Hansard -- Monday, May 6, 2002 a.m. -- Vol. 7, No. 4 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Private Members' Statements		3165
	The health care implications of our aging population R. Sultan D. Jarvis The necessity of physical education in the school curriculum S. Brice Hon. C. Clark Use of technology in the health care sector P. Sahota Hon. K. Whittred Volunteering H. Bloy K. Krueger

Second Reading of Bills		3174
	Pets in Rental Housing Act (Bill M202) (continued) R. Stewart R. Hawes M. Hunter

R. Sultan: Today the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and I want to talk about the impact of aging on health care. We are not going to address the situation in extended care facilities in British Columbia today. I've already given my definitive views on that subject. Rather, we're going to talk about the world of seniors in the time frame beyond.

As health authorities grapple today with the disorganization bequeathed upon us, striving to replace bedlam with good order and better patient care, it would be easy to lose sight of the longer-term situation of our seniors. In twenty-first-century medicine, we've come to respect three big health cost drivers: new technology, the proliferating pharmacy, and increased consumer knowledge and expectations.

However, it is longevity that now looms as the greatest cost driver of all. Let's look at the numbers with special reference to the North Shore, which my colleague and I represent. The North Shore is a pilot test of things to come in all of B.C.. The North Shore is aging; so are we all. But when it comes to aging, the North Shore's profile is way out in front. In North Vancouver today, seniors — that is, persons 65 and older — represent 12 percent of the population, and what we might call superseniors, those over 80, represent almost 3 percent. West Vancouver easily beats that. About 27 percent of West Vancouverites are in the seniors category, and almost 4 percent today are superseniors.

Those percentages are trivial when compared with what's to come. North Vancouver in 2026 will have over 23 percent of its population in the seniors category; West Vancouver about 30 percent. Superseniors, over 80, will represent well over 5 percent of the population in North Vancouver and well over 6 percent of the population in West Vancouver.

The absolute numbers are worth pondering as well. In slightly less than 25 years, the combined North Shore will have a virtual political riding of seniors: almost 49,000 people aged 65 and beyond. Within that constituency, superseniors will double their numbers from 5,400 today to 10,800.

What are the cost implications? Sobering. According to the Conference Board of Canada, health care costs for the age group below 65 averages roughly $1,500 per year. Health care costs for seniors — leaving out for the moment the superseniors — averages four times as much: a little over $6,000.

But that's small change compared with the five multiple that applies as we go from seniors to superseniors. So here's the frightening progression: $1,500 to $6,000 to $30,000 per year, on average. I say frightening because as we age, it begs the question: where's the money going to come from? Combine those numbers with the proportion of our population in each age category, turn the handle on your computing machine, and the answer suggests that in less than 25 years, on the existing health care model, the total health care budget for those over 80 will be almost 50 percent greater than the total health care budget for everybody under 65.

Furthermore, for reasons of aging alone — and forget about technology and pharmaceuticals — the total health care budget rises by 50 percent. Does this compute? I don't think so. That's why the health system must change; the present system is unsustainable. That is why those who defend the status quo simply haven't done their homework.

I draw several fiscal conclusions. One, we're all astonished by the fact that health care spending in our own government, despite our firmest resolve, has climbed to more than 40 percent of the total. Who is there to argue strongly against the prediction that on present trends, it could easily cruise through 50 percent? If it does, where does that leave highways, schools, universities and the justice system, not to mention the others?

Two, motivated by the virtual federal pullout from health care funding over most of the past decade, Canada drove down the share of our GDP of our economy devoted to health care by almost a full percentage point from the 10 percent range to the 9 percent range. Today that places Canadian funding below that of the more advanced European systems and almost a third below the United States. We will probably revert to the middle of the pack — more spending pressure.

Three, Canadians want health care, and one way or another, many are going to get it whether we in the government provide it or not. Bellingham, Washington, is already a major supplier of the B.C. health care system.

Four, the big debate clearly is how the future health care dollar is to be shared between taxpayer payment and individual payment. The federal government's appointee, Mr. Romanow, floats trial balloons concerning a shift to the latter. Privately funded health care in Canada is already 30 percent of the total. Romanow may merely be asking us to consider the inevitability of a different partnership mix.

Five, it's also reasonable to believe that after several decades of broadening coverage, publicly funded health care will now narrow its focus to the essentials as mandated by the Canada Health Act. Debate will focus on what is essential.

Lest anybody be so naïve as to think this forecast implies a diminished role for publicly funded health

care in British Columbia, I will now turn over the podium to the member for North Vancouver–Seymour for his version of the cold shower.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the youngest grandfather in the House, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

I want to thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, my colleague over there, as I join him to discuss the issues surrounding aging and the North Shore and the subsequent pressures being placed on our long-term care facilities.

Currently in the North Shore, or North and West Vancouver, we have approximately 2,130 beds for seniors, both high-level extended care beds and supported living arrangements. The facilities where these beds are located are sponsored by private investors, some non-profit organizations such as Kiwanis, Lions and Rotary. Some are straight rentals, and some are government sponsored.

These facilities represent all available living arrangements for seniors who can no longer safely reside in their own homes, so we ask: where do the other 26,000 North Shore seniors live, if only 2,130 beds are available? We can assume that some are fortunate enough to remain in their own homes and their apartments, and some live with their children. Others live in subsidized housing or rental basement suites. The variations are very numerous and not always appropriate — my point being that not all of these living arrangements will remain suitable as our population continues to age.

