children who are involved in the kith-and-kin program. There are 600

more children in that program today than there were five years ago.

My question to the minister is this. Why is it that more children

are being placed in this program? The number of children in foster care is going

down. The number of children in this program is going dramatically up. What are

the results of the review? This case happened in 2006. Since then the government

has been stonewalling — from the Attorney General to the Minister of Income

Assistance to the Minister of Children and Families — from allowing the child

representative to take over responsibility.

If it's the case that we've had an increase of 600 children, why

is that the case? Is the minister assuring this House today that every single

one of those 600 incremental cases has received the proper review?

Hon. T. Christensen: Well, the member seems to be

suggesting that if any family in this province — for what could be a host of

reasons — decides to place one of their children with an uncle, with an aunt or

with a grandparent, somehow the Ministry of Children and Family Development

should swoop in and investigate that situation. Families make arrangements all

the time for their children to be cared for without the involvement of the

Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We get involved when there is a child protection concern. We

respond to over 30,000 reports of a child who may be in need of protection each

and every year. In each circumstance we determine….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Christensen: In each circumstance where there's a

report, we follow up to determine whether or not a child is in need of

protection. If they're in need of protection, we look to kith-and-kin

arrangements with a relative or to a foster placement to ensure the safety of

that child.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's very simple. The Minister of Employment and

Income Assistance right now is responsible for these children. He is

responsible. There's been a dramatic increase in the number of children in this

program. If what the minister says is true, that shouldn't be happening — 600

new children incremental, an increase in this program.

My question is very simple to the Minister of Employment and

Income Assistance. What is the reason? If they aren't diverting — to save money

— children into this program, what is the reason for the dramatic increase in

Child in the Home of a Relative in his ministry?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: Again, families will make a number of

arrangements for the care of their children. The Child in the Home of a Relative

program was reviewed between the two ministries. It was determined

[ Page 11948 ]

that it is an income assistance program. It is not a child welfare program.

It is not a program where the Ministry of Children and Family Development is to

be placing children. We will continue, where there is a child in need of

protection, to look to kith-and-kin arrangements and look to foster placements

where that best meets the needs of children.

[1420]

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FOREST INDUSTRY

D. Routley: I think I'm rising for the weekly job loss

report from the forest-dependent communities of Vancouver Island, and it's just

intended to bring the minister up to speed on his own file.

Last week 1,000 more jobs disappeared overnight; this week, 800.

Add the 272 in Fort St. James, and you've got another thousand. Those jobs fell

through not because of markets, but because of that minister's failed policies.

They have failed to ensure log supplies for mills.

What will it take to bring this minister down from the bleachers?

He could ensure that fibre. He could save those jobs. Will he do it?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're working with stakeholders on the

community development trust, which will be launched shortly, for the transition

of workers and for the ability of people to go get further education.

We've canvassed in this House before that none of us are happy

about the job losses and the situation that faces us in the forest sector today.

That's why we continue to work with communities and companies, and we continue

to try and move the fibre supply in an economical way. That's why we're doing

the regulatory review — to create even more efficiencies within the system.

As we do that, we're always going to keep in mind the families.

That's why the community development trust and the other things that we're doing

are going to be very important for the future of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, at least we've made progress. The

minister acknowledges that nobody likes it. That's something. But 535 families

in Harmac, the third-poorest riding in this province, found out that they are

losing their jobs because the Pope and Talbot deal fell through.

This is not bad markets; this is bad policy. The minister

determines log policy. My constituents are not mere chips in some Monopoly game

for this minister. This is important. These are families. These are the

volunteers of my community.

Will the minister do his job? Will he use the policy tools he has

to guarantee chip logs, to guarantee fibre supply and to do what he needs to do?

Save those jobs.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, surely the member opposite isn't

saying that we're responsible for one company deciding not to buy another

company through the courts.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. R. Coleman: I mean, I don't know whether the member is

asking us to go buy the pulp mill at Harmac and spend half a billion dollars

like they did on Skeena Cellulose, or whether we let these people continue to

negotiate like they are right now to see if they can find a future for that

mill.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Forests historically and

currently by legislation has one primary focus — maximize the return to British

Columbians from the utilization of our forest resources. That's all we're asking

him to do. We're asking him to do his job.

Now, when this minister has been awake and has acted on the coast,

he created a monopoly on the coast by allowing a Pac-Man game to occur, allowing

companies to buy each other up so that logs are not free to move around on

Vancouver Island. He released private lands from tree farm licences and took

whole thousands of other hectares out of the mill profile on Vancouver Island.

Then he changed the stumpage system and the rules for logging

waste so that the reality just now is that wood that is needed for the Harmac

deal to be sweetened and for Catalyst Paper to run is lying on the forest floor

because of this minister's forest policy.

My question to this minister is this. It's a very simple,

straightforward question. Will the minister examine the forest policy that he's

done, look at the implications and get a guaranteed source of fibre to Harmac to

sweeten that deal for a potential buyer? Will he do that?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: So, if I get this straight, the critic

would like me to subsidize one company over another in the province of British

Columbia. Maybe the Celgar mill should have a little less advantage within the

marketplace than one other, because he'd like us to go change the marketplace

and pricing for the fibre for British Columbians.

As we're going through this regulatory review that we're doing

right now, we're looking at what the member describes with regards to cutblock

blending and those sort of things, but….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Quite frankly, we're working with the

proponents and the people that are interested in Harmac to see if we can

actually find a way for that deal to get together.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: We're not asking the minister to subsidize

anything. We're not asking the minister to step in

[ Page 11949 ]

and do anything untoward. We're asking the minister to do one thing.

His forest policy means that the waste on the forest land base has

doubled over the last three years. The pulp logs are lying on the ground because

of his forest policy. We're asking him to change that policy and get those pulp

logs in so that Catalyst can keep their people employed, so that the 525 jobs at

Harmac can be maintained and that deal could be sweetened for a potential buyer.

That's one of the critical factors at risk here — the fact that

there's no fibre with that mill. Will the minister just simply do his job and

make sure that fibre is secured for these mills?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've actually met with some of the people

in the pulp and paper industry in the last week, who tell me that they're

looking for different types of fibre and that they're trying to get on the land

base. They're looking at their costs and all of those things, and they have some

concerns about the delivered wood costs even if they were able to go get some of

the waste.

We also have the issue with regards to waste, and everybody in

this House knows I've said I don't like the waste situation in this Legislature.

The critic knows that as well. That's why we're also aggressively pursuing

bioenergy to try and get some integration so that we can move the fibre to these

places to get success.

I understand, Member, that you're disappointed in the Harmac

situation, and so am I. I thought we had a buyer. We thought we had a buyer.

They backed out. They didn't complete the sale at the end of April. Now somebody

else is looking at the particular operation. We hope that we can work with

whoever it is to try to find solutions for that mill.

N. Macdonald: Paragon Wood Products in the Okanagan has a

strong market for its products. It has employees; it has operations. What it

needs is logs. There is no fibre available, and that is a direct result of a

deliberate public policy put in place by this minister and this government.

The minister responsible for forestry in this province can do

something. He has promised Paragon he will do something. They're still waiting.

