2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Employment Standards Act

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M205)

Puchmayr

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Youth participation in Newton

Remembrance Day ceremonies

H. Bains

B.C. outdoor caucus

Bennett

Students with disabilities in

public schools

Simons

Chelsie Mitchell

MacKay

Small Potatoes Urban Delivery

Karagianis

Bombing of Air India flight

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Transition plan for rural

communities

C. Wyse

Hon. C.

Hansen

Harvest of beetle-damaged trees

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Transition plan for rural

communities

Austin

Hon. C.

Hansen

Closing of group homes

Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

A. Dix

Policy on senior couples in

long-term care facilities

Conroy

Hon. G.

Abbott

Hospital discharge policy for

rural patients

G. Coons

Hon. G.

Abbott

Petitions

C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco

and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill

10)

Hon. G.

Abbott

A. Dix

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

MacKay

Robertson

Hawkins

L. Krog

R. Hawes

Thorne

Sultan

Macdonald

M. Polak

Horgan

Hon. G.

Abbott

Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill

13)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Farnworth

Horgan

Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 14)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance (continued)

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

J. Kwan

Trevena

Fleming

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation

Hon. K.

Falcon

G. Coons

Trevena

[ Page 6207 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: It's always a wonderful opportunity when we have visitors from the Robson Valley, a beautiful part of British Columbia. I'm delighted today that in the precinct we have Duke Peterson, who is a leader in the whole area of independent power production.

We also have the mayor of McBride, Mayor Mike Frazier. I know that all of my colleagues here in the House would want to make both of them very welcome.

D. Chudnovsky: I had a wonderful opportunity today to have a great lunch in the dining room with friends from Mississauga, Ontario. I'm very pleased today to welcome Ronit Minchom, Dr. Colin Minchom and their sons Jack and Dan. I'd ask the House to make them welcome, please.

H. Bloy: It's a privilege to introduce the mayor of that great city of Coquitlam, Maxine Wilson, who is in the House today along with Warren Jones, the city manager. If the House could please make them welcome.

I would also like to make a second introduction. We have 14 students from Coquitlam College here, along with their teacher Mr. David White. If the House would please join with me in making them welcome.

C. Trevena: Would the House help me make welcome Ken Stone, who is in the gallery today. Ken is a very good friend of mine from Campbell River. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him and other colleagues in the dining room today. If the House would make him welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Lambrick Park high school, which is in my riding, for an amazing performance at the recent provincial double-A Basketball Championships in Kamloops. Both the men's and women's teams advanced to the final games. Both of those games went into overtime. The men's team lost a heartbreaker to Ladysmith. However, the women's team won the provincial championship.

[1335]

I would ask the House to join me in congratulating all of the players on both teams, and special congratulations to the women's coach Rocky Vitale, who not only coaches basketball but runs Victoria's very successful baseball academy. I ask the House to join me in congratulating everyone.

J. Yap: In the gallery today is a good friend and constituent, Dr. Stephen Brady, and his colleague Ms. Frances Lasser. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Lee: Mr. Speaker, 30 grades 6 and 7 students with their teacher Ms. Pritchard are visiting today from Westridge Elementary School in Burnaby. Would the House please join me in giving the students, parents and teacher a very warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

C. Puchmayr presented a bill intituled Employment Standards Act Amendment Act, 2007.

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of the Employment Standards Act Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

C. Puchmayr: I'm pleased to introduce the Employment Standards Act Amendment Act. This bill will return some basic rights to farm labourers that they no longer enjoy. This act is a first step in implementing provisions that will begin to restore the dignity in the lives of those who toil so hard in our fields.

The record since 2001, however, has been one of reduced rights, which has created second-class workers in British Columbia. This bill is in the spirit of the wage increases that were incurred under the previous New Democrat administration, which between 1995 and 2001 increased the minimum wage three times and the farm labour rate four times.

Foreign workers are guaranteed a minimum wage when they work in our fields, but British Columbians are not. This is unjust, and the Employment Standards Act Amendment Act will address this and other issues.

First, the bill will right recent historic wrongs by ensuring that farmworkers are paid either piece rate or a minimum-wage rate, whichever is greater. This progressive change would give B.C. a chance to once again be a real leader in Canada in terms of guaranteeing workers' rights.

Second, the bill would restore protections for children in the workforce, which were stripped by this government. Third, this bill will restore overtime wage protections to farmworkers, who now spend unpaid work time as contractors transport them from farm to farm during the work day.

Finally, this bill will reinstate statutory holiday rights for farmworkers and hand-harvest workers in this province.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M205, Employment Standards Act Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6208 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN NEWTON

REMEMBRANCE DAY CEREMONIES

H. Bains: This past Remembrance Day at Newton cenotaph we watched some of our youngest Canadians remember our soldiers who have fought and continue to fight for our freedom across the world. Children from Pioneer district Girl Guides and Scouts Canada from all over Surrey and North Delta stood alongside many parents and seniors to pay their respect with the wreath- and poppy-laying.

It was touching to see so many young people care about and honour those who have sacrificed so much for our country. I was honoured to have been asked to participate in these celebrations on November 11 and to stand with the young people of our community to honour our war heroes.

Although the wars of the past are far from their experience, they still watch the impact of the war as our Canadian soldiers take off for countries that need their help. These young people show that they respect and care about our veterans of all battles. We could see the pride and sincerity on their faces as they walked up to lay their handmade wreaths and poppies at the cenotaph.

It's important for all of us to honour those who lost their lives for our freedom, and it's our duty as citizens to educate our young people on the importance of the sacrifices that these soldiers made.

[1340]

I would like to thank Christy Goy and Pioneer district Pathfinders for the tremendous effort they put into organizing their Remembrance Day at the Newton Centre Park in Surrey. Their efforts help us to educate our future generation so that we will never forget the valiant bravery of our fallen soldiers.

B.C. OUTDOOR CAUCUS

B. Bennett: I came here about six years ago to represent my constituents in the East Kootenay and to represent all British Columbians. I think we all do that. But I also came here six years ago specifically to represent the interests of rural British Columbians, because that's where I come from, and that's where I've lived most of my life.

Our issues in rural B.C. are different than the issues in the lower mainland. Not always, but often they are. We care a little bit more about off-road vehicle licensing and management than we do about TransLink. It's just the way we are. Our issues are different, and we're proud of that. We care about things like wildlife allocation, and we hope that file is resolved in a way that is fair and generous to the residents of British Columbia.

I'm pleased to announce today that I'm going to be forming a B.C. outdoor caucus to work in conjunction with the federal outdoor caucus and some provincial outdoor caucuses across the country. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation will be happy about this. They've asked me to do this. The B.C. outdoor caucus will be non-partisan, so I say to all members that I hope you join the caucus. But if you want to do politics, don't bother joining because this is not about politics. This is about the outdoors.

This caucus will support the heritage activities of hunting, fishing, trapping, and outdoor activities like ATV and snowmobile trail riding. I'll be in touch with members in the very near future to give you a formal invitation into this caucus. Even if you don't hunt or fish or trap, I hope you'll accept the invitation and join this caucus to represent the tens of thousands of rural British Columbians who do those kinds of activities.

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

N. Simons: I'm pleased to be able to stand here today to register my strong support for public schools that serve all British Columbia children regardless of their level of developmental ability. I speak in support of rural schools, suburban schools, inner-city schools, public elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, where students have the broadest spectrum and variety of needs.

I stand with parents, educators and community living advocates, people with developmental disabilities and everyone else, who know that schools don't just teach us basic foundation skills like math, science and history but are also where we become socialized into the mores and the folkways of our society.

Schools are where we hone social skills and where we learn to interact with each other. We meet people from different cultures and ethnic groups, and this teaches us tolerance and acceptance. We gain a better understanding of other cultures and their way of life. We meet people from different socioeconomic status. Maybe we learn about inequality, and maybe we learn about compassion — and maybe some political activism.

We also meet people with different degrees of ability. Learning alongside people with developmental disabilities teaches us all how to look out for our brothers and sisters. My grandmother Winnie Wood-Whittier and my mother Winnifred Whittier-Simons were both teachers specializing in teaching students with disabilities. My mother still teaches children with multiple challenges, who are integrated into the school system. She's been doing so for over 40 years.

The values of acceptance and inclusion supersede practicality, simplicity and crass efficiency. Schools are where we are first exposed to the tapestry that is our society. Inclusive education is not just important but essential for every child's development. All students have the right to be welcomed and supported in our neighbourhood schools.

Rural communities like Sechelt and Powell River seem to understand this well, partly because we all know our neighbours. Our society has evolved from the 1950s when people thought that students with disabilities should be separated out of the public school system.

[ Page 6209 ]

CHELSIE MITCHELL

D. MacKay: Have you ever wondered how a person gets to be a poster child — you know, the person who is front and centre on those posters that are designed to sell a product or an event? I'd like to take a couple of moments and tell you about a young poster child from my part of the province.

[1345]

This young lady was selected by VANOC to help sell the 2010 Olympic Games and promote aboriginal participation in those games. The young lady is Chelsie Mitchell, who at the age of 12 was involved in ski racing after having started skiing at the age of four. Chelsie grew up on an Indian reserve west of Smithers, a place called Moricetown. Her parents wanted her to be active, wanted to keep her out of trouble and wanted her have the opportunity to meet other kids.

So her parents Colleen and Duane took her skiing. She progressed to a stage where she wanted to try snowboarding, and the rest is history. Her natural ability to excel on the board saw her competing against others at the national level.

Today she lives in Whistler and trains six days a week. She's also a member of the B.C. snowboard team. Because of the commitment of this young lady, who was leading by example, she was selected by VANOC to be one of three aboriginal people to be highlighted in the new posters that will help sell British Columbia to the world leading up to 2010.

On a personal note, my daughter teaches at that school in Moricetown, and she's told me what a great role model Chelsie has become to the children that my daughter teaches. So on behalf of Chelsie and all the kids at Moricetown, I would ask this House to wish Chelsie all the luck in the future and thanks for being such a great role model.

SMALL POTATOES URBAN DELIVERY

M. Karagianis: I'm sure that members of this House are quite familiar with the 100-Mile Challenge. This is the challenge to only eat food that's grown within 100 miles of your own home.

Today I want to talk about a local success story in my own community that is actually a great resource for taking on the 100-Mile Challenge. It's a company called SPUD.ca. SPUD delivers fresh organic produce and groceries directly to your home every week — no delivery fees. You shop on line, and presto — once a week your groceries arrive at your doorstep. The perfect answer for the lifestyle of an MLA, I think.

They also have a 100-percent satisfaction guarantee to go with it. Wherever possible, the food is locally grown — hence the 100-mile challenge. While retail store produce can sit on a shelf for days under bright lights, most of SPUD's produce is brought in fresh every day and delivered within 24 hours. The fresh-baked bread products, fresh flowers and prepared meals are often delivered in even less time than that.