In only 25 years, as my associate said, we expect to see close to 50,000 North Shore seniors aged 80 or older, referred to earlier as superseniors. With only 2,130 facility or bed spaces available, those numbers are certainly not going to be adequate for the needs of the future. This leads to the question at hand: what is going to happen to these seniors? Who will look after them? Surely we don't expect to retrofit each and every home with grab rails, special aid appliances and a care worker in each spare bedroom.

Unfortunately, as we age and become more frail, we require a myriad of services to keep going. The list gets longer as we live longer, and when and if we lose our spouses and become isolated, the least of our problems is going to be who will cut the grass — if there's any grass to cut anyway.

This brings up another point. There is another image problem surrounding the seniors on the North Shore. Amongst the elderly, women dominate, and even in West Vancouver 15 percent are on income assistance. In North Vancouver the economics becomes even more desperate. So much for the fat-cat image of the North Shore resident when it comes down to seniors.

Back to the 2,130 beds that are now available. They don't begin to accommodate the 5,400 superseniors we have even today and certainly won't begin to service the 11,000 we expect to have in the near future, as I said. My colleague has advised me that the Kiwanis seniors project in West Vancouver may finally come to fruition. This is wonderful news, and we thank the Kiwanians. As important as this project is, it will add about 50 units onto our housing stock, and that is a mere drop in the bucket.

In order to simply maintain existing ratios of all the types of care and funding arrangements, we would have to build the equivalent of one new 50-unit project every year, year after year after year, just to maintain the status quo, and the status quo does not begin to address the special and costly needs of superseniors, who shall soon be among us in abundance. This includes myself and the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

To accommodate their and our needs, new special-purpose housing facilities will have to be built, and zoning will have to change to accommodate the higher-density seniors. Innovative housing financing arrangements will have to be put into place, and seniors and burgeoning superseniors and their families will undoubtedly be asked to shoulder a greater proportion of the financial burden if they have the capacity to do so.

I finish by saying we had better accept the inevitable and start planning for the future. I know that I, for one, will very grateful if you do.

R. Sultan: I would like to end our dialogue here with several policy conclusions, some of them perhaps provocative. Firstly, under present funding arrangements, every senior aged 65 walking off the airplane at Vancouver Airport — whether from Saskatchewan, Asia or the United States — represents a potential long-term health care liability of about $1 million. At some point, access to the B.C.-funded seniors health support system will no longer be automatically available for those who simply drop in to enjoy our fine scenery and lifestyle and access to their grandchildren in their terminal years.

Secondly, all of us are going to have to save more privately for our old age. The easy assumption that the government will look after all of our needs in our golden years will be a tough conviction to maintain in the face of reality.

Thirdly, I believe government-subsidized long-term care will be more seriously focused on families without means, and families who can help their parents should help their parents. The practice of stripping mom of all her assets and visible income sources before calling in the social work assessors is not likely to endure.

Fourthly, all of us are going to have to work longer. The idea that one retires to the golf course at age 55 will be increasingly untenable and unaffordable. We shall change our discriminatory laws regarding compulsory retirement at age 65. Who wants to be on the

shelf, anyways, when the final third of life beckons? Judges are judged fit until age 75. Why can't everybody else be? [Applause.] Cutting close to home.

Fifthly, who is going to look after the elderly? The notion that our children will nurse us in our old age doesn't square with the fact that most of them scatter to the four winds in pursuit of their own careers. The alternative notion, that we can import an army of home-care attendants from offshore, is equally naïve. Guess what. They get old too, and the cycle repeats itself. So who's going to look after us? I believe we all are, and the aged will increasingly look after one another.

Finally, British Columbia is in fact pioneering. As Canada moves into a more elderly world, the country as a whole must place greater emphasis on community, mutual assistance, volunteerism and individual thrift. We must keep seniors working and living with dignity, security and purpose as long as possible. Institutionalization is the last resort.

Government itself must focus more sharply on necessity and need. This unfolding seniors health care strategy in Canada will increasingly resemble that which this government is actively deploying right here today in B.C.

S. Brice: It's somewhat ironic that I, too, rise today to talk about a health issue and its implications on our budget. I rise in the House today to draw attention to a serious situation regarding our children and their health.

Childhood obesity is on the increase in Canada and worldwide. Canadian children are becoming progressively overweight. A leading researcher, Mark Tremblay, dean of kinesiology at the University of Saskatchewan, states: "Canada may be leading the obesity race."

For example, if we look at our children in the seven-to-eight age category, 38 percent of the boys and 33 percent of the girls are classified as overweight. Because the severe health and financial implications of this trend are so serious, it behooves public-policy-makers to recognize the situation and make aggressive moves to reverse the trend and turn these kids from fatter into fitter.

If we do not respond to this epidemic, these children will be susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and osteoporosis. The quality of life implications and the potential billions of dollars added to future health budgets are staggering.

How is it possible that we, the society which dotes on our kids — we protect them with helmets, seat belts and vaccinations — have set up over one-third of them for possible debilitating chronic diseases as they grow? Diet and lack of activity are the two major culprits. Much has been said already about fast foods and processed foods; these play a major role in the obesity epidemic. However, I want to focus at this time on the lack of the physical activity factor.