When will the minister do his job? When will he provide logs to this company so

that they can keep the jobs in rural B.C. that this province has been built on?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: just so he knows,

my ministry is actually working with that organization on the issues with the

logs in the Interior of British Columbia.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, for that member…. I think he should

know one other thing. The biggest single threat to the future of the rest of the

forest sector in British Columbia is if you took a policy and abrogated your

position under the softwood lumber deal in the province of British Columbia. You

have taken that position. Today, if that was the case, the cost for the Downey

Street mill in Revelstoke would be such that the mill wouldn't be able to be

competing and operating in your community today. The reality is….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely true, hon. Member. Absolutely

functionally true. I've sat down with the mill operator and heard that.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: We are doing everything we can, every time

we can, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, meeting with people and trying to

find solutions to log supply in those issues in B.C. in a very difficult market.

I'll continue to do that in spite of how many name-callings those people on the

other side of the House want to use against me.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1430]

N. Macdonald: Does this minister think he is the first

forestry minister to face tough markets? He is not. But he is the first minister

to give up on the most important…. [Applause.]

It is public policy we are talking about. B.C. Liberal public

policy in forestry has deliberately starved the value-added and remanufacturing

sector since 2002. Operations have shut down. They continue to shut down.

The government's attitude is best expressed by…. This is from

Paragon Wood Products, Andrew Powell. This is how he expresses it, an exact

quote: "This government has decided it has no need of independent forest

companies in the forest industry." Well, that's not the attitude of the rest of

British Columbians, but it's this government's attitude.

Here's something else from Paragon. "This government gives us

nothing but excuses, broken promises and policy decisions that can most

charitably be described as idiotic." That's something that we see each and every

question period when we ask a forest question.

The question is: when is the minister going to do his job? When is

he going to get logs to Paragon so that company can continue to operate in B.C.?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no way that we're giving up or

that I've given up on the forest sector in the province of British Columbia. It

does face some challenges, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: In one of my round tables recently, a

first nation member said to me….

Interjections.

[ Page 11950 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: You don't like the first nations opinion

either?

You know what they said to me? They said this: "If the government

had gone into Tweedsmuir Park, we wouldn't have a beetle kill in the province of

British Columbia." They said that. They live there. They live on the land. It's

their community — right?

What have we done?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: So $642 million invested by the province

of British Columbia in the interior of B.C. on mountain pine beetle, $300

million invested by the federal government and $19 million in upgrading highways

in the Interior to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, by the Ministry of

Transportation. Hundreds of millions of dollars invested in projects overseas to

build new markets — that's what it is.

We actually are doing our job. They may not like it, but we're

doing a job to build a future for forests in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

reading debate on Bill 21. In

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the

information of members, it's the beginning of estimates, I believe, for the

Ministry of Forests.

Second Reading of Bills

MEDICARE PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health closes debate.

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: Last Thursday, late in the afternoon just

prior to the Lieutenant-Governor's arrival, I'd just risen for a moment to begin

closure of second reading debate in respect of Bill 21. For those who have been

sitting on pins and needles awaiting the completion of that, I remind members

that I had mentioned, in response to the member's question — asked frequently

over the course of four days, "Why add sustainability to the Medicare Protection

Act…?" I was pleased to advise that, in fact, the term "sustainability" had been

there since 1995 when then Health Minister Paul Ramsey had added it to the bill.

Apparently, judging by the member's comments, the term

"sustainability" has taken on a nefarious conspiratorial cast since 1995.

However, I also pointed out to the members that if they wanted to understand

what we meant by sustainability, they might actually go to this bill of two

pages and read that quote.

This is

section 5.7: "The plan is administered in a manner that is

sustainable over the long term, providing for the health needs of the residents

of British Columbia and assuring that annual health expenditures are within

taxpayers' ability to pay without compromising the ability of the government to

meet the health needs and other needs of current and future generations." It's

hardly the kind of nefarious conspiracy which we heard outlined so often, if not

so effectively, over the four days that we had second reading discussion of

this.

I thought, in some ways, the best kind of

summary that might come

of those four days of opposition submissions in respect of Bill 21 comes from

the

article which I referenced in my second reading comments by Janice

MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in Saskatchewan during the Roy

Romanow years. She's quite an academic now with the University of Saskatchewan

and had done this quite thoughtful article, "The Arithmetic of Health Care,"

which I quoted from last time.

This is a different quote, but in a way I think this kind of

characterizes what we spent so much time on last week:

"There is a simple arithmetic to the rising costs

of health care, just as there was to the growing deficits and debt of the

1980s and early 1990s. Health care costs are increasing at a faster rate than

the revenue of any government, and other critical priorities are being under

funded in the scramble to cover those costs…. Yet attempts to change the

system are constrained by an ideological debate in which new ideas are often

branded as taking Canada down the road to Americanization, privatization or

two-tiered health care."

I thought that was probably as good a

summary as one might hope for from the

debate of last week.

I know that on numerous occasions one heard a variety of

fallacies, urban myths, falsehoods and misconstructions related to health care

in this province in members' comments. For example, there were a number of

suggestions about British Columbia not meeting the terms of the Canada Health

Act and pointing, for example, to the fine in the most recent fiscal year of

$29,019 to Health Canada — penalties for infractions of the Canada Health Act.

As it turns out, the largest-ever penalty in British Columbia — I

think because we honestly report when we understand an infraction has occurred —

came back in 1995 when this government was led by the NDP.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. In fact, in that year, 1995, the

penalty levied against British Columbia was $1.982 million — the penalty imposed

on the NDP government of the day.

[1440]

I also heard on a number of occasions suggestions that somehow the

agenda of our government had been closing hospitals. Of course, I can tell the

members opposite that, in fact, it was the NDP government

[ Page 11951 ]

in British Columbia that had an agenda for closing hospitals. One needs only

look at the CIHI report, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, to

understand just how extensive that NDP agenda was.

I know this from personal experience with closures in Armstrong

and Enderby of hospitals in my constituency, but when the NDP took office in

1990-91, there were 131 operating hospitals in British Columbia. By the time

they had concluded their decade of decline in 2000-2001, they were down to 98

hospitals — 131 operating hospitals to 98 operating hospitals. And, of course,

those are facts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members on both sides.

The Minister of Health has the floor, please.

Hon. G. Abbott: Those are facts, I guess, that somehow get

forgotten over the course of a decade, along with the fact that some 3,300

hospital beds were closed by the NDP during their dark decade as well.

I also heard, among other things during the debate, that there

were problems with our six health authorities in British Columbia. Well, those

can't hold a candle to the problems that existed in the 52 — count 'em — health

authorities that existed back in the 1990s. In fact, back in the 1990s health

authorities used to receive their budgets routinely in July or August. They

didn't have a hope of managing effectively because of the government.

I think, most importantly, what I frequently heard — and I think

objectionably so — was a lot of hysterical and hypocritical nonsense about

private clinics in this province. In fact — and this is hard to believe given

some of the rhetoric I heard — some 26 new private clinics were created in the

province of British Columbia in the 1990s.

Where, I might ask, was the NDP when False Creek clinic was

created in 1998? Where was the NDP when Cambie clinic was created? Apparently

they were hiding in the Premier's office somewhere, because they clearly didn't

do anything about those 26.

I heard this from the opposition Health critic just on Voice of

B.C. or Voice of the Province the other night — that perhaps the NDP,

when they get into power, will have to nationalize those private clinics. That's

amazing how over the period of time they've moved from the pragmatic NDP of the

1990s, which allowed 26 private clinics to be created in this province, to now

moving to nationalize — I'm sure at some considerable expense — those 26 private

clinics.