Buying organic products from SPUD helps protect our soil and water. By making fewer trips to the store, you also cut down on air pollution and traffic congestion.

In addition to produce, SPUD sells a broad range of eco-friendly products, from recycled toilet paper to phosphate-free cleaners. They also sell a wide range of fair-trade products, ensuring that workers receive fair wages and adequate working conditions. Their service is available throughout the lower mainland and much of Vancouver Island. Their goal is to change the world one grocery order at a time, and I sincerely hope that members of this House will give them a try.

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

D. Hayer: We often think of terrorism as occurring only outside of our borders or the horror of 9/11 and the loss of so many lives in the World Trade Center. We also think of our brave young Canadian soldiers currently in Afghanistan fighting to bring sense to a world by putting their lives on the line to end terrorism. Yet the reality is that terrorism has its roots in this province too.

The worst terrorism act in the history of this nation, the bombing of Air India flight 182 on June 23, 1985, and its accompanying act of terror that took the lives of two baggage handlers in the airport in Narita, Japan, began right here in British Columbia. More than 20 years later we are still trying to look into these terrible events, still trying to bring closure and solace to the great many British Columbia and Canadian families who lost their loved ones among the 329 who died when flight 182 fell in flames into the Irish Sea. Those victims included 80 children under the age of ten; 280 of those on the flight were Canadian citizens, and 22 were American.

[1350]

Despite the seemingly endless investigations, court cases and inquiries into this tragic but very international event, the British Columbia families still don't have all the answers. Last year our government created a permanent memorial in Stanley Park's Ceperely playground to the memory of all those lives lost on the Air India flight 182 as a permanent reminder to all those who see it that terrorism can never be accepted, that terrorism should not be accepted and that terrorism must always be fought against.

Hence, as legislators and lawmakers we should ensure that the silenced voices of the victims and their families should be remembered as we work for justice to prevail.

Oral Questions

TRANSITION PLAN FOR

RURAL COMMUNITIES

C. Wyse: The census data was released yesterday, and it confirms that the B.C. Liberal policies are making it harder for our rural communities to survive. The government brought in the heartlands strategy in 2003. It turns out that it was nothing but a fad. The B.C. Liberals have made it worse.

[ Page 6210 ]

We have seen school closures. We've seen no child care spaces, hospital closures, long-term care homes shut down, courthouses closed. Road maintenance has deteriorated.

This government is doing nothing to encourage families to stay in our communities or settle there in the first place. In fact.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Wyse: …they're making it worse. British Columbians can't trust this government to support their families and their communities.

In the community service plan it states: "The Ministry of Community Services provides support to communities in transition on a case-by-case basis." To the Minister of Community Services: how many of these communities have a community transition plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: I challenge that member to actually look at some of the stats that are coming out of the census. What it shows is that Canadians are moving back to British Columbia after the mass exodus of….

In 1998 we saw a net outflow of Canadians to other parts of Canada from British Columbia of 17,000. The year after there was a net outflow of 12,400, and the year after a net outflow of 15,000.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we are seeing today, in the last number of years, is that those young families that left British Columbia under the NDP government are moving back, and they're building their futures in this province once again.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: In actual fact, I do have some information here from rural British Columbia, from the same report that's been referred to: Ashcroft, an 8.3-percent drop; Quesnel, a 7.1-percent decrease; Terrace, 6.5 percent; Prince Rupert, 14.5 percent; Vanderhoof, 7.4 percent; Houston, 11.6 percent. The list goes on and on from rural British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Wyse: Now, the community service plan states that the ministry assists communities to develop their capacity in a variety of levels. It responds to issues related to the economic change for small rural communities.

The heartlands strategy closed schools, it closed hospital beds, and it closed senior care facilities. The heartlands strategy changed the rules where logs are milled, allowing jobs to also leave their areas, affecting ordinary working-class families. All of this contributed to difficulty in the heartlands.

Once more to the Minister of Community Services: how many communities have a transition plan in place?

Hon. C. Hansen: The transition plan that we see in place is that we see communities in every corner of British Columbia that once again feel optimistic about the future of this province.

What we saw during the 1990s was economic growth in Canada where British Columbia was the absolute lowest in economic growth. Today we're either number one or number two in every corner of British Columbia.

[1355]

As this member gets around the province, I have no doubt that he talks to one type of person, and it's the NDP — negative, dismal and pessimistic. They should talk to the real British Columbians, who are optimistic about this province for the first time in many, many years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we're not going to continue until there's silence. Member has a further supplemental.

C. Wyse: I listen to all people from Cariboo South, regardless of what party they belong to. That is my job, and it's the job everybody else….

Now back to the business at hand — looking after the interests of all people in rural British Columbia. In May 2005, shortly after the last election, the Rebuilding the Heartlands booklets were found in the recycling bin in the Legislature. My question to the Minister of Community Services: was this act the end of the Liberal strategy that turned the heartlands into the "hurtlands"?

Hon. C. Hansen: As you go around this province, community after community, you see that housing prices are up because of optimism, and you see that building permits are being issued for the first time in many years in many communities. Mr. Speaker, you see the unemployment rate in British Columbia that is the lowest that has ever been recorded.

If you look at the region that the member represents in the Cariboo, the Cariboo region in 1998 had an unemployment rate of 14.5 percent. You know what it is today, Mr. Speaker? It is down to 5.3 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

HARVEST OF BEETLE-DAMAGED TREES

B. Simpson: In 2003 this government's flavour of the year was the heartlands strategy. In 2003 this government also deliberately undermined rural British

[ Page 6211 ]

Columbia. They withdrew thousands of public sector jobs from rural communities. They've regionalized public services. They undermined our infrastructure and downloaded to local governments, and they gutted the Forest Act in a way that broke the social contract that this province has always enjoyed.

These are the actions that changed the heartlands into the "hurtlands," and right now in the interior of B.C. we have such a high degree of uncertainty because of the mountain pine beetle that that hurt is deepening every day.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Will he address that uncertainty today and tell this House when the mountain pine beetle allowable cut will drop and when we will start to see the dramatic job losses that everybody in those communities expects will occur when that happens?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that it's the member's policy in the Quesnel area to be negative about everything in forestry and in his community, which is up to him. But frankly, I think the interior of British Columbia has got a strong future. We're managing the pine beetle. There are lots of jobs out there in the forests. We now have a bioenergy plan that'll go forward.

Quite frankly, we're going to work with the communities for long-term success in British Columbia, and we're not going to do it from being the glass half empty. We're going to do it because the glass is half full, and we're going build a great future in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: This is exactly why the mountain-pine-beetle-impacted communities don't know what their future holds — because this minister prefers rhetoric over substance. He's a poster child for how this government likes to do public policy, which is just boosterism instead of substance.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

B. Simpson: In my community of Quesnel, the annual allowable cut right now is 5.3 million cubic metres. The Council of Forest Industries, because this minister doesn't have the data as to when the cut is going to come down or how deep, says it may go down as low as less than 500,000 cubic metres — less than a million.

One large mill in my community needs 1.8 million cubic metres per annum to run. We have five sawmills, two panel board plants, two pulp mills and a whole host of other small mills. That's why we need to know when the cut is going to come down.

My question again to this minister is: are we going to run magic wood through these mills? When will the cut level come down? When will we see those job losses, and what is this minister doing to help our community through that transition?

Hon. R. Coleman: First, I hope the offer of the poster child comes with some liposuction and plastic surgery, because I would need some help in that particular area.

We do annual assessments of the pine beetle and its impact. We work with the chief forester with regards to this. We've committed in the hundreds of millions of dollars to the region of British Columbia that's affected by this — $161 million to Forests for Tomorrow; $90 million to rehabilitate highways; $20.7 million to maintain and upgrade Forest Service roads as we go forward. We contributed $13.7 million last winter just to the pine beetle spread along the Alberta border and transferred $8.4 million to first nations that put money into community action plans to build economic futures within the beetle action area, as we're working with all of the communities.

I would actually like to invite this member to, for once, rather than being negative, go sit down with your community action coalition with regards to pine beetle. Instead of being a negative influence at the table, be a positive influence at the table.

TRANSITION PLAN FOR

RURAL COMMUNITIES

R. Austin: I notice that the Minister of Community Services is quietly spending her afternoon laughing, probably relieved that the Minister of Economic Development is answering her questions.

Let me explain to her what the heartland strategy has meant for my home community of Terrace: a funding formula in the school system that has led to a four-day school week; health care decisions now made in Prince George so that more of my constituents have to travel to get their health care; Ministry of Forests jobs gone; Ministry of Transportation jobs gone. All valuable jobs that we needed at the most…. Liberal cuts to eligibility for welfare, making it almost impossible for the most vulnerable people to survive.

That's the record of this B.C. Liberal government trying to help my rural community. Will the Minister of Community Services admit that she has failed my community and has done nothing to assist in any transition?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it very interesting. I think it underscores the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House that this member and the member for Cariboo North think that the way you create jobs in British Columbia is to create only public sector jobs.

We believe in building a strong private sector economy, and we are doing that across British Columbia. We have now put…

Interjections.

[ Page 6212 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1405]

Hon. C. Hansen: …$185 million into the Northern Development Initiative Trust to empower northern communities.

I cannot resist the temptation to quote, once again, from a letter that Chief Wilson of the Haisla band in Kitimat sent to the Terrace newspaper. He says that we "are fixing the past, and at least we are intent on being inclusive, unlike…." He includes the NDP in their past record.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: In Kitimat the heartlands strategy has included changing 50 years of legal precedent, where the public resource of water that flows through the Kemano generating plant is no longer considered a public resource but is now the property of Alcan to do with it as it wishes. The Premier's decision that Alcan is no longer an aluminum manufacturer but a power company has resulted in Kitimat losing 12.6 percent of its population.

Can the Minister of Energy tell this House how the Liberal sweetheart deal that they concocted between B.C. Hydro and Alcan and its resultant loss of 500 jobs is going to help Kitimat recover?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll read some more from this particular letter from Chief Wilson. It says: "Today the rest of us are working to fix the problems that the NDP left behind, and now for the first time the company and the province are being inclusive."

Mr. Speaker, we're working with the private sector, we're working with communities, and we're working with first nations. We are looking to solve the problems and build a secure long-term future for communities right across the north, including Kitimat.

CLOSING OF GROUP HOMES

M. Karagianis: Last Thursday in this House I asked the Minister of Children and Family Development about group home closures in Salmon Arm. The minister responded with these words: "The opposition critic's suggestion that group homes are being closed down in this province is absolutely false."

Well, in fact, I actually have a document here from Community Living B.C. This was sent out in October of 2006, and it says very clearly on page 2: "…the residential options project is trying to create the conditions that will allow agencies to close group homes…."

So I would like to ask: is the minister ignorant of the facts, has he been misinformed, or is he trying to mislead us in this House?