A generation ago children burned up fat just by being kids. They walked to school. They rode their bikes to after-school activities. They played games in the local park well into the evening. Sadly, our current-day situation has resulted in children being driven to school to ensure their safety or to accommodate the time schedules of busy working parents. As well, kids today spend more of their free time watching television and playing computer games than climbing trees or playing street hockey.

Many interrelated factors influence children's participation in physical activity, and income and social status are key variables. Children in middle- and upper-class income groups increased their participation in exercise programs and sports between 1996 and 1998. Sadly, participation rates went down among lower-income youth. Good public policy can lessen this burden of poverty.

A recent news story reported the country's sports ministries recently agreed that a new federal sport policy will target improved physical education programs in schools as a way to get children participating in sport and fitness. What can we do provincially? Within the past six months two select standing committees of this Legislature have identified the problem of childhood obesity and have made comment or recommendation.

The Select Standing Committee on Education heard from Surrey school physical educator Glenn Young. Mr. Young stated:

He went on to link the lack of physical activity to long-term cardiovascular diseases.

The Select Standing Committee on Health, of which I was a member, also reported out. From their report, the following excerpt:

The report went on to recommend: "Reinstate compulsory physical education and health classes focusing on preventive health measures into the school curriculum."

There we have it. Two different committees travelling throughout the province have heard the same message.

Many may argue that our schools are being asked to do too much. Certainly, the responsibility for ensuring healthy children rests primarily with their families. Families must provide nutritious foods and ensure a healthy, active environment in which their children can grow into strong and healthy adults. However, there is a supporting role for government in health and education.

Healthy lifestyles are promoted superficially in the media, but a far more influencing factor on the population are the clever ads for fast and convenience foods. The school system is the one common denominator for all of our youth. Promoting healthy lifestyle choices and making physical activity an integral part of every student's life will be beneficial to them now but, more importantly, will set them up for a healthy adult life.

The biggest strain on the health budget is our chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. Our health care system, which is already collapsing under the strain of these conditions, will be unable to provide the highly expensive supports for a generation coming up which already has one-third of its population heading for serious health problems. A significant number of our children are at high risk. We must act to prevent serious and costly consequences.

I believe the issue of the role of physical education in our school system needs immediate consideration. I urge the Minister of Education to give serious attention to this issue, highlighted in the reports of these two selecting standing committees.

Hon. C. Clark: I would like to thank the member for her comments today. They were insightful and certainly timely. The trend amongst young people toward obesity is an issue that's received a fair amount of attention recently and is certainly something that's a cause of concern for all of us. There are things, I think, we can do in the education system to help address that.

Our curriculum, as I think the member has pointed out, requires physical education up to grade 10. There is an emphasis on healthy living and nutritious eating throughout the curriculum. Whether or not we are meeting those goals that we've set in our curriculum is, I suspect, open to question.

One of the innovations that we've made as a government — or that we will be making, I hope, should the legislation pass this session of the Legislature — will be in the area of school planning councils. School planning councils will be a site-based system of management where parents and teachers and principals can sit down and talk about what's important in their schools for their children. If physical activity is an issue at that school, they will be very well positioned to be able to recommend ways to address that at the local level.

I think that's where most valuable change will happen in the education system. It is one thing for the Ministry of Education to issue an edict. It's another thing for the school district to make a broad policy statement. It is another altogether for parents and teachers and principals who work in the classrooms at a school to decide that they want to make changes in what's going on in that school. That is precisely what the school planning councils are all about. I think that will certainly be an innovation should that legislation pass.

We can also, in our accountability contracts, address some of these issues. If it's an issue in a local school district — a lack of physical activity for children, a lack of children participating in physical activity or certain groups of children who are not participating in physical activity — we can address that in accountability contracts and set goals for improvement for ourselves and then measure ourselves against whether or not we've met those goals. With the creation of accountability contracts, this will be the first time we are able to do that across the province consistently in every district. As a ministry, as we travel, that is something we can think about and look at including in accountability contracts.

Third, the member has talked about whether or not we should put more focus in our curriculum on physical activity. We are undertaking a grad requirements review at the moment. Although currently phys ed is not required for graduation from high school in B.C., that may be something that the grad requirement review decides to recommend to me when they come back with their final report in the fall. I know that certainly they will be considering the member's statement and the contents of the two reports that have been made as a part of that report.

I'll finish by saying this, though. When we focus on the issue of obesity in children, we need to remember: it's not the fact that children are inactive that is the problem specifically; it's the fact that we are all as a society inactive, that our communities don't participate in sports the way that we used to, that we all as adults spend a lot more time in front of TVs and the computer, and that's often how we raise our children. If there is a change to be made across society here, education can play a role in that — absolutely — but the thing that really has to change is our societal attitude toward activity. We need to change our relationship with food, for example. We need to stop focusing on dieting as the way to become thin. We need to start thinking about activity as a way to become healthy instead. As a society, that will be a fundamental change. Until we change our relationship with food, until we start changing the way we structure our lives

on a day-to-day basis and until we start raising our children to value those things, our education system will make a difference, but it certainly won't solve the problem.

I certainly share the member's goal of making sure that we have a healthy society, where the bodies that we are given by God when we enter this world are vessels that we take care of until our final days on this earth, because we're only going to get one physical body on the earth, and we should certainly take care of it and make sure that it lasts us for as long as we need it on this earth.