That's a statement, I guess in a way, in terms of where the NDP

are going. The new NDP apparently resembles something more akin to 19th century

socialism as opposed to 21st century liberalism. There was a lot said in the

debate about sustainability and the relationship between the gross domestic

product versus the percentage of annual budgets that were…. Which one was the

better way of understanding the issue of sustainability?

It was a fascinating debate. I heard references to Star Trek.

I heard references to Seinfeld. I heard references to Star Wars .

Weren't some of those from you perhaps, Member?

But what really caught my attention, in terms of what it reminded

me of, was a magazine that I used to read in my adolescent years. Perhaps you

did as well, Mr. Speaker, given that you're of approximately the same vintage as

I am. That was a magazine probably best confined to adolescents called Mad

magazine. The protagonist in Mad magazine was, Mr. Speaker, as you will

recall….

[1445]

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: Alfred E. Neuman — right. And his slogan

was: "What, me worry?" To me, there would be no better way of summarizing what

the NDP had to say in that fascinating debate than "What, me worry?" because

that was very much the theme of it.

There was a fascinating debate between whether we should view

health care costs as a percentage of total gross domestic product or view it, as

I would suggest, as a percentage of the provincial budget. This is a fascinating

debate. About seven people, in addition to David Schreck, find this a

fascinating debate across the province of British Columbia.

The reality, though, is that government doesn't create…. They

don't manage, and they don't control the gross domestic product of the province.

We manage, create and control the provincial budget, but we don't do all of

those things with respect to the overall GDP. Government can influence GDP

through their policies, no question, but they don't create, manage and control

GDP.

So if the NDP wants to tie health spending to GDP…. What would

happen — for example, in a sustainable health care world — if, because of the

consequences of their inevitable high-tax policies, the GDP actually declines in

this province? Would we then be obliged to reduce the health care budget in the

province? Good question, but that would be, I think, one of the risks of

undertaking that form of linkage between health care budgets and GDP.

I am sure — because this is something I've always wanted, and I'm

sure some New Democrats would also agree to this — that what we'd all like,

really, if we had the opportunity is a brand-new cherry-red Ferrari. I'm sure

the member from Juan de Fuca…. Perhaps he has a cherry-red Ferrari in his

garage, but if he doesn't, I'm sure he would, just like me, covet the

opportunity to have such a thing — a beautiful new dream car, a cherry-red

Ferrari in the driveway.

So my friend from Juan de Fuca and I could go into the Ferrari

dealership — I don't know if there's one in Victoria or Vancouver — and check

out the price tags on cherry-red Ferraris. I suspect that what we'd be advised

as we worked through with the sales manager the payment scheme for this…. We

would probably discover, he and I, that that would work out to about 97.5

percent of our available budget for the year. We'd say: "Well, it's going to be

tough to manage food, mortgage payments, gas for the Ferrari and all the rest of

the things on 2.5 percent of our annual budget."

[ Page 11952 ]

But wait. If we lived in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the NDP,

we could say: "We can have that cherry-red Ferrari, even though it's 97.5

percent of our budget. We can have it because it's only a very small proportion

of the provincial gross domestic product. Of course we can have that."

That, in a nutshell, is the NDP's thinking of the 1990s. As I've

said, that may be enlightened thinking compared to what we're going to see if we

have an NDP government in the 21st century. But it is, in a nutshell, a great

example of how that NDP thinking took British Columbia from first in Canada in

terms of economic growth to worst in Canada in economic growth by the end of the

1990s. What, me worry? That would be pretty much how one would undertake that.

Looking at what was said during the four days last week, one would

conclude that the NDP believes there are no sustainability challenges for the

health care system in British Columbia and Canada — no sustainability challenges

at all. They dismiss Janice MacKinnon, the former NDP Finance Minister in

Saskatchewan and her thoughtful work. They dismiss all of the very obvious,

overt facts regarding the demographic shift that is occurring in our society and

will continue to shift in our society as we age over the next 30 or 40 years.

[1450]

They dismiss all of the very troubling increases in the incidence

of chronic disease in our society. They dismiss the spiralling costs of medical

technology, medical inflation and all of those things. Again, "What, me worry?"

is the NDP response to any sustainability challenge that emerges in our society.

The fact is — and I'll conclude on this point because I know there

are many more things that the NDP would be looking forward to debating in this

Legislature — yes, there is a sustainability challenge. In fact, there are many

challenges to the sustainability of our health care system in British Columbia.

One, at their peril, mounts what I would term the NDP ostrich

defence, which is to place one's head firmly in the sand and refuse to believe

that anything is going on in the world around them. That's unfortunate, but

that's what I heard continuously in here for four days — the ostrich defence

against all. If you don't see it, it's not there — not a problem.

That is a problem, and if anything, in my mind it confirmed even

more the necessity for that sustainability challenge to be very much rooted in

the Medicare Protection Act. As the NDP moves forward in the future, they need

to think about things like whether they want to nationalize the private clinics

that they themselves created or whether they want to eliminate all of the

provisions of Bill 29 and return again to a completely inflexible health care

administration in this province.

They want to think again about whether…. If they're going to add

$2 billion to the health care budget in British Columbia, is that going to come

from taxes, or is that going to come from other areas of public enterprise?

These are very important issues. On this side of the House, we

recognize that there are challenges to sustainability in British Columbia. Not

only in this bill but in the bills to follow, we are going to equip this

government, this province, with all of the tools that we need to try to meet

that very grave sustainability challenge. We will meet that challenge, because

on this side of the House we strongly believe in sustainability, and we're going

to follow through with this principle.

I move second reading.

[1455]

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 29

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 21, Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2008, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

[1500]

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate on Bill 22.

[ Page 11953 ]

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22, the Health Care Costs

Recovery Act, be read now a second time.

During the first reading of Bill 22, the Health Care Costs

Recovery Act, I explained that B.C. is the only province not to have legislation

that would allow government to recover health care costs associated with

personal injuries that stem from the negligence or wrongdoing of a third party.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Under the common law as it exists in British Columbia, government

has no legal right to recover these costs. This is unlike other provinces with

health care costs recovery legislation. In Manitoba, legislation took effect in

1992 under their Health Services Insurance Act. Saskatchewan brought in similar

provisions in 1995 under the Department of Health Act.

The Health Care Costs Recovery Act will provide government with

the ability to recover a broad range of health care costs, including past and

future medical care, hospital, ambulance, continuing care and potentially other

costs.

I'd like to give the House an example of where the lack of this

type of legislation has impacted British Columbia's ability to involve itself in

these types of court actions. In the case Medtronic v. Hoy , the province

asserted its rights for reimbursement of medical and hospital costs expended to

remove or replace defective pacemaker leads, which are now subject to a Health

Canada advisory. Based on information from the third-party liability branch of

the Ministry of Health and the number of claimants in the action, an estimate of

the province's potential claim could have been approximately $4 million. The

recoveries will be limited to expenditures currently paid by the province.

This act will strengthen government's ability to effectively

participate in a number of class action suits where multi-million-dollar

settlements or judgments are at stake. Over and above possible class actions,

the act will provide government with the ability to recover an additional $3

million to $5 million annually for individual personal injury claims through

these changes. Recovered costs collected by government from third parties can be

reinvested into government programs and services that include health care.

Overall, the act will allow government to, first of all, recover

health care costs once a lawsuit has been settled or adjudicated; secondly,

request and obtain information required to quantify past and future health care

costs associated with the personal injury; thirdly, approve settlements

involving claims for health care costs; fourthly, ensure it will be able to

participate in class action settlements; fifthly, ensure health care costs

associated with wrongdoing and negligence are paid by wrongdoers or their

insurance, rather than expecting B.C. taxpayers to absorb the costs; and

finally, maintain a sustainable health care system for all British Columbians.