Mr. Speaker: Member, those comments are unparliamentary.

M. Karagianis: Then I will ask if the minister is simply….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, do you withdraw those comments?

M. Karagianis: I will withdraw those comments and restate the question.

Is the minister simply unaware of the facts of this story, and in fact will he give us the truth?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member opposite suggested last week that group homes were closing across the province. In response, I said that was patently false. Group homes are not closing across the province. Group homes remain a critical element of the services available….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: Group homes remain a critical option for the developmentally disabled across the province, but they do not present the only option. The residential options project has been undertaken by CLBC, an organization that is governed by a board — the majority of whom are self-advocates and family members of the developmentally disabled — to look at what options should be available and can be pursued to best meet the needs of developmentally disabled adults.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1410]

M. Karagianis: I understood that to mean: "I was wrong. I admit it. I do not know the file." We have families living in anxiety all across this province, wondering what will be the future for the members of their family who live with developmental disabilities. In fact, I have here a proposal that was sent to the employers association, and it stipulates very clearly on page 2 that no more than 100 group homes will be closed or converted to another service delivery model.

I would say right now to the Minister of Children and Family Development: will he explain to the families in British Columbia why 100 group homes are being closed here, and will he please give the facts to those families so they can have some assurance of their future?

Hon. T. Christensen: The opposition doesn't get this. This is about choices for the developmentally disabled. The number of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Christensen: …group homes that will be available in the province will depend precisely on the

[ Page 6213 ]

number of developmentally disabled adults who choose that that's the best option for them.

What we have seen as CLBC has undertaken the residential options project is that people are being presented with options. Some people are choosing to stay in group homes. Others are choosing to pursue a different residential option. This is about choice. It's about nothing but choice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Well, I'll leave it to others to discuss what the minister did last week when he said — and I quote; it's in Hansard : "The opposition critic's suggestion that group homes are being closed down is absolutely false." In fact, it's the government policy to close group homes.

What about the choice of those people on waiting lists for group homes, when there are vacancies in group homes, who aren't allowed to take up those vacancies? I say to the minister: what about their choice? What about the fact that the minister is narrowing the choices for those who need that kind of care?

Will the minister acknowledge that he was wrong last week, that he didn't understand what was going on in his ministry last week? And will he reverse this policy, which is denying choice to families that need those choices?

Hon. T. Christensen: I understand the opposition's desire to fearmonger and to suggest that people should be afraid that group homes are closing. The reality is that CLBC is working with developmentally disabled individuals and families around the province to look at what options those individuals and their families support for their residential care. That is what the residential options project is about.

It is not the government's policy to be closing group homes. As late as yesterday I spoke with the chair of the board of CLBC and was assured that in every single case, what they are doing is working with families and developmentally disabled individuals to best identify the option that that person and family wish to pursue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the minister's deny, deny, deny is cold comfort to those adults with developmental disabilities who need group home services, who should be getting group home services and are not being allowed to fill vacancies today. It's not expanding the choice for people in the community living sector to deny access to group homes. It's closing down choice. I say to the minister: it's completely unacceptable.

Hon. Speaker, his predecessor acknowledged last year that they were going to be closing group homes. He now today — a new revelation from him — is acknowledging that they're going to be closing group homes. My question to the minister is very simple: how many?

[1415]

Hon. T. Christensen: It may have been the approach of the opposition when they were in government to say: "Let's set a target of things we're going to close and then dictate to people where they should live." The policy of CLBC is to work with the families, to look at what options are available and to assist those families in pursuing those options.

Let me enlighten the opposition just a little bit more on this. The reality is this. If a person chooses to relocate from a group home into a different option, that space is left vacant for a period of time to enable that person to change their mind and return if they wish to do that, because these are vulnerable adults. They may make a choice, but we want to ensure that that choice doesn't close a door.

POLICY ON SENIOR COUPLES IN

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

K. Conroy: It's been over a year since Fanny Albo died, and at that time the Minister of Health said: "We need to ensure that the appropriate resources are in place so what happened to Mrs. Albo does not happen again."

On February 24, 92-year-old Fred Kreklau died. Last September he was separated from his wife of 64 years. For six months the family pleaded with the minister and Interior Health to have their parents taken care of in the same facility. There were no beds, no facilities.

It's been a year, and seniors are still suffering from this government's cuts. Promises made; promises broken. To the minister: will he stand up for seniors and commit today to change the policies that keep seniors like the Kreklaus from spending their final months together?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin by expressing my condolences to Mrs. Kreklau and the Kreklau family on the death of Mr. Kreklau. I think the Kreklau case does underline the challenge of elderly couples with very different care needs. In the case of Mr. Kreklau, his injury and his illness required 24-7 complex care in a residential care facility. That was not the case for Mrs. Kreklau, and that was a challenge for the Interior Health Authority — to try to find a place where they might be together.

I must say that IHA worked very hard to ensure that the Kreklaus at all times, including Christmas, had the opportunity to spend as much time together as they possibly could. Interior Health bent over backwards to try to ensure that that was the case.

I can speak from some experience in my own family. My own parents were separated by a medical adversity. It does happen among the frail elderly, and I know IHA works tirelessly to try to ensure that the separation is minimized.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: I'd like to point out that it was in fact the family who paid for the services so that Mr. and Mrs. Kreklau could spend Christmas together.

It was a year ago that the Ballem report was released, completed following the death of Fanny Albo, and in the report it said that the region needed a robust

[ Page 6214 ]

palliative care program. Fred Kreklau's family had a choice. They got either the four-bed ward he was in with curtains pinned together for privacy or a TV room with no windows, oxygen or comforts needed for a patient in a palliative condition. The family chose the privacy of the TV room and then had to stop residents from coming in to watch TV as they comforted their father in his last hours.

To the minister: does this qualify as a robust palliative care system — a public TV room with no appropriate supports?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's comments are entirely unfair and inappropriate to the caregivers at Interior Health, who work tirelessly to try….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: It is entirely unfair and inappropriate for the members to make those comments about caregivers at Interior Health, who work tirelessly to try to ensure that the Kreklaus were able to spend as much time together as possible.

[1420]

In terms of the final hours that Mr. Kreklau spent, I am advised by Interior Health that in fact the room in which the final events took place was one that is set aside in that facility for palliative care and for privacy for families when they are in that most difficult moment of their lives — when they're saying goodbye to a loved one.

I think it is most inappropriate and unfair to characterize as anything other than compassionate what IHA tried to do for the couple.

HOSPITAL DISCHARGE POLICY FOR

RURAL PATIENTS

G. Coons: I also have a question for the Minister of Health. David Yasko was recently medevacked from Queen Charlotte on Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert and then ambulanced another two hours to Kitimat for emergency treatment.

Later Mr. Yasko was discharged with no money, no coat and no assistance on how to get back home. Mr. Yasko told me that he feels that those on the islands are forgotten. He had no idea that they just release you, and you fend for yourself.

The minister must agree that there is something dreadfully wrong with this picture of a patient just released from a hospital and left to find their way home unassisted. A journey like that for some can take days to make. My question is simple. Why does your government insist on not helping patients like Mr. Yasko?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I think it is unfortunate that what we hear from the opposition is one-sided and frequently misleading accounts of what took place.

The policy that has been in place for at least three governments…. We didn't create the policy. The NDP didn't create the policy, but they didn't change it either. The policy has been around….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: The policy has been around for decades that what we do through B.C. air ambulance, what we do through B.C. ambulance on the ground, is try to ensure that whatever the care needs are for the patient — whether they're primary or tertiary — they get the very best of care from the very best of facilities in this province.

Once their course of care is completed, the hospitals work with the patient to ensure that they can find a way home from that. But we cannot occupy the use of air ambulance for non-emergency cases.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, when you were speaking, you used the word "misleading." I'd ask you to retract that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I aimed the word at the account as opposed to the individual, but I'm glad to withdraw that if it brings offence to the member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member withdrew the statement.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with about 350 names calling for the restoration of provincial funding for our provincial child care service.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading debate on Bill 10, Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007. In Committee A, Committee of Supply and, for the information of members, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance and, thereafter, the Ministry of Transportation.

[1425]

Second Reading of Bills

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND

SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND SCHOOLS)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. G. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise and move second reading of the Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and

[ Page 6215 ]

Schools) Amendment Act, 2007. Our government is committed to reducing tobacco use and the impact of tobacco on the health system. Tobacco kills over 6,000 British Columbians each year and costs the B.C. economy $2.3 billion each and every year.

I know that in some of the newspaper and other accounts of the introduction of Bill 10, some said: "Actually, tobacco is a source of revenue to the province." Yes, that's true. It is. But that revenue is small in comparison to the cost that the diseases that are pursuant to tobacco use impose. In relation to the human cost — the cost in terms of human suffering that is produced by tobacco — the revenues are insignificant.

I'm sure the Finance Minister and I hope every member of this House would be delighted if we never had another cent in tax revenue from tobacco again in our lives. That would mean that tobacco usage was at zero, which I think would be a wonderful thing in this province.

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

This legislation, Bill 10, makes important additions to the Tobacco Sales Act that will protect the public and workers from secondhand tobacco smoke and will protect our children from being constantly bombarded by tobacco promotion and display.

The amendment will limit the promotion and sale of tobacco products in British Columbia. It sets out broad parameters, and once passed, details will be spelled out in regulations as to exactly how the legislative provisions will work.

Last year the Premier said: "We want to find a cure for cancer, but we need to take steps to prevent it in all parts of the province. That means we have to do more to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke."

Today we are doing what he said we would do. We're going to act now to phase out smoking in all indoor public spaces by 2008 and in schools and school grounds this fall. I know my friend and colleague the Minister of Education will have more to say with respect to that important matter in this second reading debate.

While the amendment will ban smoking in all indoor places and on school grounds, this legislation does not apply to parks, parking lots, sidewalks, outdoor workplaces, outdoor workplace grounds, patios or other open areas. But this smoke-free amendment does apply to private clubs and to legions and service clubs. Prohibiting smoking in such places provides a level playing field with other hospitality establishments and protects people, both smokers and non-smokers, from the hazards of secondhand smoke.

[1430]

The Premier has said that the act will not cover people's homes, and indeed it does not. You can still smoke in your own home, your vehicle or hotel room — if that host facility and of course your families or companions are in agreement.

The amendments may allow for some exemption. For example, they could by regulation allow residents in long-term care facilities to smoke in a designated smoking room. But staff and visitors may not be able to smoke in such a room.

The act also protects indoor air quality by giving a buffer to outdoor smoking. Smoking will not be allowed in doorways or near windows or air intakes — again, it goes without saying, but perhaps best with saying — so that those of us who are non-smokers, that 85 percent of British Columbians who are non-smokers, do not have to endure or put up with or breathe in the smoke from smokers. Precise distances will be set out by regulation, based on consultations with all British Columbians and on the national and international experience in respect of regulated setbacks from doorways and air intakes.