S. Brice: I'd like to thank the Minister of Education for taking the care to hear my comments and to respond in the manner in which she did. I think you have highlighted two significant changes which are going to occur: the school planning councils and the accountability contracts. I think that is going to be a very good place for this issue to be raised.

Certainly, the media has started to put it out in the headlines so that all of those parents who are going to be involved at the school level and the regional level should be mindful now of this being an issue. I think, quite frankly, that it's been just below the surface, and the impact of it, the implications and the numbers — until you actually start attaching those to it and drawing the implications into the future — could easily have gone by with a lot of other high priorities.

I would hope that given the statistics that we currently have with young children…. Obviously, these seven- and eight-year-olds who have been tested didn't become obese when they turned seven and eight; they have been working on it for a few years by the time they come up to that point of being tested. I would suggest that with our young people, we must do everything to get them moving, just at least moving.

I recognize that with a lot of the lifestyle changes, time is critical in young families' lives, and oftentimes carpooling and dropping children off at school — this type of thing — become just part of the way that families can even function. I would certainly hope that our schools — and I know that our elementary schools do — have a requirement for physical education. I would hope it involves a lot of moving and getting these children going.

I've talked to physical educators who have talked about some of the very innovative programs in schools, where the schools have mapped out an area, a track, and have designated it at a certain length, and as the youngsters run it, they are given credit for it. I know that some of the kids, even in elementary school, are working towards their 500-kilometre ribbon for the year just to show that they have actually put this kind of effort into moving.

When we come to our youth and adolescents, I think we have to be practical. I think we have to say to ourselves: why do many of the youth move away from physical education — and from enjoying it — once they're in school? Sometimes it is for very sad reasons. Youngsters who are not physically fit feel embarrassed to be doing games alongside their compatriots who are more fit. I think we have to be sensitive to that and find ways to provide physical activity where kids aren't compared against each other, where everybody has a chance to build on their own physical fitness.

I would hope that in our province, because we do have this goal of a 2010 Olympics, if we used these eight years as a lead-up time, set ourselves some benchmarks and measured in that period, it would be just an absolutely tailor-made opportunity for us in British Columbia to say that not only did we put on the finest Olympics in the history of the movement but also, in that eight-year period, we got our youngest citizens into a lifestyle of activity, and we're all the better for it.

B. Kerr: In the gallery today we have two groups of students from Shawnigan Lake School. In this particular group we have 45 students from grade 11 and their teachers, Ms. Joanne Bruce-Lockhart and Ms. Ann Behennah. I'd ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

P. Sahota: My colleagues before me have set the trend, so health care it is today.

"The health care system in British Columbia is easily a decade behind any other industry in North America when it comes to utilizing information technologies and management tools. It is an expensive process to catch up, but we have to catch up." That was a submission by the Minister of Health Services to the legislative committee on health last year.

I was privileged to be a member of this very important committee. As we travelled around the province, we heard the same message. We were told of the complex and considerable challenges that are facing the health care sector in terms of establishing a comprehensive information management system. As the Health Committee report states: "Dozens of witnesses before the committee stressed the urgent need to address the problem of nonexistent, inadequate or incompatible information systems."

Today I wanted to outline to the House some of the technologies that the government is pursuing and the private sector is engaged in and also talk about the

many challenges we still face in the health care sector with regard to the use of technology.

What are those challenges? In particular, we know that investment is always a major consideration. We know that there's a cost of significant investment, the up-front cost of investing in a technology. And we know that the efficiencies usually aren't realized within the first few days or even the first few months.

There's the issue of standardization. The submission by Gerry Herkel of St. Michael's Centre in Burnaby summed it up perfectly. As he spoke to the Health Committee, he said: "In St. Michael's we have a LAN system of 30 users. We're presently putting in a hospice which is going to be tied to the Meditech system. Our LAN system is not going to be able to communicate with the Meditech system." There's a crucial issue right there. "Health care providers have to find ways to standardize, because it is crucial that technology in hospital A is compatible with technology in hospital B."

Then there's the issue of privacy and confidentiality: "We don't want to undermine the patients' sense of confidence in the technology."

As we try to meet these challenges, I believe we can maximize the effectiveness of health care dollars by looking at various ways and finding creative solutions to use technology in our hospitals and medical offices and, of course, by encouraging doctors to find ways to use technology.

I believe that technology such as the telehealth network, B.C. Bedline, NurseLine, the B.C. Health Guide program and private initiatives like PathNet and Meditech will help deliver health care more effectively and efficiently. All these initiatives are very good signs that the transmission of information is shifting. We're slowly shifting from paper and pen — are making the shift and using technology to better serve our needs.

For example, since its launch in September of last year, B.C. Bedline has fielded over 2,200 calls. This provincial bed-management system is basically a website registry. It gives care providers a single source of information on available hospital beds and ensures a timely transfer of patients. I'm advised that the Bedline has been an important factor in the successful transfer of patients to hospitals.

Other telehealth initiatives such as a telehealth network went live in February and reflect our efforts to use a state-of-the-art technology to improve trauma and emergency care for patients in rural and northern communities, and ultimately it saves lives. British Columbia's trauma emergency telemedicine project provides 24-seven linkages between trauma specialists in Vancouver and physicians in both Cranbrook and Terrace, enabling faster and more accurate assessment, diagnosis and treatment options for patients.