Government will be able to make recoveries using a claim in which

it is subrogated to the rights of the beneficiary making a claim or by bringing

its own independent cause of action against a third-party wrongdoer. The

legislation will not apply to injuries stemming from the operation of a motor

vehicle where the vehicle is insured in British Columbia, but will apply to

vehicles insured out of province. The legislation will not apply to health care

costs associated with smoking tobacco or to the health care costs which are part

of the Workers Compensation Board scheme.

In conclusion, the Health Care Costs Recovery Act supports the

ministry's goal of continued excellence in service, innovation and sustainable

care delivery in a public health system for all British Columbians.

In closing, British Columbians want access to the best health

services available from a sustainable health system, and the Health Care Costs

Recovery Act supports this goal.

With that, I am pleased to move second reading, and I look forward

to the comments of my colleagues in the chamber.

[1505]

A. Dix: As I think the minister will agree, this is the

kind of bill that we'll deal with at greatest length in committee stage. There

are going to be some detailed questions we'd like to raise at that stage, so I

think I'm going to keep my comments as brief as the minister's.

The opposition, speaking on behalf of the opposition, supports

Bill 22. It seems to us to be a good idea, an idea — it sounds like from what

the minister suggests — perhaps generated by the government's participation or

non-participation in the Medtronic case.

As the minister has noted, the bill has a number of purposes. It

allows — outside of Motor Vehicle Act cases and outside of Workers Compensation

Act cases, as I understand it — the government to attempt to join such cases.

In fact, as I understand it — and the minister will go over this,

as well, at committee stage — the government may, under these provisions of the

act, be allowed to initiate its own case in such cases that individuals don't

take the cases forward. The government will actually have to develop — part of

this will be an interesting discussion for us — the ability to review

circumstances in order to itself initiate cases.

Presumably the government or officials in the Ministry of Attorney

General or officials in the Ministry of Health will have to develop the capacity

if they want to do that. I presume that if they want to initiate cases as

opposed to joining cases that are already brought forward, they will have to

actually develop the capacity to do that as well.

Some of that discussion, I think, we'll have at committee stage

because we'd have to assess…. I know they've had a little bit of an issue with

that in Alberta — not with the specifics of this case, but with motor vehicle

cases — in terms of the cost of reviewing the cases perhaps exceeding the

potential gain that the government might get from bringing the cases forward.

[ Page 11954 ]

I note that this case in some respects is similar, at least in

principle, to the idea brought forward in the 1990s with the Tobacco Damages and

Health Care Costs Recovery Act in the sense that it seeks to allow government to

go to court and legitimately, I think, obtain for the public purse the costs

imposed on the public by wrongful behaviour elsewhere.

I'm delighted that the government members, who at the time were in

opposition — I think we called this speaking against a bill and voting in favour

— raised many critical comments about that legislation at the time. The

government was only interested in money and so on.

One of the key points raised in that debate at the time by several

members of the opposition — not the current Minister of Health, I should say,

who I think was the opposition critic for municipal affairs or something at the

time, but other members — was to ensure that any moneys gained from such a case

go to the health care system. Several members of the government, when the

Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was brought in, suggested at

the time that the bill was being brought in to deal with problems in the

government's fiscal position and not a legitimate effort to recover costs from

the health care system.

They were asking the question, and I think it's a legitimate

question: can't we do something with the legislation to ensure that all costs

that are obtained, that are recovered by the government in this kind of case —

whether it would be a case like the Medtronic case or others — be returned to

the health care system?

This isn't unusual. In fact, under a British law that was passed a

number of years ago, I think they had it down that this specific hospital…. If a

specific hospital was the one that in fact incurred the cost, the costs

recovered by the NHS in that system would be given over to that specific

hospital.

One of the things we're going to be looking at in committee stage

of this bill is to ensure that the costs recovered that the minister has talked

about in the press release — $5 million to $10 million a year, I think…. I'm

sure the reason that it is so wide is that some years, if major cases come

forward, I would expect it may be possible to obtain a big amount of money. Some

years, in fact, very little money will be recovered. So I assume that's why the

minister is arguing that such a wide cost disparity in terms of this

legislation….

[1510]

I think it's fair to say — and I think the minister would probably

agree with this — that if in fact the reason we are seeking these costs is to

legitimately reimburse the taxpayer in case of wrongful behaviours out there,

the place that those recovered moneys should go is not to general revenue. It

might be useful to read into the record the eloquent comments of the Minister of

State for Mining, in the tobacco cost recovery case, and others who made the

same argument. Once we reach the point where either a settlement or a judgment

is made and the moneys come into the Crown, given that it was health care costs

that were paid out, it should be the health care budget that is reinstated or

that receives the money.

I think one of the things I was going to suggest to the minister

that we might be bringing forward — we'll put the amendment down for his perusal

in advance — and one of the things he might consider at committee stage is just

such an idea — to specifically state in the legislation that if money is in fact

recovered, it go to the health care budget and maybe the appropriate health care

budget from which the money was paid out.

I think that kind of idea would strengthen the legislation. It

strengthens the intent of the government in bringing such legislation forward

and would be a useful thing, consistent with what MLAs on both sides have said

about other legislation in the past.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'd say that the opposition will be

supporting what seems to be a good idea that seems to have come from the

bureaucracy in this case, based on what's happened, to bring British Columbia

law up to where other jurisdictions are in terms of recovering.

I saw an interesting note — the minister didn't comment on this in

his speech — that in fact previous to this, there had been…. This was in some

ways, maybe, the case dating back to the 1950s. It has been suggested that the

ministry does sometimes get paid in these cases but that that case takes place

under a gentleman's agreement between some insurance companies and the Ministry

of Health.

I think this is something we can discuss — in the past how much

revenue actually has come in under such gentleman's agreements. My colleague

from Surrey-Whalley was telling me about just such a case in the past. In fact,

in the past we had a situation where the Ministry of Health had sought in many

cases to get such compensation and had in some cases received it.

I think the issue is whether the Ministry of Health had any legal

basis to make such or whether it was simply a request that had happened over

time — that that's what had happened when costs came forward — and that it

wasn't much of a club to use in cases where insurance companies or other

companies might be reluctant to in fact compensate the Ministry of Health for

costs that had been incurred. I think that had been the pattern in the past.

It may well have been why in the past the governments hadn't gone

this route, because that practice had been in place. I'd be interested to hear —

perhaps at committee stage we can cover it off — what the Minister of Health

would have to say about that. I think I would agree that times have changed

since the 1950s, since this practice had apparently been in effect, and that the

need for the legislation appears to be real, especially if the amount of revenue

that the Minister of Health has suggested we may be able to get from such cases

is real as well.

Of course, in the case of Medtronic and other cases, as I

understand it, those cases are still before the courts. So we would have a

claim, but we may not have the money. At least it would give us an opportunity

to automatically join such cases, and that strikes me as a good idea.

[ Page 11955 ]

Whether in fact the province will be initiating such cases, as the

legislation gives it the right to do, is an open question. That, it seems to me,

would require resources, but I think the idea is a good one. It's consistent

with what this Legislature has done in the past, at least in the tobacco damages

act. I think it probably extends it a little further, in terms of the costs that

can be recovered, than that act. It probably extends it further, as I understand

it, than other jurisdictions, which in some cases have limited to the costs of

hospitalization the costs that the Crown can recover.