Some municipalities in this province have already passed bylaws restricting smoking. This act sets a minimum standard respecting smoking in enclosed public places and indoor workplaces that will apply across the province. Municipalities will continue to be able to enact bylaws which are more severe or restrictive or more extensive in their application should they choose to do so.

One of the very important features of this bill is around tobacco signs and display ads and the banning of those things. Conspicuous displays of tobacco products and branded accessories in the form of what are termed power walls, countertop displays and other forms of promotion are common in most convenience stores, grocery stores, supermarkets and gas stations. These displays reach young people and send an inconsistent message that smoking is socially acceptable. They reduce the impact of the message that tobacco products are harmful to health.

This amendment will allow by regulation the curtailment of overt promotion of tobacco to our children. Regulation will also ban the display of tobacco products in all places where tobacco is sold that are accessible to youth under 19. This will mean youth will not be confronted with tobacco marketing every time they go to the corner store.

This, I think, is an extremely important part of this bill. The world has changed considerably since I was a teenager, and some would note that a considerable length of time has passed as well. When I was a teenager and in my early 20s, it was very commonplace. Smoking rates were much higher in my youth than they are today. I recall university classes where not only the students were smoking, but the professors were smoking as well. Obviously, we've come a long, long distance from that.

I hope what we have also come a long, long distance from is how those kinds of influences can influence whether we decide to take up smoking in our youth. I took up smoking in my youth. I'm happy to say that none of my three children have taken up smoking in their youth, and that's a wonderful thing.

But in relation to the bill, the critical point is this. We know that if young people don't take up smoking by the time they reach 19 years of age, there is a very, very slim chance that they will take up smoking for the rest of their lives. That is what has got to be key for the government, for the opposition, for every member of this House, for all British Columbians trying to ensure that fewer and fewer young people in British Columbia

[ Page 6216 ]

take up smoking. That is why we are taking the important steps we are today in relation to tobacco marketing in this province.

[1435]

A ban on sales of tobacco will apply to hospitals and other health facilities. It will apply to recreational facilities, post-secondary campuses and provincial government buildings. We are going to be taking leadership on this question in respect of where tobacco is sold. It is fundamentally important that publicly funded facilities support the message that tobacco is no longer socially acceptable and is a very unhealthy lifestyle choice.

Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease and death in British Columbia. That is entirely clear. It is not just lung cancer. A very, very high proportion of lung cancers in this province are directly related to smoking. Other major killers like heart disease are often linked to smoking. Emphysema and a range of cancers beyond lung cancers are related to smoking as well.

It's a fact, as well, that smoking kills more people in British Columbia than all other drugs, motor vehicle collisions, murder, suicide and HIV/AIDS combined. Take all of those things, and it still doesn't come anywhere near the number of people who are killed on an annual basis by the incidence of smoking.

The B.C. tobacco strategy includes a comprehensive range of efforts to reduce tobacco use — including school-based programming, public education, protection from secondhand smoke, support for cessation, legislation and legal action — on, I think, both sides of the House. We can be proud that our governments have been forceful in terms of pushing forward on both the legal and the legislative side to ensure that we are leaders in this nation in respect of preventing and ceasing tobacco use.

The Ministry of Health currently funds a number of non-smoking programs or quit-smoking programs such as quitnow.ca and QuitNow by phone that are available 24-7 to all British Columbians, with translation services now available in 130 languages. As well, another program that's enjoyed considerable success is Kick the Nic, a program specifically for youth smokers also available throughout B.C.

It's part of our government's goal to reduce tobacco use by another 10 percent by 2010. An ambitious goal, but I believe with the work we are doing and with this legislation, we will push ever closer to that goal.

In closing, the Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007, reflects our ongoing commitment to improve the health of British Columbians by supporting healthy lifestyle choices. There is no more important choice that a young person, a middle-aged person or an older person can make in their lives and their health outcomes. Tomorrow, two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now or 20 years from now, there is no decision that you can make about your lifestyle that is more important than giving up tobacco.

Madam Speaker, thank you to the members for their interest in this matter, and I look forward to the comments of other members on both sides of the House and to debating this bill at committee stage.

A. Dix: It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill 10, Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007. I'd say to the Minister of Health that it's the first bill tabled by him since I became critic, and it perhaps shows the synergy that has developed between the Minister of Health and myself that I'm rising in support of this legislation.

[1440]

I think this is indeed a very important bill. The minister has talked about the human cost of tobacco smoking in British Columbia — the thousands of people who die not just of smoking tobacco but from the impact of secondhand smoke. I think we all know this because we all in our lives…. About 16 percent of British Columbians smoke. All of us know smokers.

I don't know very many smokers who don't want to quit smoking. These include people of enormous will and success in their lives, and they find it very difficult to do so. Nicotine is an extraordinarily addictive product. I think any steps that we can take as legislators and as people in British Columbia to stop people from taking up smoking have to be brought forward and have to be brought forward with vigour.

In fact, smoking and nicotine are what's called a reinforcing drug. Smokers want it in spite of its damaging effects. Again, we all know this from our lives, from people we meet in our lives who smoke and who are plagued with the addiction of smoking and can't get past it even though they know of its impacts on them, even though they know of its impacts on their families.

I think it's important to keep those things in context when we're having this discussion about smoking, about its impact on the lives of individuals — young people, but people across British Columbia. There's a second group of people, which is in a sense the rest of us, who are also frequently affected in spite of recent changes in the law by the impact of secondhand smoke. It's estimated that hundreds of people in British Columbia die every year because of the effect of secondhand smoke in our province.

There's a list here, and it's quite extraordinary because what secondhand smoke is, as people have said, is essentially a combination of poisonous gases. A person who breathes secondhand smoke — it's breathed in — has to suffer through and deal with the impact of and the exposure to 4,000 different chemicals, 50 of which cause cancer.

When we talk about this issue of secondhand smoke and its importance…. I know that part of this bill deals with that issue — the part of the bill that in fact will ban smoking from all indoor public places, including smoking rooms in restaurants, pubs and bars as well as schools and bus shelters. What that's a reflection of isn't just the desire to get people to stop smoking but to protect other people — workers and patrons in those restaurants and bars.

The minister will know this because there's lots of talk about smoking rooms, and the evidence is un-

[ Page 6217 ]

equivocal. You can't seal them off. There's no ventilation system in the world that will protect people. In addition, people who are not smokers have to go in those smoking rooms to serve other people.

I support the ban on smoking from all indoor public places. We support the ban on smoking near doorways, windows and air intakes of buildings. We support the provisions brought forward in the legislation.

On the secondhand smoke question we simply have to be vigilant, because it is one thing to say that people have rights to engage in practices, that things are legal. It's another thing to say that other people who are not smokers have to be exposed to those consequences as well.

I think the minister has said it quite well with respect to young people, and that's why we strongly support, as well, the regulations affecting schools. We probably have to do more than that. We have to probably provide some assistance to support school boards in implementing these measures, and sometimes support neighbourhoods around schools in dealing with the consequences of these measures.

It's something that I know the Minister of Education is concerned with because she, like me, meets with parents a lot. Some of the issues around smoking in schools aren't on grounds. They tend to be around grounds and so on — not just by students, but by people working there and others. That element of the question is something that we have to work together to address in communities.

I want to encourage the government to continue on that and on the smoking issue as well. I think it is an excellent step to provide access to smoking cessation programs for people on income assistance, but I believe we have to go further.

[1445]

We've heard stories. One of the interesting stories…. There's a writer for the Globe and Mail named Jan Wong, who did a series of stories on maid services last year and talked about women who work in those services for very little money. It's a very challenging and difficult job that the reporter had a very difficult time, in fact, keeping up with.

A number of people in that story — and I recommend it to the minister — who were working in those services struggled to be able to pay for the costs of smoking cessation programs with what meagre income they had. We also know in terms of smoking cessation the value of having support, either from community health centres or doctors, in success rates of smoking cessation programs.

Those are areas that we've got to go further on. I do think — and I think the minister would be disappointed if I didn't point this out — that the current government has been slow to respond on this question, particularly on the question of secondhand smoke.

The minister first of all referred to the tobacco lawsuit that was initiated under the NDP. I would make the point that when that lawsuit was initiated by the NDP, it was ridiculed by the Liberal opposition. Happily, the member for Kamloops was there….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member, please. Can we listen to the speaker.

A. Dix: The member for Kamloops will remember because he was there. I don't recall from the Hansard whether he was one of the people doing the ridiculing, but I think what it shows is the evolution over time on these issues.

The government was slow on this issue. The B.C. Liberal Party was slow to respond to the need. The minister talked about the costs to the economy and cost to health care of smoking in British Columbia, and clearly the government was slow to respond to that. Happily, after 2001, they acknowledged that the NDP government had been right and they had been wrong on that question.

It's important to reflect on that because, at the time, the critic for the Liberal Party called the bill appalling — referred to it as just having been instituted for political purposes and not for the purpose of helping people. So change happens, and we have to applaud that change. We have to applaud the evolution that happens. But I must say that evolution happened about five years too late and five years beyond everyone else.

This brings me to another significant part of this legislation, which is the decision to ban smoking from all indoor public places. Here we're talking about not a high point of the government's time in office. We all remember the WCB fulfilling its mandate to protect workers.

Remember, this isn't me saying that secondhand smoke is a risk to workers and to citizens. It's the government's own website that says it's a risk. The government's own website says that no exposure — there's no minimum — to secondhand smoke is without risk. That's what the government's website said. That's what studies have shown again and again — not recent studies, but studies over the last 25 years.

In 2001 the WCB was about to bring in regulations to protect workers in the hospitality industry, and we all know what happened. The election happened, and political intervention happened on the part of the government to deny, in fact, the WCB the right to bring those measures into place.

Directives came from the government. We had a Minister of Labour who is not with us anymore in this House. He's with us, of course, on Vancouver Island, but he's not with us in the House — Graham Bruce. He said that eight months won't give anyone cancer. That was the level of debate at the time and the level of decision-making on this fundamental health question. Anybody who's known anyone who has suffered the effects of smoking knows how ridiculous and unacceptable those statements are. But eight months — it won't make a problem.

That's when they delayed it the first time. Immediately after the election in July, there were reports that backbench Liberal MLAs were intervening in this

process and demanding that the changes wouldn't go through. The paint wasn't even dry. They weren't even

[ Page 6218 ]

here for a month before they were undermining the WCB on this question in 2001.

[1450]

Then the WCB said no. The chair of the WCB said: "No, we are not going to be intimidated. We are not going to be overruled. We are not going to wait for the Liberal back bench to delay this legislation for six months."