There are also some encouraging developments in the private sector. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to speak about PathNet, pioneered by MDS Metro Lab Services and B.C. Biomedical Labs. PathNet was brought to my attention by a local physician and a constituent, Dr. Sanghera. PathNet is the electronic delivery of lab results, and these results would get delivered directly to the desktop or laptop at either your home, your office or the hospital. Over 200 physicians today use PathNet, and I'm told PathNet has signed up an additional 1,000 physicians. The lab results get reported under a single personal file ensuring that your doctor has the most complete, up-to-date information available on the patient. Your doctor will be able to access your records regardless of where you are tested. Life is made easier for physicians by electronically integrating diagnostic information from multiple laboratories into one easy-to-use, web-based application. It will also improve diagnostic reporting between labs and physicians, and the use of PathNet will improve the delivery and access of diagnostic reports by offering on-line test results and inquiry capabilities such as access to historical diagnostic information on a patient.

It is technology like PathNet and Meditech, which is a similar service again linking patient files with doctors across the region, that should be encouraged. As mentioned earlier, St. Michael's Centre, a hospice opening up later this month in Burnaby, will be tied to the Meditech system. I'm told that St. Mary's Hospital in New Westminster is also going to be using the PathNet system for its new lab information services.

This brings me to the question of dealing with patient confidentiality, a most important concern when dealing with this type of technology. The Health Committee also heard how patient confidentiality is often described as the main stumbling block to pursuing the use of technology. We know our health information is extremely sensitive and confidential. The question is: how do we prevent those that shouldn't ever get access from accessing the sensitive information?

I understand that technologies like PathNet and Meditech have taken significant steps to make sure that patient confidentiality isn't violated. All data transmission uses highly secure encryption technology similar to that used in banking transactions. Lab results are available to those who are authorized users. MDS Metro and B.C. Biomedical worked with the Ministry of Health's HealthNet/B.C. initiative to develop provincial standards for diagnostic information management, and PathNet fully complies with these standards.

Many health care providers are pursuing technologies, and all of them are keenly aware of the strict adherence and professional ethic that must be applied when dealing with any type of health information. As government we have said that we will do things better, and we will find creative solutions facing our health care system. I can't think of a better reason for using technology in health care than to ensure that patients are better cared for. I believe that technology such as our telehealth initiatives and those pursued in the private sector will help us deliver health care more effectively and efficiently.

Hon. K. Whittred: I thank the member for bringing this very important aspect of health care to our atten-

tion this morning. One of the principal goals of this government is to provide British Columbians with a health system that is integrated across all the different parts of the health care system and to look at innovative ways in which to accomplish that. Certainly, the use of technology is one of the ways that we can attempt to make this process of integration a little bit more timely.

I am reminded, as I was listening to the remarks of the member this morning, about a story that's been in the news recently of the doctor from the States who accepted an assignment in Antarctica for a period of time and discovered she had breast cancer. Part of her treatment, of course, was to use what we call telemedicine. This was a very complex procedure that involved getting the satellites in line and what not. It certainly illustrates to us how very common complex medical procedures can, in fact, be enhanced by the use of telemedicine. This is what we are starting to accomplish in British Columbia.

I also noted this morning in the news that there was an article in which one of our doctors in the interior talks about being a proponent of telemedicine. He acknowledges how valuable this service is to a rural doctor when he can take images in his town and send the results of a cardiogram, for example, to the specialist, who is probably in the lower mainland, and have the diagnosis made. All of this can, of course, help with the treatment of that individual.

I also thought I would take advantage of this opportunity to point out a couple of ways in which technology is assisting with the care of our very elderly citizens. One, of course, is the PharmaNet program, which keeps track of all the drugs that people take and enables pharmacists to ring the alarm bells if, in fact, a person is taking drugs that are going to conflict with one another. This has proven to be a very valuable service over the last number of years.

Another new kind of electronic device has been brought to my attention. It's a program called Vigil. Vigil is being monitored in a number of long-term care homes. It is a computer program which is programmed to know the movements of the people who are in the room. For example, I learned from a relative the other day that her very elderly mother-in-law, who is in a nursing home, had tried to get up at night and had fallen and been left for five hours before being found. If this program, Vigil, had been used, the program would have alerted the person at the desk that the individual in the room had made movements which were not usual during the evening, and she would have been found.

This program is, in fact, being tested at one of the long-term care centres not very far from here right in Victoria. It's also being used, I think, in Campbell River. That's another example of how we are using technology to improve the care of our patients in our various medical facilities.

Also, in home care there is being tested right now in Nova Scotia — and I'm hoping that we will soon have some models here — a system where seniors who are living at home are able to be monitored using television and telemedicine. They, in fact, have their own little blood-testing strips and a way of monitoring their heartbeat so that the doctor in the centre can monitor their vital signs, so to speak, without them having to leave their home. This is apparently proving to be quite advantageous.

Those are just a few of the ways in which we see that technology is adding to this mix and adding to the ways in which we can care for people. It is also showing how it is making it more possible to have an integrated system across the board. One of the things that….

P. Sahota: I would like to thank the minister for her comments and especially for outlining some of the initiatives that the government is pursuing. It's good to know some of these initiatives that are taking place. We have to keep in mind that as we pursue these various initiatives, the patient remains at the centre of our agenda.

As we find ways that make use of information technology, we have to be mindful that not only can we use technology to supplement the delivery of traditional health services, but we can also use technology to provide opportunities to deliver new health services in ways that were not possible before.