[1515]

These are some of the issues that we'll get at more appropriately

at committee stage. The opposition is generally supportive of this legislation.

It seems to us to be a good idea to recover moneys that appropriately should

come back to the Ministry of Health, with the caveats that we think that that

money should in fact come back to the health care institutions that have

incurred the costs in their budgets. Contingent on some of the answers we may

receive at committee stage, I'd like to express our support for this and our

support for a relatively speedy passage of Bill 22.

B. Ralston: Just to add briefly to what the opposition

critic for Health has said, in particular, on the recovery by insurers. There

was a practice in the past, according to a prominent Vancouver law firm in their

insurance note, that insurers agreed to repay the Ministry of Health for

hospital costs incurred by claimants injured as a result of the negligence of

their insureds. In theory, it worked that they were supposed to notify the

Ministry of Health and find out whether hospital costs were incurred in respect

of the claim. They were to be repaid by the tortfeasor's insurer — that is, the

person who caused the injury.

In practice, apparently this only occurs occasionally. While the

Ministry of Health regularly writes to insurers or their counsel to demand

repayment of hospital costs, this agreement is not always honoured. In

particular, in cases involving out-of-province insurers, there's no legal basis

for the hospital's claim at all. So this would put some legal strength to what

was previously regarded as — I think they call it a gentleman's agreement — an

unenforceable practice.

However, this note does remark that this legislation is similar to

legislation in other Canadian provinces. "Most Canadian provinces have

legislated subrogation rights by the provincial Ministry of Health for

hospitalization costs arising from personal injury accidents."

This writer goes on to say: "However, Bill 22 goes far beyond the

norm to allow for the recovery of all health care costs including but not

limited to those resulting from hospitalization."

I think that's something, given that some revisions of the

Insurance Act are also before the Legislature. I understand that the process to

revise the Insurance Act took some five years. There were many consultations

that I'd be interested to hear at committee stage, should we get to that stage

of debate of this bill and not be subject to closure, given that there are only

12 legislative sitting days left in the legislative calendar, including today.

The writer does go on to comment:

"If Bill 22 is passed, insurers handling claims

in British Columbia will have to contend with an added layer of damages in

every claim, and in particular, will have to ensure that the relevant notice

provisions are complied with in order to close their files. U.S.-based

insurers will see their B.C. claims fall into line with their experience south

of the border, while Canadian insurers will see their exposure increase on

virtually every claim."

The comment is:

"It's not known when or if Bill 22 will be

brought into force or whether it will be substantially revised. However, it

will be important to keep track of its progress through the legislative

process, as it has the potential to increase exposures dramatically,

particularly on larger claims or claims involving the need for future care

that would previously have been covered by the Medical Services Plan and

therefore not have been claimed by the plaintiffs."

When the minister speaks of the potential claim or recovery in the

Medtronic case — it's not a case that I'm familiar with in detail — I think

that's the reference being made here by counsel. I think they largely act on

behalf of insurance companies, and it's not necessarily a bad thing that further

recovery would be made from insurance companies. But one wonders, given the very

lengthy process that took place for the proposed revisions to the Insurance Act

to come before the Legislature, what efforts have been made to at least get the

point of view of the insurers.

Of course, this is not necessarily consistent with some of the

trumpeted values of deregulation that we heard about in the first term. Maybe

it's a good thing that those are laid to rest. What this requires is further

paperwork and compliance with an elaborate series of notice provisions that

anyone who commences an action in this area in law will have to comply with.

[1520]

The other comment I want to make is simply to add my voice briefly

to that of the opposition Health critic, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, in

terms of directing the recovery to the health system or — one might argue

perhaps — to the health region from which the claim originated, thereby at least

fulfilling the purported and stated objective of the bill, which is to gather

funds to finance health care.

Generally speaking, Ministers of Finance and treasury boards are

always reluctant to have funds earmarked specifically for expenditure in one

area because that limits the flexibility in the long run in creating budgets.

But given the likely recoveries under this act and given the present Health

budget, it seems unlikely that these recoveries will pose a huge problem in that

respect.

I would, like the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, offer broad

support, and there will be further questions at committee stage, should we ever

get there. If this bill does not proceed by way of closure, I would be anxious

to participate in that debate when we get there.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Minister of Health

to conclude debate.

[ Page 11956 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and close debate at

second reading. I do thank the opposition Health critic and the member for

Surrey-Whalley for their comments. I'll just very briefly respond, given that we

will have an opportunity in the committee stage debate, I hope, to canvass these

matters further.

As the opposition Health critic pointed out, it is challenging to

know exactly what range one should anticipate in terms of legal recoveries in a

typical year ahead. I think the issue might be somewhat more predictable than

predicting the net return from investment in lottery tickets, but it's still

going to vary from year to year depending on the size, number and magnitude of

the cases involved. So it will range. But again, predictably, if we are not

equipped with these legal tools to enjoy recoveries from these cases, we won't

get them. That's fairly predictable.

I am appreciative that the opposition is going to be, or appears

to be, supportive of this bill. I appreciate that. In terms of the point around

recoveries being devoted to health care, I'm glad to hear the submission of the

opposition at committee stage around this point. I'm not the Finance Minister,

and I don't know all of the rules that may govern how one must manage recoveries

from legal cases, but we'll look forward to hearing the opposition proposal with

interest.

One thing we can be certain of is that in British Columbia about

45 percent, or 45 cents, of every dollar that is raised from every source in

British Columbia today goes to health care delivery in the province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We know that by 2013, that will be rising to something akin to

about 50 cents of every dollar from every source in the province that will be

going to health care. So in either event, we can be confident that that's where

many of these dollars will be directed.

A final point. The member for Surrey-Whalley noted that someone

who had provided them with a letter on issues pursuant to Bill 22 had indicated

something along the lines — and I hope I'm not taking too great liberties with

what was said — that where legal recoveries have not been secured in the past,

costs have been covered by MSP.

[1525]

I'm sure that in a formal sense that is true, but when we are

talking about MSP, we are talking about the people of British Columbia, not

about some anonymous, distant medical services plan. The Medical Services Plan

is funded in part through annual premiums from the people of British Columbia

and also from additional funds that are annually allocated to Medical Services

Plan from the province of British Columbia.

So it is important that to the extent we can, we do get legal

recoveries that, in response to wrongdoing, help to offset in some cases the

horrendous and long-term costs associated with that wrongdoing.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 22.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 22 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 22, Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

Hon. B. Penner: I call second reading of Bill 42, Election

Amendment Act, 2008.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 42, the Election Amendment

Act, 2008, now be read a second time.

This bill is a significant updating of the province's Election

Act. It modernizes the act by implementing recommendations made by the Chief

Electoral Officer, and it goes further by making some timely and necessary

changes in a number of areas, such as election financing, advertising, voter

registration and enforcement of the act generally. Together these changes will

make the act more fair, more transparent, more democratic and more enforceable.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In March 2006 the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, issued a report

with 60 recommendations to update the Election Act. As members may know, the

last time the act was significantly modernized was in 1995, when it was

basically rewritten entirely, and the CEO was made an independent officer of the

Legislature with significant duties and powers within the act.

In his 2006 report the CEO noted that: "Electoral law, like

democracy, must adapt and change to reflect the needs of the society it serves."