The member for Vancouver-Burrard was here. He knows what happened. He knows that those backbenchers intervened in that way. He knows the government intervened in that way. The government intervened. So the Liberal backbench came in, and the Liberal cabinet came in and ordered the WCB not to protect workers in this way. They delayed the implementation of the smoking ban.

Then after six months, they imposed on the WCB the designated smoking-room policy. They did it. This is a government that on its website — not recently, but for a long time — said that secondhand smoke is dangerous at any level. They knew it, and for five years people have had to deal with the effects of secondhand smoke because they intervened politically to overrule an independent body.

This is part of the history. I know we're celebrating today, after five years, the recognition of that political interference on behalf, in part, of some people who I must say contributed considerably to campaigns. That political interference caused that delay, and you can't be equivocal about it. There was no excuse for it.

Instead we had the Minister of Labour talking about the fact that, yes, people may get cancer, but other people had to run businesses. That's why I think that for those workers, these changes are long overdue. We can actually put a date on how long this government's intervention has delayed that protection for workers.

But we can't put an end date on it, because even though, again, the government has acknowledged that the secondhand smoke in the workplace environment is dangerous for workers, the ban is going to be brought in…. It was announced by the Premier some time ago. It was instituted in this legislation, but it's going to come into place in 2008.

So we've gone from 2001 to 2008. This is serious business. A government that intervened politically and irresponsibly in this way should not be further delaying the implementation of basic workplace protections to workers in the hospitality industry. I'd suggest this goes to show what happens when a lobby overwhelms common sense. That's happened here. A lobby overwhelmed common sense.

Everybody has suffered. Those workers suffered. People in this province suffered. Some people in this province will suffer for decades the long-term effects of that government decision to overrule the WCB. They'll suffer and suffer and suffer.

Even the businesses suffered. There are businesses around British Columbia that spent $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 to bring themselves into compliance. Now this government twists and turns and twists and turns, because the decision was wrong.

This didn't happen because they made a tough call. They knew it was wrong. They knew the WCB was right. They knew the evidence on smoking. They intervened politically to make the changes, and everybody paid the price. It is an object lesson that this government gets again and again and again.

The question is: when will justice come? When will protection come for those workers? The government says 2008, and they do a victory lap in announcing this legislation. Well, why not now?

Interjections.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members, please. Can we listen to the speaker.

[1455]

A. Dix: The Minister of Health is agitated. I understand his agitation, because he was part of that cabinet that overruled the WCB. He was there. He was part of that cabinet.

Interjections.

A. Dix: I think that was wrong. To join the non-partisan spirit that the minister is heckling me in, I don't think it would be that bad if the minister acknowledged he was wrong today. Maybe that….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Here we have a situation, a specific measure. You know, it's real people that paid the price for this. The Minister of Health can talk and yell and heckle. It's real people that paid for that decision in 2001 to overrule the WCB — real people working in the hospitality industry.

They have the same right to protections as other workers in British Columbia, and they were singled out. It was done politically. It was done by MLAs and not by those who brought forward the regulation at the WCB level. They intervened politically. They overturned that decision, and everybody paid the consequence for that.

I think we have to recognize that, when we talk about a piece of legislation that doesn't actually set a date for bringing this into force. What is the rationale to continue the delay? That's the question we're going to engage in tomorrow. The reason I'm bringing this issue to the minister's attention is that I think that's an important question.

When in 2008 will these workers finally get the protections that they should have got at the end of August of 2001 and would have got if the government hadn't

[ Page 6219 ]

intervened? When in 2008 are they going to get those protections?

That's the question we have first of all. That's the first set of questions we have about the legislation. It seems to me that it's not good enough for the government just to pass over the fact that people have had to go through this period as a result of their actions — actions that were indefensible at the time, actions that continue to be indefensible. Those protections which ought to have been in place at that time are still not in place today.

I'd like to talk about a couple of things that aren't in the legislation and that we're naturally hopeful to convince the Minister of Health, in our constant effort to improve public policy in British Columbia, to consider. I want to acknowledge, in doing that, the excellent work of my colleague from Saanich South, who's been a leader and an advocate on issues, not just — and he's going to talk about some of these issues in this debate at length — as a legislator but as a leader in his community.

It is an obligation on all of us to bring a sense of leadership and a sense of support for initiatives to help people stop smoking, to stop people from starting smoking and to protect people from the consequences of secondhand smoke.

One of those issues — and the member for Saanich South will talk about it at greater length — is of course the decision by the government not to include a ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies. I put it in the context of what's happened before. Tobacco lawsuit — B.C. Liberals opposed, then in favour. WCB ban and protections for workers against secondhand smoke — B.C. Liberals opposed, and five years later in favour. This gives us hope that they will see reason on the issue of selling tobacco in pharmacies.

When you think about the role pharmacies play in terms of public health, in terms of the effective management of public health issues…. We've seen it recently in terms of the role that pharmacies and pharmacists play in protecting people from taking the wrong drugs at times, being wrongly prescribed at times. I think pharmacists play a remarkable role, and the College of Pharmacists supports a ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies. The College of Pharmacists supports it.

There's such a ban in place in Ontario. When was the ban in place in Ontario? Well, it comes from the 1990s. The minister will no doubt have comments to make about that. It's been in place for 12 years in Ontario. The roof hasn't fallen in. It's been in place for ten years in New Brunswick. The roof hasn't fallen in. It's been in place for nine years in the province of Quebec. The roof hasn't fallen in. It's been in place in Nova Scotia for six years. The roof hasn't fallen in. It's been in place in Newfoundland for two years. The roof hasn't fallen in.

[1500]

In terms of the next step that's required…. One of the next steps that's required to protect people from the impacts of cigarette smoke is to make pharmacies, which are a place of health, come forward into the 21st century and not allow the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies.

The member for Saanich South brought forward a very good bill at this time last year. Unfortunately, in spite of the support that the member for Saanich South has received from that bill — and, I think, the thoughtful presentation he brought forward — the government has not yet chosen to act.

Given, as I say, the government's delay in other areas of this bill and their change of heart, we're hopeful — we're filled with optimism — that the minister will consider the arguments of the member for Saanich South, will consider the arguments of the B.C. College of Pharmacists, will consider what's happened in other jurisdictions and bring forward legislation himself enacting such a ban in the near future.

We, of course, will have questions at committee stage on this legislation. But I want to say that I think fighting tobacco addiction is a high priority for health care. The minister knows that it doesn't just…. There is the issue, and there's always the debate that people have — the minister referred to it — about the fact that we take in tax revenue that I don't think anywhere near matches the cost of smoking in our society.

There's that whole debate, but I think we have to do what we can do. We are number one in Canada. We have fewer smokers per capita here in Canada than any other jurisdiction, but I think all members of this House would agree that hundreds of thousands of people — between 500,000 and 600,000 — smoke in British Columbia, and that is quite a bit too many. That has huge implications for costs, but it has even greater implications on human lives.

We support this legislation. We support the effort to stop, in particular, young people from smoking. We support the protections for workers in the hospitality industry — five years too late but nonetheless coming into place. I ask all members on all sides of the House to support this legislation.

C. Puchmayr: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

C. Puchmayr: I would like to introduce Cathern Scroggins from Peterborough, Ontario, who is in the gallery today, and Norine Hider from Burlington, Ontario, whose daughter has just purchased in this area. They're out visiting. Please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to stand in support of the bill that's being discussed in the House at second reading stage today. I started out very optimistically and very pleased, in fact, that the member opposite previously suggested that he was certainly in support of this bill. I was a bit confused by that later on throughout some of his comments, but I can tell you this: this bill is significant and addresses significant problems that are facing British Columbians today.

[ Page 6220 ]

I want to begin by, first of all, making reference to some comments that have been made by the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance in relation to this bill. Let me quote:

"The B.C. Healthy Living Alliance congratulates this government on its recent move to reduce tobacco use. Banning smoking in public places and school grounds and limiting the promotion and sales of tobacco products are important steps in the fight against tobacco and secondhand smoke.

"The B.C. Healthy Living Alliance is impressed that this government has taken a strong position to ban the marketing of tobacco products in all places accessible to youth. This will make a tremendous difference in reducing the number of youth that start smoking and are ensnared in a lifelong struggle with tobacco addiction. Adults will also benefit from this legislation, which provides this province with a brighter outlook for a healthier future."

In particular, we're pleased that we are going to take a very aggressive position with banning smoking on school property, school grounds. It's an important step. I should say, though, that I have also been impressed…. As a former school trustee, I can assure you that many boards across this province had already begun to address this critical issue.

[1505]

One of the challenges we found was that the policies were not consistent across British Columbia. It's true that all school districts except one currently have a no-smoking policy. However, as I've mentioned, the policies were inconsistent across the province.

Only about half of the districts banned smoking in school buildings, on school grounds and in school district vehicles. About 40 percent of school districts permitted smoking in school vehicles, and about a quarter of the districts permitted smoking on school grounds. Only about a quarter of the districts had an enforcement policy in place.

As we work with school boards over the next number of months, we intend to erase the inconsistency that exists across the province. There has been a very positive reaction to the bill. We know that there is work to do.

As the member opposite pointed out, there are challenges when you deal with the issue of smoking on school grounds. There are obviously issues that occur related to the property that's nearby and for neighbours and a number of other issues. But I can assure you that school boards across this province will be in compliance with this bill when it passes, and we will work with them. This is absolutely essential to the health and well-being of students in British Columbia.

We also know that banning smoking is not the only issue. We have to deal with education and how we actually provide support and other programs for students across the province.

In addition to our new tobacco-free schools legislation, we have put in place policies and programs over the last number of years that would help educate children and youth about the dangers of using tobacco and other substances. We are continuing to place emphasis on resources that prevent youth and young adults from ever beginning to smoke.

The Ministry of Health partnered with our ministry, the Ministry of Education, to consult with leaders and health experts across the province to create a tobacco prevention resource for teachers in grades 4 through 12. It's called bc.tobaccofacts. We now have this excellent resource.

It has again been a partnership between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, with great advice from experts across the province. This resource is based on best classroom practices and the latest research on tobacco prevention and cessation. This is a groundbreaking resource. It's unique in the world.

Today we are not only dealing with a bill that actually is an aggressive and wide-ranging bill; we also are leading the world with some of the resources being created to deal with this on a number of levels. The resource that we have is grade-specific, and it is also completely integrated into the curriculum. It's an incredible piece of work, and I am so pleased and proud of the team that has put that information together. I know it's going to benefit students in our province.

There's also a program called HeartSmart Kids K-3, in partnership once again with another fabulous organization, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and the Yukon. The province developed HeartSmart Kids K-3 bc.tobaccofacts for kindergarten through grade 3, once again, providing important teacher resources to address tobacco and other health-related issues with students, beginning as early as kindergarten and helping them through grade 3. We know that we need to provide information and education to be able to help our children make great decisions.