We know that British Columbia is a leader in e-government, as outlined in the report by the Premier's Technology Council. Also outlined in the report are e-health and telemedicine, and the Technology Council makes it clear that it requires common information standards to coordinate provincial strategy. It goes on to state that technology standards must have the appropriate provisions for confidentiality and privacy of data, and that the six new health authorities must adopt these technology standards.

It's good to know the various arms of government are working together to make sure we do get a top-notch health care system. I know the minister, along with all of us in this House, is well aware of the many huge challenges we face in the health care sector. I do believe we can find ways to coordinate and standardize the information system. We have to find ways to make systems compatible, because we know when we do that, there is potential for better service, improved access and reduced costs.

Deputy Speaker: For our final private member's statement, the member for Burquitlam speaking on volunteering.

H. Bloy: Today I'd like to speak about something that's very close to my heart, something that has made

a major impact on my life as a man, as a husband, as a father and as a citizen of British Columbia. I would like to talk today about the act of volunteering.

Webster's dictionary defines a volunteer as one who enters into or offers any service of his own free will. As people search for different and varying ways to enhance their lives, many are giving their own time and expertise back to their communities. Could you imagine this country without all the volunteers we have? I cannot.

At the individual level, this provides citizens with a vast amount of opportunities to contribute to organizations and causes they believe in. From personal experience and stories I have heard on how fulfilling volunteering has been to a number of lives, the act of volunteering brings a huge amount of personal enjoyment far beyond any contributions made by the individual.

Peter Legge has volunteered his energies for so many years and for so many causes in our community, our province and our country while he and his wife raised a family and started a very successful business right here in British Columbia. Don Copan is a retired school teacher from Burnaby, and I don't know how he had time to teach with all the volunteer work and what he has given back to our community. These are just two names out of thousands and thousands of volunteers.

From a national perspective, volunteerism strengthens communities by bringing people with common interests together, thereby encouraging their integration and fulfilment and really pulling it all together for something they believe in.

Let's talk about numbers behind these special people. There are over 213,000 registered societies in British Columbia, and over half of these are registered charities. These societies rely on volunteers, donations and government funding.

Did you know that 30 percent of all British Columbians between the ages of 35 and 44 are involved in volunteer activities and that 24 percent of all seniors over the age of 65 volunteer? Of the youth between the ages of 15 and 24, 28 percent volunteer. And 66 percent of all volunteers are employed and do this on their own time. Can you imagine our country without volunteers? I cannot.

I represent the Burquitlam riding, and there are a few statistics I would like to give. I represent part of the city of Burnaby and the city of Coquitlam, and we have over 300,000 in population and over 100,000 volunteers. That's just fantastic. Again, that's what makes a community. I can't believe what life would be in our province, in our country, without it.

So what does this mean? This means many things to many people that volunteer. I'm sure many of you are aware of how important volunteering has been to me over the years, and I've been involved with a number of groups. But there are some people…. As a child or a young teen, I remember Mr. Cooney and Mr. Robinson for their leadership roles in the Boys' Brigade at the local church. I hope I can give back just 1/100th of what they did for youth.

I would like to tell you the story of how I got back into scouting as an adult. When Jeremy, my son, turned five, I said to Anita: " I'm going to take Jeremy to register for Beavers, because I remember how much fun it was for me as a youth." I told Anita: "I'm going to volunteer. I'm going to offer to drive them to a camp or something, but I'm going to offer to help."

I came home that night after going through the registration, and I talked to Anita like she talked to Jeremy when he came home from school. I said: "Anita, I met a new friend today." And she said: "Who's your friend?" I said: "It's Don Francis." "That's nice." I said: "Yes, Don Francis and I are now the Beaver leaders." We had never seen a Beaver meeting in our life. Don Francis still continues. He's a Beaver leader or a Cub leader or a Scout leader or a Venturer and an adviser. But we've had so much fun over the years.

I've been involved in a lot of groups over the years. I still participate with the Burnaby Optimist Club, Burquitlam Lions Club; I've been involved in the PAC at my children's school and the DPAC, the Burnaby Arts Council, Burnaby minor lacrosse. I was a coach, and one day I had a suggestion to make, so I had a new job. You know, with volunteering, when you make a suggestion, you have to carry through with it. I was a founding member of the Burnaby Mountain Mantas Swim Club, a summer swim club, where I have many strong friendships still to this day. There's the Burnaby Arts Council, the Burquitlam Community Association…. There's just so many areas.

But there are other areas that deserve mention that do such great things. The Royal Canadian Legion has 166 branches, 123 ladies auxiliaries and over 91,000 members. In the past year this organization has contributed over $1 million to people within the community needing help. Legion members continue to serve this great country long after sacrificing their lives for all of us.

Many other well-founded groups and associations could be mentioned. We have AIDS Vancouver. We have Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada, a national organization of 181 agencies. We have so many groups. We have hospice groups. We have the Burnaby Hospice Society and the Crossroads Hospice Society. We have church groups. We have social causes. We even have political volunteers that help all of us get here. I could spend my entire time just listing these wonderful organizations and describing the beneficial effects of their work.

Now I'd like to ask the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to say a few words on volunteerism.

K. Krueger: I want to extend my gratitude to the member for his tribute to the wonderful people who volunteer in our communities throughout British Columbia and make our communities what they are. Volunteers are the muscle, the nerves, the connective tissue of the entire fabric of our communities.