This bill will do just that by covering such areas as the appointment of

election officials, changing the nomination periods of candidates, creating

grounds for re-counts in electoral districts, creating a substantive definition

of election advertising, requiring more clarity in reporting and disclosure

rules for parties and candidates, and clarifying the right of renters to display

election advertising on their premises.

The bill also enacts a number of other changes for regularly

scheduled elections. Political parties and candidates would now be required to

observe election expense limits during a 120-day pre-campaign period as well as

the 28 days of the campaign period itself. Currently, there are no limits on

spending before the campaign period.

Under this bill, political parties would have a maximum of $4.4

million to spend during a campaign and half that amount, $2.2 million, during

the pre-campaign period. Candidates would have the maximum of $70,000 for the

pre-campaign period and $70,000 for the campaign period. These amounts would be

adjusted over time by the CEO according to the changes in the consumer price

index.

[ Page 11957 ]

These are clear dollar figures rather than the calculations

currently in the act that are based on amount per voter. These limits do not

represent an across-the-board increase for either parties or candidates.

[1530]

Under the current calculation, parties today would have the

spending limits of $4.397 million, so we are essentially leaving that unchanged.

The average candidate expense limit in 2005 was around $65,000. Overall, that

average is being increased slightly, but some candidates will in fact see their

expense limits reduced slightly. Standardizing candidate spending limits will

reduce confusion and increase fairness by ensuring that the same limits apply to

all candidates in all regions.

These changes to spending limits — in particular the creation of

the 120-day pre-campaign period — are a response to the effects of the set-date

elections. For those elections, everyone knows when the campaign will begin, and

it is important to ensure that the pre-campaign period does not become a

spending spree, a free-for-all, to the detriment of parties and candidates that

lack significant financial resources.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

For by-elections and general elections that occur because of a

non-confidence matter in the House, of course, it is not possible to create a

pre-campaign period, because the election is not planned.

We are also applying the same principle of spending limits to

third parties who wish to advertise during elections. The bill would make them

subject to spending limits during the 120-day pre-campaign period and the

campaign period itself. These limits are patterned on those put in place by the

previous government. However, the limits under this bill are higher — $150,000

overall and $3,000 in any single electoral district.

These limits mirror those contained in the Canada Elections Act.

We believe these limits are fair and reasonable and will allow third parties to

participate in the electoral process without having a disproportionate influence

over election outcomes. Again, an important reason for reintroducing spending

limits is the effect that the set election dates have on the nature of political

campaigns in British Columbia.

As well, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Justice

Michel Bastarache, in upholding third-party campaign spending, wrote: "Without

the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important

political issues." We agree with that, and that is why we are setting reasonable

limits on what third parties can spend.

Another thing this bill does is make the act clearer and more

enforceable. Voter identification requirements are being strengthened to ensure

that only those who are entitled to vote may do so. These requirements are

modelled on recent changes to the federal law and help to prevent voter fraud

The bill also doubles all the fines for offences under the act.

That includes clear directions to the Chief Electoral Officer regarding

enforcement of the act generally. The message is that contravening the act is

serious, and this should be understood by all political parties, candidates and

voters alike.

The bill also brings back the requirement of the Chief Electoral

Officer following the 2009 election to conduct door-to-door enumerations prior

to each election. Changes were made in 2003 to give the CEO the discretion to

determine the method of conducting an enumeration. At that time, measures were

also taken to provide for sharing voters lists between Elections B.C. and

Elections Canada. The goal was to create the most complete and accurate voters

list possible.

However, it appears now that these measures are not a sufficient

substitute for door-to-door enumerations. We recognize that enumerations take

time and cost money, and we want to afford voters every opportunity to be

registered and eligible to vote.

Another important change in this bill is the prohibition on

publishing new opinion polls on voting day. A similar provision exists

federally, and we believe it is there for a very good reason. Political

advertising is already banned on voting day, and we want to make sure that an

election advertisement disguised as an opinion poll is not used to influence

voters' behaviour. If such a poll is published on voting day, those affected by

it do not have an opportunity to respond or to challenge it. I should note that

this prohibition does not apply to publishing opinion polls on voting day that

have been previously published.

[1535]

There are a number of other changes in this bill that will help

streamline the administration of the act. To give just one example, we've

accepted the CEO's recommendations regarding providing copies of voters lists to

candidates in an election. Currently, the candidates are entitled to two paper

copies of that list as well as an electronic copy. That results in thousands of

pieces of paper being unnecessarily printed, since nearly all the candidates use

the electronic copy. This bill will reduce a substantial waste of paper during

each election and help to reduce the carbon footprint of conducting elections.

This bill also prohibits financial contributions from federal

parties and riding associations to provincial parties. This will ensure that

federal tax dollars are not used to fund provincial campaigns. One thing we've

heard clearly is that British Columbians want their tax dollars to fund services

like health care and education and not political parties.

Finally, I should note that there are a few consequential

amendments being made to the Recall and Initiative Act as a result of these

changes to the Election Act. One such amendment is in regard to spending limits

for initiative vote proponents and opponents. These limits will now be

calculated separately from those for parties in the Election Act. The amendment

simply inserts the relevant portions of the current Election Act provisions so

that there are no substantive changes to the way these limits are calculated.

I believe this bill will result in a stronger, fairer electoral

system in British Columbia. I urge all members in the House to support it.

[ Page 11958 ]

L. Krog: Notwithstanding the urging of the Attorney

General, I don't know that the opposition is going to jump up and support the

bill. It may come as a great surprise to the Attorney General, I know.

I note with interest that it's the Election Amendment Act. I am

glad the Attorney General didn't have the cheek to call it the Election Reform

Act in any way, shape or form, because the big grey elephant in the room here

today — and indeed the big grey elephant in electoral reform and politics in

British Columbia generally — is the fact that this bill does absolutely nothing

to talk about real campaign finance reform.

Back in 2005 the Leader of the Opposition introduced Bill M202,

the Campaign Finance Reform Act. What that bill called on the government of

British Columbia to do is finally ban corporate and union donations to political

parties. The province of Manitoba has managed it, and somehow democracy seems to

have flourished there over the last few years.

Most sensible British Columbia voters have always been concerned

about the power of money in elections. Surely, the old tainted and not always

accurate view that the NDP was dominated by the big unions that the Liberal

bosses refer to, and the Liberals were dominated by big corporate money…. If

that's not true, that's great. But the fact is the public believes it's true, or

a goodly portion of them.

The government had an opportunity here in this bill to actually

step up to the plate and acknowledge that banning corporate and union donations

was the right thing to do. It could get on the cutting edge of campaign finance

reform here in British Columbia, get on board with the province of Manitoba,

show some leadership and actually, quite remarkably, follow the lead shown by

their federal kissing cousins the Liberal Party of Canada, Jean Chrétien's

parting gift as Prime Minister.

But they weren't quite prepared to go that far. Maybe that's

because they're not the kissing cousins of the federal Liberals. They're more

the kissing cousins of the federal Conservatives. I don't know. Whatever the

reason, notwithstanding the federal government has done it and notwithstanding

Manitoba has done it, one would have thought that the Liberals here provincially

could have done the same thing. It wouldn't have taken too much to do.

[1540]

The Attorney General referred to it as a significant update — that

it modernizes the act, that it's timely. Well, what the opposition sees in Bill

42 are some key problems. The first I've outlined to some extent already, and

that is the fact that it doesn't ban corporate and union donations to political

parties.