We have a program called Buddy Power — Think Smart, Don't Start. Buddy Power is a resource designed to actually involve students in learning about the dangers of tobacco use. There are three resource components. An activity book for primary students working in a buddy situation…. Anyone who does classroom visits has the wonderful opportunity often to see buddy programs where we have older students working with younger students. Buddy Power takes advantage of that situation, so we have primary students working in a buddy situation.

There's a booklet for intermediate student leaders. So we're talking about teaching students about leadership, the ability to actually teach another child. They work in that buddy situation. We also provide a pamphlet for teacher sponsors.

Doing those activities with that older buddy, our elementary kids not only learn about tobacco facts, but they share together that knowledge with a friend. It's an incredible program, lots of fun.

[1510]

We also have several courses in our curriculum which address the concerns and the dangers of tobacco and substance abuse, and those are included in the health and career education program, K through 7 — and also in planning 10, I should mention. These courses, again, address the dangers of tobacco through several themes like healthy living and substance use and abuse.

[ Page 6221 ]

We know that this legislation will help improve the health of our students by banning tobacco use both in public and independent schools. The legislation will ban the use of any form of tobacco in schools, in any buildings used by schools, in vehicles leased or owned by boards, on school grounds and in boards of education offices that are used for educational purposes.

Districts and school administrators will be responsible for ensuring that their schools abide by this ban. Health officers will monitor the compliance and enforce the legislation. Tobacco enforcement officers from health authorities will continue to enforce the sales provision of the act and will also enforce the display restrictions.

Why is the legislation so important? Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable death, disability and premature death in British Columbia, and there continues to be a strong link between smoking as a teen and smoking as an adult. Although our province, British Columbia, continues to have the lowest smoking rate in Canada, 14 percent of British Columbia's youth aged 15 to 19 reported smoking in 2005. Previous studies have found that approximately 83 percent of smokers begin smoking before they turned 19. According to the B.C. provincial health officer, young people are less likely to start using tobacco products when they have not already smoked by the age of 19.

Many school and community resources are dedicated to ensuring that our youth never start using tobacco products. Initiatives to reduce the number of school-age children taking up the tobacco habit will have a significant impact on prevalence rates as adults and the overall health and well-being of our population.

This legislation helps support our goals of creating a healthier and safer school environment where our children can learn and grow. We are setting a good example for British Columbia's children to help them choose healthy habits that will serve them well in their adult lives.

We know that a complete ban sends a consistent message, and it reinforces the perception by students that other students don't smoke on school property. Not smoking becomes the social norm and gives students more confidence in using refusal skills. It creates long-term benefits such as healthier workplaces and reduced economic costs.

Ontario banned smoking in schools and on school grounds in 1994. School administrators were more likely to report on a positive result from the ban than a negative one. The majority of non-smoking students were highly supportive. Schools reported a net decrease in the number of students smoking.

We know that it will take a comprehensive approach which includes smoking restrictions, control over sales to teens and advertising in mass media non-smoking campaigns. That comprehensive strategy has been shown to have a beneficial impact on the prevalence rates in adolescence.

This approach is completely consistent with the healthy schools concept, recognizing schools as important social environments where curricula, teaching practices and policies…. It has to be a combination, and that's why I'm so proud of the work we're doing in terms of curricula and programs that we have put in place over the last number of years. But we know that it takes a consistent and collaborative approach, looking at a comprehensive strategy to actually make a difference. Teaching practices and policies enhance a student's physical, mental and social well-being.

That is why we're legislating the ban on smoking on school property, and in the months ahead we will be announcing other strategies to help ensure that students learn and achieve in a safe and very healthy environment. We want B.C. to lead the way in healthy eating and physical fitness. This legislation will help support that goal by creating healthy and safe school environments where our children can learn and grow to be the best they can be.

[1515]

As we've said, we don't want our children and teens to use tobacco products. We want to set a good example, and today I am delighted to stand and support a bill that I think will make a difference for the young people and young adults of British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: I, too, rise today to speak to Bill 10, Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 2007. I'd like to begin by saying that we on this side of the House welcome a return to action by the present government. We endorse the progressive features of the bill, including measures to reduce the visibility of smokes, to circumscribe the places where tobacco may be smoked and to ban the sale of tobacco in certain locales.

All of these actions are forward steps in the ongoing battle to stem the scourge of nicotine addiction, lengthen the lives of British Columbians and reduce the ultimate cost to our health care system. These steps may be coming, in some cases, later than we would have liked. They may represent a much delayed reversal of a past mistake, but they are coming at last. We welcome government's signs of a reviving pulse in tobacco control, although we would prefer and we will propose yet more comprehensive action that would restore this province to the level of leadership that the prior speaker was talking about.

For the record, I just want to state that nicotine is a drug and that it's as addictive as heroin. Yet it remains a legal product available to anyone over a certain age, and many people under that age find it quite easy to gain access to it.

Tobacco is also the only licit product that kills people when it's used exactly as its manufacturers intend, and that is as a daily — in fact, an hourly or sometimes even shorter —

schedule of reinforcement practice that's driven by cravings that an individual feels he or she has virtually no control over.

I can speak from direct experience in the matter, having been born habituated to nicotine by a parental addiction, then exposed to ongoing substantial doses of secondhand smoke at home from living with two smokers while I grew up, and finally by becoming an addicted smoker myself by the age of 12 and continu-

[ Page 6222 ]

ing until my mid-20s before I finally found the way to withdraw.

Tobacco is anything but a manageable recreational pastime, although that's how it was viewed when I was growing up. Quitting is a very, very difficult act. The longer you've smoked, probably the harder it becomes. But we as a society have come a tremendously long way since the time when smoking was considered a rite of passage to adult life, which is how it was when I began.

It was glamorized in movies and dramatized around me as something that was simply normal. My God, people smoked on television while they were reading the news when TV first appeared. Hosts smoked on TV.

The path that we've been on is very instructive as to what must be done to bring down rates further still. I intend my comments this afternoon in the spirit of building on the synergy that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway indicated existed on this issue on both sides of the House.

The House will certainly be aware by now that British Columbia became a true leader on tobacco issues in the 1990s when it pioneered important elements of tobacco control like the ongoing multifaceted public media campaign that helped to denormalize tobacco use, sensitize at-risk populations like kids to the dangers of addiction and engage people in actually quitting that addiction.

One outcome of that leadership in the '90s is that B.C. has long enjoyed the lowest rate of addiction to tobacco in Canada — one of the lowest, if not the lowest in North America. California was probably the first pioneer, and as with some other ideas we've seen more recently, ideas migrated north and were put in play here.

Certainly that low rate of addiction to tobacco in this province is a key factor in the assessment of the effectiveness of B.C.'s health system and its population health, and it plays heavily when it's evaluated relative to other jurisdictions contributing to lower rates of cancer and greater longevity.

[1520]

Back in the late '90s the B.C. Workers Compensation Board introduced a provincewide ban on smoking in all workplaces except those it exempted — at the time, those in the hospitality sector, which were given additional time to adjust to the coming change. The move to create smoke-free workplaces was based on a clear recognition of scientific facts. It had absolutely nothing to do with emotion. Sidestream smoke is in fact laced with 40 known or suspected carcinogens, at least. As a whole, the toxic soup with over 4,000 chemicals in it is identified as a composite that is a carcinogen in its own right.

There is no safe level of exposure, and involuntary smoking remains a very large source of environmental cancer. The estimates vary, but a minimum of 140 British Columbians die every year from involuntary exposure to smoke. Extending the ban on workplace smoking to the hospitality sector reflected the fact, when this occurred, that government's responsibility was to secure the occupational health and safety of workers. That responsibility created an onus on the WCB to prevent exposure of employees to known carcinogens.

But in 2002, as we've heard, this government chose to overturn the WCB regulation aimed at protecting workers in pubs, lounges and restaurants. Bending to lobbying by certain sectors of the hospitality industry, it took the regressive step of allowing designated smoking rooms and venues to serve addicted clientele. As the Canadian Cancer Society reported recently:

"Experience has shown that smoke regularly spreads into adjacent non-smoking areas, endangering children, seniors, pregnant women and other patrons with serious health risks, such as lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, strokes and low–birth weight babies. Doors are left open or are propped open. Ventilation systems are not properly maintained or are turned off entirely. Compliance with regulations is erratic. Workers still have to enter into DSRs. Indeed, under current regulations they may be required to spend up to 20 percent of their shifts in a room filled with toxic smoke."

Six years later this indefensible error in judgment is finally being corrected. I suspect it has as much to do with the potential exposure to future lawsuits by affected employees — given that sidestream smoke was an identified carcinogen at the time when the decision not to proceed was made — as it has to do with a clear recognition that banning smoking in all public places is a public-health good.

In any case, however it comes about, we are strongly supportive of government's change of heart and reversal of position. Hospitality sector workers are deserving of the protection this confers, and Heather Crowe, who died of lung cancer after 40 years of involuntary exposure in pubs and restaurants, will rest a little easier in her grave when the policy of designated smoking rooms is finally and fully interred. As she said: "There is not a single worker in Canada who deserves my fate. There should be no second-class lungs." Tolerance for secondhand smoke creates second-class lungs.

This bill also marks progress in further restricting the places outside work where tobacco may be smoked and/or sold and where young people can be exposed to or encouraged to smoke. It will prohibit display, promotion and sale of products at hospitals, colleges, universities, recreation centres, arenas and buildings owned or leased by the provincial government. It explicitly prohibits smoking at schools and on school properties, and I was pleased to hear the remarks and supportive comments by the Minister of Education in that regard.

Further and importantly, it will enable government to establish no-smoking zones around doors, windows and air intakes at buildings, further reducing the potential for involuntary exposure. This will cause some inconvenience to smokers, but employees, clients, students and anyone entering a building for whatever purpose will no longer have to navigate clusters of smokers nor be subjected to secondhand smoke inside buildings.

[1525]

People going to a hospital will no longer be subject to the indignity of running a gauntlet of smokers to

[ Page 6223 ]

access attention to their needs — an unacceptable doorstep message for a primary dispenser of care and cure.

I want to credit the minister for having come a long way on this issue since comments back in 2005 when he was quoted as saying on the subject of people smoking near entries to hospitals and care facilities and of proposals to move them further away: "I think we need to be careful not to kill people in order to save them from themselves."

That's something, by the way, for the minister's awareness. That quotation is still posted — and I think now should be removed, approvingly, with the header "Right on" — at mychoice.ca, which is the official website of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. That would be appropriate to remove, I believe, with the passage of this legislation.

We strongly support the direction of change, and we welcome this conversion of the government on the road to the new Jerusalem of zero tolerance for involuntary exposure. Seventy-two percent of British Columbians also support these changes — 72 percent — so it's good that government is catching up with that and moving to the head of the parade.