There is an ancient saying, claimed by a lot of different cultures, that it takes a whole village to raise a single child. And it does. When you have a village that all pitches in, in raising children, they come out so much better off for it.

But it's not just children, of course. Any one of us can go from being a robust, well equipped, strong individual in our lives to being a very needy person overnight or in a heartbeat if something happens to us. There are many afflictions that touch people in their lives and change their circumstances dramatically. When they do, so many of these wonderful volunteer groups that the member spoke of step forward, pitch in and help people through those times of adversity in their lives. It takes a whole village to take care of every one of us.

In my hometown of Kamloops and up and down the Thompson Valley, which I represent, there are tremendous numbers of solid, salt-of-the-earth people who pitch in, in these various ways. I think of the Mountie Stomp, for example. It's a huge barn dance. Every year the Mounties in Kamloops hold it. Mounties come in from all over the province and all across the country to renew their acquaintanceships. They let some of the rest of us come in as well.

They started that a dozen years ago because two Mounties on the Sunshine Coast were afflicted with leukemia. They found out that the unrelated bone marrow donor registry was underfunded, and they decided to help meet that need. The first year they pulled it together on fairly short notice. It was quite a concept. They only charged $12 apiece for people to attend — and I think that's still the rate — but somehow they make $40,000 clear every year on this dance. They're somewhere around the half-million dollar mark now that they've raised for the unrelated bone marrow donor registry. They do that because of volunteerism. The Mounties themselves, the people who help them, all pitch in. Everything is donated, including the labour. Everything they take in is pretty much free and clear. I think that's a wonderful example of volunteerism.

I'm a member of the Rotary Club of Kamloops. There are four Rotary Clubs, actually. I'm in what people call the old men's club, because it was the first. It's been there for so many years now. The Rotary Club, as everyone knows, does incredible service in many different ways in the community, in vocations, and throughout the world with everything from local cleanup campaigns, local projects, through to international programs to eradicate polio, for example, and youth exchange programs throughout the world to enhance cultural understanding and friendships between countries.

I have provincial emergency program volunteers throughout my constituency who come out on very short notice any time of the night and help people who have had motor vehicle crashes on the many highways that we service. They help look for lost individuals who have been out hiking or snowmobiling — many activities that people undertake and sometimes lose their way. These are selfless people, and they'll show up on no notice and throw themselves into searching all night, if they need to. Frequently they're at risk themselves, but they do it because of the spirit of volunteerism.

There's an assisted-living society newly formed in Chase. They're bringing on an assisted-living project which I was privileged to tour with Isabelle Allen, who's chairing that effort in Chase, on the weekend. She told me she is 70 years old. I couldn't believe it. She's so full of vitality that she looks like she's probably in her fifties. She says it's what keeps her young — volunteering and taking part in ways such as that.

Every few years Mother Nature threatens to flood Kamloops, as the snow melt is delayed. Incidentally, that may be the case this year. People are still snowmobiling on the same snow up in the mountains that they were all winter, because we've had such a cool spring. If it's suddenly summer, the water comes down fast. People just show up from everywhere with pickup trucks, equipment and their own muscles, and sandbag the dikes and try to protect people's property. It's always a really heartening thing to see how people pitch in.

We're going back in British Columbia to the good old days of volunteerism, of celebrating volunteers, recognizing them and helping them. I hope to see Candystripers in B.C.'s hospitals. I'm not meaning to create a news item by that, but I miss them. I think it was a great thing. It's a great thing for young people to have that sort of exposure and find out if they're equipped and interested in a career in health care.

Volunteering is good for all of us in those ways. It builds our self-esteem. It builds us as a person. It puts a really good piece on our résumés. It helps get people ready for employment. I know as an employer, when I looked at somebody's résumé and they hadn't found work but they had been pitching in and helping by volunteerism in various ways, that impressed me. If they were willing to roll up their sleeves and help other people in that way, whether or not they could be paid for it, I always felt more kindly disposed to giving them a shot at working for me.

I want to again congratulate the member for raising this important topic today. I want to thank volunteers throughout British Columbia and certainly in my constituency and his. I look forward to the member's concluding remarks.

H. Bloy: I'd like to thank the member for his kind words. As we go on, you could name organization after organization that contribute to this great country and province that we live in.

I would like to mention a few local heroes from the Burquitlam area. We have Margaret McClennan, who has been involved in a number of downtown east side projects since 1966, working with a variety of mission groups. There's Bozena Lukomska-Khan, who is the founding member of the Polonez Tri-City Polish Association, where her commitment to the promotion of

multiculturalism is very much appreciated. We have Mr. Jack Crosby, who is known as Mr. Sport in Burnaby for his tireless efforts to youth, to hockey and lacrosse. Jack has a youth lacrosse tournament named after him that's held each fall, the Jack Crosby Open. We have Brian Bonney, a tireless volunteer in Burnaby in Scouting and many social causes. While Brian and his wife Monica raise five young children, they still have time to contribute to this community. We have Fern Bouvier, a retired school employee from Coquitlam, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of Coquitlam.

In conclusion, I want to leave you with a quote by Margaret Mead. It reads: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Please volunteer. It'll return more to you in life than you will receive.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. That concludes private members' statements.

R. Stewart: A week ago I expressed some serious reservations regarding this bill. My reservations, my concerns, centred on the way in which this bill seeks to put in place a tenant's right to pets in rental housing at the expense of the property rights of the owners of the residential property. I expressed my longstanding concern that when we seek to impose costs upon or remove rights from one group, it almost always has unintended consequences.