Instead, what we have here is a bill that bans third-party

advertising for 120 days prior to the election. Greater constitutional legal

minds than mine will ever hope to be will no doubt make appropriate arguments in

front of courts, probably all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, about

what that prohibition actually means and what kind of advertising it covers.

Again, that's another serious concern for the opposition.

The other thing of great concern to the opposition is the question

of identification to enable people to get on the voters list.

You know, I'm not that old, but I've worked in a few campaigns

since 1972 in this province. I must tell you, hon. Speaker, that I haven't seen

a lot of people in my experience, nor have I heard much evidence or accusations

made about people, trying to get the right to vote in this province when they

weren't eligible to do so — people who weren't British Columbia citizens trying

to step up to the plate and snatch that democratic right to vote when they

didn't in fact enjoy it at law.

The truth is that of anyone — particularly the vulnerable, the

poor, the dispossessed, the homeless, those people in particular for whom

government quite rightly should play a larger role than for those who enjoy the

ownership of private property, secure incomes and a long history in a community

— those people at the bottom should indeed have every opportunity to elect the

governments that will have such an impact on their lives.

This bill doesn't do that. I don't see anything in this bill that

says those who are having difficulty getting registered to vote are going to

find it any easier.

It's quite remarkable to the opposition that when the government

could have done the right thing instead of following the federal Conservative

view of things, they didn't do so. What would have been wrong with limits on

corporate and union donations?

I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it might have something

to do with the figures that Elections B.C. publishes about donations to

political parties. Far be it from me to suggest that because the vast majority

of money that supports the Liberal Party of British Columbia comes from

corporate donations, that would have any influence whatsoever on the Liberal

government's Bill 42. Far be it from me to suggest that the fact that the

donations to the New Democratic Party in British Columbia — the vast majority of

those both in total numbers and dollar value — come from individuals would have

anything to do with this bill.

But I just suspect that out there on the streets of British

Columbia in the small towns, in the cafes, the coffee shops and the Legions,

maybe those folks actually do think it has something to do with the government's

failure to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. The truth is

that this government wasn't prepared to step up to the plate and see its gravy

train of corporate donations stopped in its tracks. The truth is that they

weren't prepared to do the right thing.

The truth is that they weren't prepared to accept something which

is not unique or fresh or new in this country anymore. They weren't prepared to

acknowledge that voters across this country are staying away from polls in

increasing numbers, particularly and most recently in the province of Alberta.

They weren't prepared to acknowledge that there's a growing cynicism about the

democratic process.

One of the ways to combat that cynicism, particularly with a bill

that is entitled the Election Amendment Act, would have been to make the

appropriate

[ Page 11959 ]

amendments to bring us into line with good common sense, to bring us into

line with reforms that have been made both federally and in other provinces.

That is to take the inference out of politics that big money buys you something.

It doesn't matter whether it's big money from Western Forest Products or the

mining industry or big money from the B.C. Federation of Labour or the B.C.

Teachers or whoever.

[1545]

You know, there's probably not one of us in this room that hasn't

had some amount of corporate, individual or union donations — varying amounts

depending on our political stripe, varying amounts depending on where we come

from. But there's no question that a lot of voters see politicians, sadly, as

tools of the people who pay for their campaigns.

If this bill had limited the funding to individuals, at least

voters could make that direct correlation even more easily than they do now.

When the voters of British Columbia see hundreds of thousands of dollars come to

the Liberal Party through corporate donations from the forest industry and then

see the legislation that followed, I'm not surprised they became a little

cynical about that relationship. It's not surprising at all.

I would have thought that this government, solidly ensconced —

seven years into its term now and riding high in the polls — actually could have

taken a leadership position, stepped up to the plate and said: "You know what?

We're a year away from an election, and we're going to do the right thing. We're

going to say to the people of British Columbia that the influence of big money,

real or perceived, in British Columbia politics is finally coming to an end."

It's been a long time since whiskey bottles bought votes in this

country. That got replaced by crasser methods — big powerful campaigns, media

advertising, hoopla, paid organizers, all of those things. Along the way, I

think we lost something. This government had an opportunity with this bill to do

something different, to make a genuine improvement and to engage in true

democratic reform. They didn't.

As I say, the Attorney General can call it a significant update if

he wants, but the fact is it doesn't do that. It doesn't attack what I see as

one of the root causes of political cynicism, and that is how political parties

fund themselves — how they get the vote out, if you will; who they hire and how

they come to the money that pays for those people; how they pay for that

advertising; how they pay for their polling. It comes, I'm afraid, on the other

side of this House largely from corporate money.

I'm not suggesting we want a society without corporations. You

know, on this side of the House we believe in investment. We believe in job

creation. We believe in building a better British Columbia. But we'd just like

to think that the right to vote, the power to elect your government, is and

should always be about individuals, about citizens, about the people. The

people, with great respect, we on this side of the House believe are not

necessarily represented when it comes to the big money that pays for modern

political campaigns.

We see to the south of us right now literally hundreds of millions

of dollars being raised to pay just to get the right to be the candidate for the

Democratic or the Republican parties. We know that American politicians spend

half their time fundraising instead of attending to the business which they're

elected to do, which is to do the people's business.

Now, the government will respond, "Well, look. We've put limits on

campaign spending" — $4.4 million during the campaign and $2.2 million before.

That leads me to the next point about this bill. The Attorney General referred

to the Election Act brought in, in 1995 by then Attorney General Colin Gabelmann.

It had a third-party spending limit, but that limit was struck down by the

courts.

Having sat on the committee known to everyone in this House as

Legs and Regs, I know the long process by which that bill went up and down, up

and down, sideways, backwards and forwards and around the circle so many times

you got a little dizzy some days trying to come up with a modern Election Act.

But that act applied, with respect to third-party spending limits,

to the time of the election campaign. The Election Amendment Act, 2008, that

we're debating today talks about the 120 days prior to the election. That is a

remarkable difference, and the previous act was struck down.

[1550]

We know that the federal act, on which this is apparently

modelled, was in fact approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. But the Supreme

Court of Canada, in its decision, mentioned several key points around the issue

of expense limits. What they recognized was that third-party advertising expense

limits were in fact a means, as they said, "to preserve electoral fairness and

promote confidence in the integrity of the electoral system." But again, those

provisions applied during the election campaign.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the main

section and related

provisions were enacted with the objective of promoting electoral fairness by

creating equality of opportunity for participation in political discourse. If

one magically decides that 120 days prior to the campaign is appropriate and

lawful to prohibit something that might be called electoral advertising, what's

wrong with six months? What's wrong with a year? What's wrong with two years?

The right to free speech — the right to criticize, the right to

promote one's interests or the interests of a group or a sector of society, the

right to lead the charge on any issue — is surely one that is fundamental,

absolutely fundamental, to the democratic process. It's messy, and it's nasty

sometimes, and it upsets people. It comes close to promoting hate on occasion, I

suspect. It creates divisiveness on occasion.

But it is also something for which a great price has been paid

throughout history. The price to achieve the right to vote — to elect

governments, to hold them responsible, to demand accountability and transparency

and openness — is significant. It took a long time to get here — to get to a

situation where people could,

[ Page 11960 ]

without fear of imprisonment or fining, openly criticize governments.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in dealing with the decision around

third-party advertising, asserted that individuals should have an equal

opportunity to participate in the democratic process, in the electoral process,

and that the power of money might in fact be an obstacle to equal participation

but that Parliament could always take steps to address that unfairness. Of

course, Parliament eventually did. Corporate union donations — out the window.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that spending limits might

be necessary to prevent the most affluent from monopolizing election discourse,

depriving their opponents of reasonable opportunity to speak and be heard. But

the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that third-party advertising is another

form of political expression. In fact, whether it's partisan or issue-based,

third-party advertising expands, enriches and motivates the debate, and the

debate is what it is all about.