Unfortunately — and I raise this because I would hope the government will consider this further — the legislation as it stands is stopping somewhat short of the whole enchilada, especially when it comes to dealing with outdoor spaces that are connected to buildings. A significant grey area — that of patios linked to restaurants and pubs — may escape the net, yet could be captured by an amendment of some kind to the legislation.

The CRD — the capital regional district — is currently examining a bylaw that would mandate smoke-free patios because its existing bylaw, which controlled indoor smoking, leaves a loophole that allowed these to become established as smoking places. Other communities in British Columbia could do the same thing, because it's established that they have the power.

This, by the way, reopened the problem that you have of secondhand smoke drifting through doorways and through windows. If it's allowed on a patio outside a restaurant, you have exactly the same problem you had with people smoking at the doorway.

Other communities could implement bans on a community-by-community basis, but it would be far better to learn from the CRD's experience and to have provincial law mandate it, thereby creating a level playing field for the entire hospitality sector. This would avoid ending up in B.C. with a regulatory patchwork and having to go back and fix the problem later. Of course, it would further curtail exposure to the known carcinogens in sidestream smoke. About six in ten British Columbians already support moving in this direction.

Additionally, we note that while government is giving itself the ability to ban the sale of smokes in designated locations, as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway noted, pharmacies are again left off the list. It's increasingly difficult to grasp this government's resistance to the idea of banning the sale of smokes in pharmacies or stores containing pharmacies, especially because we have not heard a rationale.

Pharmacists, as represented by the B.C. College, have been lobbying government to take this step for many years. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador, the Northwest Territories and even Nunavut have all banned sales of smokes in pharmacies and establishments containing pharmacies. Two-thirds of British Columbians favour banning tobacco sales from stores containing pharmacies.

The public again grasps the rationale that apparently eludes government on this issue, which is that it's contradictory to have an extension of the health care system which provides smoking-cessation aids and offers counselling at the same time as enabling and endorsing the addiction to tobacco. It's a contradictory message.

Pharmacies as dispensers of health-giving medicines are iconic symbols of cure. As the Canadian Cancer Society puts it: "The sale of tobacco products in pharmacies — which British Columbians naturally associate with medications and other health care products — undermines the effort and expense of the larger tobacco-control strategy that encourages people to recognize tobacco as one of the greatest dangers to their health."

[1530]

It's also one of the greatest dangers on earth. And it remains just that in reality, the single largest preventable cause of disease and death, killing over 6,000 British Columbians a year.

A primary goal of tobacco control is to denormalize the product. Making it no longer available at stores containing pharmacies is an important step forward. Is government's reluctance due to a concern about profitability in the sector? If it is, then consider the business case based on experience with displacement in other jurisdictions. Profits do not suffer at all because cigarettes, in effect, are a low-yield item. Sure, the chain store owners will complain. No one likes being told that they can't sell something.

But I invite government to look carefully at the business case developed by the B.C. college based on the experience in other jurisdictions. I call on government to look more closely at this gap in its bill and to overcome its reluctance to act now. I call on the minister to give us a clear undertaking to remedy the error.

Members opposite are demonstrating with this legislation, and we are strongly supportive of this, that they can recognize a mistake such as the exemption for smoking rooms and correct it. But let's forego the time lag of six years and do the right thing now. Getting smokes out of pharmacies is an idea whose time is past due.

Last spring when I introduced a private member's bill to accomplish the ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies and stores containing pharmacies, I indicated our party's support for a full-blown ban on countertop tobacco displays. We're pleased to see government giving itself the power to do important parts of what needs to be done.

Retail promotion is an effective strategy to increase addiction to tobacco. It works. That's why manufacturers had been so innovative in creating prominent displays, such as the so-called power wall that confronts

[ Page 6224 ]

buyers in most outlets that sell tobacco. These displays are heavily subsidized by retailers. They actually pay for the physical space and often make a direct payment to outlets.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Prohibiting tobacco display at point-of-sale is a very important tool in denormalizing tobacco use. Product prominence allows cigarette manufacturers to model cigarettes to consumers as products that are acceptable, popular and readily available, and by implication, harmless. Displays that are visible to children are particularly potent in sending the message that smoking is a rational and endorsed adult choice. Reducing their visibility is clearly a public good and in the public interest.

A number of provinces in Canada, like Saskatchewan and Manitoba, already have legislation in place prohibiting display in premises accessible to children. That legislation has already been tested in the Supreme Court in Saskatchewan and has been found to be fine to go ahead with. In other jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, legislation will come into force in 2008 but will also include adult-only premises.

We would like to see British Columbia join the leaders in banning point-of-purchase promotion in all retail outlets. This would recognize that people of any age can be encouraged by advertising display to see smoking as a simple consumer choice, rather than a practice that addicts and ultimately kills when used as intended. It would also recognize that such displays in adult-only facilities stimulate cravings among smokers who are trying to quit and encourage impulse purchases among those who may only have flirted with tobacco briefly but who remain susceptible to its pull.

As someone who has had to go through the withdrawal and difficulty of weaning myself from the addiction to tobacco, I can tell you the constant reminders of the availability of it simply restoke the desire. It's a challenging thing for an adult to get off the weed.

B.C. public opinion is more resolved on this matter than on any other aspect of tobacco control. Some 86 percent would support banning prominent displays if this could help reduce youth smoking.

[1535]

Moving to include adult-only facilities would send a clear signal that B.C. intends to move from being a laggard on tobacco control to again being a leader.

Becoming a leader, though, would also require addressing another error made by this government in its first term. Here I'm referring to the fact that there's a need to restore and increase funding for the mass media campaign that plays a key role in reducing the incidence of smoking.

In the '90s B.C. developed a very effective mass media campaign that was central to the success of other components of its tobacco control strategy. Media campaigns are key drivers in denormalizing tobacco use, alerting adults and kids to the dangers of addiction, illustrating the ugly impacts of lung cancer and other diseases associated with smoking, prompting behavioral change with warnings on packages and personal testimonials of tragedy and triumph, and supporting the direction of change by modelling successful efforts in cessation.

Who could ever forget Debi, for one, and the California campaign, the media campaign, that showed Debi dying from cancer, smoking cigarettes through a hole in her neck? Those ads were shown in British Columbia.

What's interesting about those ads, of all the ads that have ever been done anywhere in the world, is that those California ads have the highest recall of any ad. The 95 percent of people who have seen Debi smoke through the hole in her neck cannot forget that image. That is the power of the media campaign — to show people what can happen to them if they play with tobacco. You can't play with smokes. You cannot.

We seem to be open today to ideas emanating from California. We were in the '90s, as well, because they're often leaders. So perhaps we'll hear this from the California department of health services describing the importance of this kind of campaign: "The media campaign is an integral component of California's tobacco control program, one of the nation's longest running and most…comprehensive anti-tobacco campaigns. The…program uses paid media — television, radio, print, outdoor and other media vehicles — to challenge existing social norms related to tobacco use and provides cessation resources for people who want to quit."

One of the most interesting ones that I had ever seen, which was so good because it affected a stereotype around tobacco — and perhaps you saw it, Members — was the Marlboro Man ad. Everybody knows the Marlboro Man ads from our generation. When we had billboards, they were on billboards, but they were on television in exactly the same format.

California did an ad with the two Marlboro men riding out of the sunset and the copy-over is: "I miss my lung, Bob." It is a fantastic ad, because it goes at that macho image of the smoker. It shows you where you wind up — a very, very effective ad.

Tobacco control programs utilizing sustained media campaigns have scientifically documented higher effects than control strategies that don't. But tobacco control funding in B.C. has been going in the wrong direction for a long time. Back in the late '90s B.C.'s strategy had 18 people working on it, with a budget of $6.5 million — not a very large budget. But that budget was cut, the staff was gutted, and the media campaign was eliminated back in the first term of office.

It's well past time to get back into that business. B.C. collects about $700 million a year in tobacco taxes, yet it puts virtually none of it back into media campaigns and into tobacco control activities related to it. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommend $6 to $11 per capita be spent on these kinds of campaigns. Today we could be at — what? — perhaps a dollar per capita in British Columbia?

[1540]

[ Page 6225 ]

The Canadian Cancer Society states again:

"Public resources applied to tobacco control need to be sufficient, sustained and strategically applied, because smoking rates are not static. Every year a new group of B.C. youth and young adults — those most likely to begin smoking — are exposed to the allure of tobacco products. Without sufficient education, prevention and cessation programs to counter the tobacco industry's subtle messages, thousands more will try smoking, become hooked and eventually suffer the tragic consequences."

Tobacco addiction is like a zombie that rises from the grave if its promotion isn't effectively and continuously countered in the media environment.

Our environment is thoroughly media-ized. Governments that set reduction targets and also collect revenues from sales but then cheap out on media campaigns and other control strategies are not practising holistic, preventive public health. Three-quarters of British Columbians say that educating the public regarding the health risks and associated preventive measures should be a high priority for the provincial government.

The Minister of Education has indicated how clearly that is a priority within the education system to accomplish. I laud that and encourage that, but it is time for government to move to the front of the parade on this issue and lead again. Leaving it to chance, a voluntary effort, is a disservice to British Columbians.

While a Barb Tarbox may come along every so often to dramatically remind us how effective personal testimonials of someone dying from cancer are in alerting susceptible kids to the dangers of addiction, there are limits on what one courageous dying smoker can do to reach people using her own resources. There are, however, no limits on how many kids can be reached by a campaign with a core media component. Barb's message — which is, "Don't ever start, because you may not be able to stop and it will kill you" — can be carried into every school-aged kid's conscience by effective campaigns buttressed by celebrity testimonial and reinforced by champions and positive role models.

It's important that we redouble these kinds of efforts, because some 90 percent of individuals — as I believe the Minister of Health acknowledged — whose death is smoking-related begin smoking during their adolescence. There is clear evidence that youth exposure to media content that conveys positive impressions of people smoking — and they are numerous; we have no advertising, but they are numerous in films and videos — influences kids to try it.

Even its very association with outsiders and rebels can have an appeal in youth subcultures, which is a growing danger as fewer people overall smoke tobacco. It becomes

an act of rebellion. Traditional school-based prevention programs have not had the kind of success we need to see in affecting smoking behaviours. But media literacy training is proving very effective in decreasing the likelihood of engaging in media-prompted high-risk behaviours.

Higher levels of smoking media literacy are independently associated in scientific studies with decreased odds ratios for current smoking and smoking susceptibility. Adolescents with smoking media literacy are about half as likely to smoke and half as likely to be susceptible to smoking as those without.

Smoking media literacy bundled with other forms of media literacy, such as food media literacy and exercise media literacy, is the new frontier in public health and it is the new frontier in tobacco control. It's time that government returned to leadership there and began funding effective interventions that reduce the incidence of addiction and increase the likelihood of cessation.