Some may think I'm being a bit cheeky here today, as we know that

we've got over 20 bills to supposedly get through in 12 working days. I'm not

being cheeky, but that's certainly a consideration.

But to say to British Columbians that for a full 120 days before

the election campaign is officially on, third-party advertising is going to be

banned is a pretty difficult thing to undertake.

I understand some of the government's motivation here. On a

legitimate basis, the government may be saying: "You know, we don't want people

unduly influenced prior to the campaign. We want them to come to it open and

clear and understanding things." On this side of the House we recognize that of

course the budget and the throne speech will all be in political play, if you

will, in those 120 days prior to the election campaign.

[1555]

Hon. Speaker, imagine for a moment, if you will, that the

provincial government brings in a budget that cuts the funding to child

development centres across the province. The third-party advertising here might

well prevent an organization representing child development centres from raising

in a campaign that cut to the budgets that impacts their ability to deliver

services, whether through advertisements or whatever.

I don't think the government would want to stop people who deliver

services to children with special needs. I don't think the government would ever

intend that this bill would limit their rights to hold their government to

account after the budget is presented. If there is ever a more important aspect

of democracy than the people's right to scrutinize the spending of the taxing

authority of the provincial government, I'd be hard pressed to think of it here.

Where and how government collects its taxes and spends the taxes

on behalf of the people to whom it owes everything is surely absolutely

fundamental to our system of government, to democratic discourse and to a

democratic society. The prospect of people who are genuinely affected, either

positively or negatively, by a budget not being able to comment is something

that I think the average British Columbian would say just isn't right.

Does this mean that if the government brought in a throne speech

that, for instance, denied the right of workers to collectively organize, which

said that the government was going to bring in that kind of legislation…? If

this was seen as an election issue or a political issue, which it most surely

would be, does that mean the B.C. Federation of Labour, CUPE, the BCTF or the

Hospital Employees Union wouldn't be able to engage in a public campaign to

oppose that kind of legislation?

If there was legislation brought in that would have the effect of

potentially reducing immigration in this province, would not every

right-thinking British Columbian want to stand up and have the right to say

something? It's a political issue.

If the government decided to raise royalties by 50 percent in the

mining industry, are we saying that the mining industry wouldn't be able to

engage in a campaign to say to the government: "This is going to put us out of

business. This will destroy investment. This will hurt the economy of British

Columbia, particularly rural British Columbia"? Is the government prepared to

say today that they don't want the mining industry to defend its interests if

the government wishes to engage in a significant increase in royalties? That is,

quite frankly, a potential

interpretation of this legislation.

I think there is every possibility, notwithstanding the Attorney

General talking about making the electoral process — what? — more fair and

transparent, that it will do anything but. It will have and could have the

potential of limiting the vigorous, sometimes vicious, hopefully intelligent and

expansive debate that characterizes politics in a modern democratic state.

In Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) , which was

the Supreme Court of Canada case that had so much to say about limitations to

third-party election spending, the majority held that the limits on third-party

advertising infringed the right of political expression guaranteed by

section

2(b), but that this infringement was reasonable and justifiable in a free and

democratic society as meeting the pressing and most substantial objective of

promoting electoral fairness.

[1600]

That decision was aimed only at the period of the election — not

talking about 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and certainly not 120 days prior to the

actual election campaign. That is just a big stretch. It's a pretty big stretch

for the opposition to accept. Indeed, I think, more importantly, whatever the

opposition may say, it's a pretty big stretch for the taxpayers — the voters,

the citizens — to accept.

Having been around as long as I have, it is also somewhat amusing

to hear from this government that it needs to impose spending limits for the 120

days prior to the election. I recall in 1995 when the Election Act was brought

in and the spending limits were brought in — which were very modest, which were

imposed only during the campaign period — that there was no one who complained

more bitterly than the

[ Page 11961 ]

then Liberal opposition about this being aimed and directed at their

political friends, the business community — an attack. That they were being

silenced for crass political reasons so that this horrible socialist government

could somehow get re-elected.

It's a bit of a switch now — amazing what the passage of 13 years

will do. Here we are now, and they're asking for a limit of 120 days prior to

the campaign, not during the campaign, to put spending limits on. You know,

$150,000 to someone in this province making 30 grand a year, or the average

family income in my constituency of $49,000 a year, that's a lot of money. But

$150,000, the limits in the bill, in modern politics….

Well, I won't call it chump change because that would be a bit

silly. But if we acknowledge that it's not unreasonable for a political party to

spend $70,000 during an election campaign in one constituency, what do you think

$150,000 is going to do for you in a campaign where you're campaigning on behalf

of the rights of children to receive services or you're campaigning on the

necessity of keeping the public school system strong or you're campaigning to

ensure that the mining industry remains an important economic driver in the

province or if you're campaigning to ensure that the forest industry is

protected — 150,000 bucks, not going to go very far.

Yet that's what this act is saying. Now, I've got to admit, it's

kind of like a pension plan. You've got to give the government credit. They do

acknowledge, of course, that the moneys, in fact, will increase with an

inflation factor over time. But it's a pretty significant limit.

The universities of this province — if they saw their funding

slashed, they'd be in the same boat. They'd all get together. They see

devastation in post-secondary education coming forth — 150,000 bucks, and that's

it.

As one of my friends pointed out, and forgive me for reminding the

Liberal side of this, the fact is that that actually happened. Mind you, it

didn't happen just 120 days prior to the next provincial election, but one would

hope that the post-secondary education institutions of this province — and the

universities seem to be multiplying hand over fist under this government…. One

would have expected and hoped that they would indeed have the right to protect

the interests of post-secondary education.

[1605]

When you talk about money…. In the decision itself, and this is

part of the head note:

"The Chief Justice and Major J. assert that short

of spending well over $150,000 nationally and $3,000 in a given electoral

district, citizens cannot effectively communicate their views on election

issues to their fellow citizens. Respectfully, this ignores the fact that

third-party advertising is not restricted prior to the commencement of the

election period. Outside this time the limits on third-party intervention in

political life do not exist. Any group or individual may freely spend money or

advertise to make its views known or to persuade others. In fact, many of

these groups are not formed for the purpose of an election but are already

organized and have a continued presence, mandate and political view which they

promote. Many groups and individuals will reinforce their message during an

electoral campaign."

And so they should. That's part of the debate.

But this is a pretty striking departure. Indeed, I would suggest

that short of some strange dictatorships and one-party states that none of us

have ever had to endure living in, this is a dramatic change, a very dramatic

change. This does not, I would suggest, follow the inference that one has to

draw from the Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) .

This doesn't follow that. This goes far beyond. This takes us down a different

path, if you will.

If you believe that big money makes that big a difference, if you

believe that it needs to be controlled — because that's what we're talking

about…. If you believe you have to control spending in the 120 days prior to the

election, then instead of attacking the presumed rights of people to participate

in the process through advertising and comment, why don't you — and I come back

to a theme — ban corporate and union donations, which have historically been

seen as the source of big money in politics? Why not go to that step and then

let us have what some may see as a free-for-all but others would see as the

democratic process? Let us have that free, open, loud, sometimes obnoxious

debate.

Why not do that