Government is in a great fiscal position to act, having tied revenues from tobacco consumption of $700 million each year. This year revenues are on track to come in at $745 million, so there is a windfall of at least $45 million. I checked the revenue projections in the budget. It's right on target — 45 million additional dollars will come in this year, $45 million that could be mobilized to fund expanded tobacco control interventions.

One priority intervention should be to medicalize the condition of tobacco addiction. That's a hard step for some to take, but it should be. Fund both doctor counselling and, through it, publicly funded access to smoking cessation medications when taken as part of a course of treatment under the doctor's direction.

[1545]

Smoking cessation medications allow you to bridge the 90 to 120 days of agony when you go through primary withdrawal and help you to make a lifestyle adjustment. The rate of success of people achieving that, of those who do it under doctor's counselling versus those who do it on their own initiative…. The rate goes up dramatically with doctor's counselling. In fact, just having a doctor tell you that you should quit dramatically increases the likelihood that you will act.

Recently B.C. took an important step in this direction by giving social assistance recipients free access….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to this important legislation, and let me reiterate my support for its overall direction.

N. Macdonald: I seek leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: It's my pleasure to introduce a group again from Invermere. They're grades 5, 6 and 7 students from J. Alfred Laird in Invermere. They're here with some teachers or parents, Mr. Bruce Childs, Ms. Donna Stand, Ms. Brenda Danaluk and the students. Maybe the Minister of Education can identify herself, so you know who's in charge of what you do at school there.

It's Holly Banville, Jesse Hromadnik, Heather Smedstad, Brooklyn Gulbe, Macalyn Snyhor, Aleisha

[ Page 6226 ]

MacLean, Melissa MacLean, Starry Park, Shara Konkin. They're here playing ukulele. They're having a wonderful time in Victoria, and I'd like you to join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

D. MacKay: I think the Minister of Health indicated that 6,000 people die every year in British Columbia due to smoking-related diseases. That is a startling number, and it's a pretty scary number. We've heard a lot of conversation today on Bill 10. I'm not going to go into the details of the bill. I'm going talk to you more from a personal perspective as to why I support Bill 10 at second reading.

Madam Speaker, I lost my mother to cancer, I lost a brother-in-law to cancer, and I lost my father-in-law to cancer — and he was younger than I am today — three people that were very close to me taken at an early age because they smoked. But that doesn't say that I was pure as the driven snow.

When I was 15 years old — and I heard the Minister of Health talk about going back a few years; well, that goes back probably further for me — the thing to do was to smoke. I can remember going down and buying Vogue cigarettes for 29 cents a package. That gives you some idea how far back in time I'm going to take you — 29 cents for a package of cigarettes.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Twenty-nine cents. A big package, or a small one?

D. MacKay: Oh, that was a small package. I started smoking Vogue cigarettes because they were 29 cents, but I couldn't get started on Vogue cigarettes, because when I tried to inhale I was choking all the time. I couldn't inhale the tobacco. So what I did was switch to menthol cigarettes because you could inhale those. You didn't cough and wheeze when you did that.

But you know what happened over a period of time? I got used to smoking menthol cigarettes, and I looked for something a little bit stronger. So I got on to Buckingham cigarettes. Now, I don't think Buckingham cigarettes are sold anymore. But Buckingham cigarettes were pretty potent tobacco.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It was all there.

D. MacKay: It was all there. You bet. You could smoke every bit of it. There was no filter on the end of it. I could pull one of those cigarettes back and drag half a cigarette into my lungs and hold it there — curl it right down to my toes and hold it there — and got that little high, I guess, from the nicotine.

H. Lali: Too much information.

D. MacKay: Too much information, somebody said. Well, as I said, this is a more personal side of why I support Bill 10.

I started smoking at 15 years of age. When my father-in-law passed away after my son was born…. My son was six weeks old, and my father-in-law passed away, and that was 34 years ago. I was smoking two packs a day.

[1550]

I can remember, when I was in training in the RCMP, waking up in the morning and reaching for cigarettes. That's the first thing I did in the morning. If I couldn't find a brand-new cigarette, I'd look in the ashtray and find a cigarette that I'd smoked the night before. I'd light that and smoke it. Then I'd go down and look after the horses and then go have breakfast and then have another cigarette. I smoked whenever I had the chance, so I was smoking two packs a day when my father-in-law passed away.

I decided that maybe it was time to quit. I thought: I'll leave the cigarettes alone and switch to a pipe. Well, I started smoking a pipe for a while, and pretty soon I was smoking a package of pipe tobacco a day. My tongue was raw. I was sick. I tried to make myself sick a couple of times because, God, I wanted to quit smoking. And 15 years later I wanted to quit smoking, but do you think I could cut it out?

I heard the member for Saanich South talk about how difficult it was to cut the habit. I heard the Minister of Education talk about all of the cessation programs that we have in place today, but he forgot one, and that's cold turkey. So after burning my tongue and smoking a package of pipe tobacco a day, I finally got the courage to quit smoking. I finally had the intestinal fortitude to say: that's it. And I quit. Some 34 years later I still crave cigarettes. It's a really tough one to get rid of.

Now, when I joined the RCMP — I did that for 28 years — I probably saw things that I doubt anybody else in this room will have seen. I was a coroner for ten years following my 28 years on the force, so I've seen things that I'm going to discuss with you right now. It's basically just a follow-up to the member for Saanich South, when he talked about Debi, who he saw smoking through a hole in her throat. She was smoking, drawing smoke into her lungs. Well, I'm going to carry it just a tiny bit further, and if I upset anybody, I apologize.

As an RCMP officer and a coroner, I attended quite a few postmortem examinations on bodies from car accidents or sudden deaths at home. I've always remembered that. I've always remembered the sights that I saw on the autopsy table when the Y-incision was made in the chest and the chest was opened up.

I'm not a medical person, but I got to the point where I could tell during a postmortem examination whether the person on the table was a smoker or a non-smoker. Normally, the lungs in a healthy individual are pink. I saw a lot of people on those tables that I could identify as smokers because the lungs were black. In some cases they looked like lumps of coal. They were shrivelled up. There was nothing there to absorb the oxygen and pass it to the rest of the body to allow them to continue living.

That was a pretty graphic thing that I saw. I hope that I didn't disturb anybody, but that's the reality of what happens when you smoke cigarettes. When you

[ Page 6227 ]

smoke cigarettes, you're literally destroying your lungs — the ability to breathe which keeps us all going.

Smoking is such a tragic thing. Young people…. I heard the member for Saanich South talk about the Marlboro Man. I remember the Marlboro Man. Just last weekend I was at home, and I flicked on the television set. I was watching a satellite channel, and there were black-and-white movies on — uninterrupted, too, by the way, with no commercials — and the one thing that stood out: everybody smoked. Everybody in the movie was smoking.

I'm sure if we could see the camera operators who were filming the movies, they were probably smoking as well. Everybody smoked. I guess I was probably smoking in the '50s, as well, so…. Gosh, what a sad, sad state.

Bill 10 is certainly going a long ways to reduce it. My children, as I said, were…. For the first two years my daughter, who is two years older than my son, was exposed to secondhand smoke because the wife and I both smoked. We quit six weeks after my son was born. We both quit. We made a commitment to our kids.

When they got older, we could talk to them about the pitfalls of smoking and explain to them that their grandfather had died from a smoking-related disease and that if they didn't smoke by the time they were 18 years old, we would give them $500 apiece. I'm pleased to be able to tell you that I had to give my kids $500 apiece because neither of them smoked, and they still don't today. They're 36 and 34.

Today the peer pressure at school is tremendous on our young people. I'm so upset when I drive around or when I'm walking downtown and I go into a restaurant. There are a few restaurants outside, where they're sitting at tables. Even in Smithers, where there's snow on the ground, there are still young girls sitting outside smoking cigarettes. God, I just want to go up to them and smack them on the back of the head.

[1555]

My dad always said: "If I ever catch you smoking," — I can't use all the words he said — "I'll break both your arms." I'm kind of sorry he didn't do that when I did start smoking at 15. But I'm 65 this year, and I'm able to get up in the morning…. I did it this morning. I got up and went to the gym at quarter after six, and I ran for 20 minutes.

I was a smoker, and I quit at the right time, obviously, because I have not been affected by the pitfalls from smoking that we heard about today. I'm able to go out and exercise. I could probably outrun some of the younger people in this chamber today if we ever had a foot race.

I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the fact that I'm able to go down and exercise that strenuously, and my lungs are still working. They're working like they were when I was 15. It just took a long time for the rest of my body to catch up to my mind.

I've got grandchildren growing up today. I've got three beautiful young grandchildren in Smithers. They're all in school, and they're facing that peer pressure to go and have a cigarette. They're still young enough that there's not the pressure of the liquor outside of school, but the cigarette smoking seems to be a thing that is very common in our school system today.

I know it's tough on my 14-year-old granddaughter. My wife and I have made the same commitment to our grandchildren that we made to our kids: "At age 18, if you haven't started smoking, there's $500 in it for you."

I probably give quite a bit more money to those kids every time I go home, but it'll probably be more than $500. I'm looking forward to the day when those children are 18 and I can say to them: "Here's your $500. Thank you for not smoking."

I want my kids to grow up, I want them to be healthy, and I want them to have a long life. Smoking will rob them of that opportunity.

We've heard lots of comments on why we shouldn't smoke. I'm pleased today to be able to stand up in this chamber and support Bill 10, because it's the right thing to do. We've got to get rid of those terrible smoking-related diseases that we have out there. With that, I will close and yield the floor to another member.

G. Robertson: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 10, a very encouraging development being put forward to reduce the impact of cigarette smoke on the people of British Columbia. I see a number of strong components to Bill 10 that I am very much in favour of. It's a little late in coming on many of these fronts.

These are ideas that have been around for many years now. Both the research and the implementation of that research in other countries around the world have already taken place in the past. In fact, there have been decades of definitive research on the impact and hazards related to secondhand smoke specifically and, of course, to cigarette smoke directly.

It's time that these actions and in fact many actions that are not present in Bill 10 are taken. I want to speak for a few minutes about what is missing. Beyond the good elements of this bill, there are a couple of really important pieces missing. First of all, I concur with several of my colleagues in the opposition benches on the real concern that the government did not include in Bill 10 a ban on sales in pharmacies.

This is a clear necessity here in B.C. If we recognize the devastating pattern that cigarettes have on the people of this province and we understand the outlets where they're sold, particularly outlets that exist to promote health and to help people get better when they're dealing with health conditions and disabilities…. To have instruments of death, in effect, available in those places totally smacks of inconsistency and deceit.

I don't understand the rationale of taking important steps like preventing cigarette smoke from permeating our schools and public places, and yet not taking that step to ensure that pharmacies are not selling cigarettes. That's a glaring omission in this bill.

[1600]

Secondly, I will mention another very important glaring omission from Bill 10, which is that secondhand smoke is not mentioned as a hazard to residents in

[ Page 6228 ]

social housing. Although s