I expressed my concern for the stock of private rental housing. Rental housing is very important and very valuable, and we should, as a government, be doing all we can to encourage continued investment in rental housing. We should not put in place unjustified barriers to the construction of rental housing, and in fact we should be doing all we can to remove unjustified barriers to the construction of housing of all kinds, especially rental housing. I also expressed a number of concerns regarding the bill itself and about the effect this bill would have on the availability of housing for persons who have allergies.

Since adjourning debate on this bill a week ago, I have heard from a number of British Columbians who also expressed concern with aspects of the bill or with the philosophy behind it. I heard from a woman with a show dog, who was very concerned that she would be required to have her dog neutered if she were forced into rental accommodation because of life circumstances. We all know that sometimes life circumstances are unpredictable.

I heard from a family whose daughter has severe allergies. They really count on the fact that there is housing that doesn't permit pets — rental housing that they can live in with their daughter's allergy, somewhat assured that their daughter will not be using the elevator that two minutes ago was used by a pet. This is something that they need in their life circumstances, and they were really, really concerned that their rights to housing that is free of the kind of danger that their daughter faces every day — that their housing would also be subject to those kinds of dangers….

I heard from property owners who expressed frustration that this bill purports to take away one group's rights to give them to another group. Government doesn't have to be about that. It doesn't have to be adversarial. We don't have to be constantly taking away from one to be giving to another. Government has been adversarial for too long. It's time to sit down, as government, with the diverse groups in our society and find ways of achieving good public policy without taking away the rights of those who would invest in the goods, services, jobs and infrastructure that our society needs.

Let's find a way to encourage the provision of rental housing that permits pets. Let's find a way to remove barriers to the provision of housing of all types, particularly rental housing. Let's find a way to satisfy the tremendous values that pets have to many British Columbians. Let's find a way to make sure that those British Columbians' needs are satisfied. This isn't the way.

B. Kerr: This is the second group from Shawnigan Lake School that I mentioned earlier on this morning. They are led by their teachers, Ms. Julie Platt, Ms. Jill Boyce and Mr. Andrew Doyle. I have a very special mention that I was told I just had to do, because included in this group is the younger brother of my legislative assistant, Mr. Benjamin Bergen.

What I intend to do is speak to three things here today: first, what's been said to date and, more importantly for me, what has not been said. Then I would hope to address specifics within the bill that I think are really wrong with it and, last, what should really happen, in my view.

Maybe I'll start with what has been said. When you review what's been said to date, and I have reviewed and listened to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and did review her comments in Hansard…. She speaks very eloquently to the social benefits of pets in all accommodation — the benefits of having pets for

everyone. There's great social benefit, and I don't think anybody's going to argue that.

She talks about the health care benefits and quotes a number of statistics. Where she got those stats I have absolutely no idea — things like 30,000 lives can be saved because people will be allowed to have pets. Well, these are all wonderful numbers and figures that can be thrown around, but where they came from I don't know.

I would say that I don't think there's anyone in this House that would debate whether or not there's some value in allowing people to have pets, both in rental accommodation…. Pets are valuable things to people and are great things both to enhance lifestyle and to benefit health in a lot of people.

The member provided lists. She read through a fairly extensive list of groups supporting a requirement to allow pets. There were tenants' organizations, animal support groups and numbers of groups. I know there's a great number of people out there that want to see a provision for more pets to be allowed in rental accommodation.

What I didn't hear was anything at all about the rights of landlords. I didn't hear any mention whatsoever of any landlords' group or property owners' group that had been consulted or had any of this discussed with them.

What's missing here seems to be a realization that there isn't any rental accommodation unless somebody takes the money out of their pocket and invests in it. That's how it all starts, unless the member is presupposing that the government will become the landlord or that the government will somehow invest in all of the rental property in this province, which I'm sure she's not thinking about.

Nothing happens in rental property unless somebody invests money. It seems to me the first people that this should be discussed with are those who would make the investment.

I think it's really important that we stop and ask ourselves: who are landlords, and what causes people to invest in property that they're going to rent out? When you carefully look at that, first and foremost, landlords are people who take a huge risk. In life, when you're investing money, your risk has to be commensurate with your return. The two are related. The higher the risk, the higher the potential return has to be, or you stop making the investment, and you look for alternate investments. That's the way it's always been. Frankly, that's the way it's always going to be.

We as a government cannot demand that people invest their money in any particular investment. We can't force that. All we can do is try to understand — or we should try to understand — what causes these very valuable people in our society to take the kinds of risks that they do to provide infrastructure that others can use. Landlords are really important people in the overall fabric of our society. People who will invest in property and provide rental accommodation are tremendously important.

For a long time what we did here, it seems to me, was denigrate these people by saying…. We talk about the ripoff landlords and this kind of stuff. We concentrate on them, but we don't talk enough about the most common landlord. That's somebody who's a very decent person who cares a lot for the people that he has living in his property. He cares about their rights and lifestyle.

The bottom line always must factor into his thinking. It's his money. I don't know very many landlords who make investments in property simply because of a benevolent spirit. They make these investments because they intend to make a profit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The more we impose on these people, the less likely they are to make investments. I will say that I have been visited here, as have many members in this House, by the B.C. Real Estate Association and by landlords' associations, who are absolutely terrified that we are going to impose some legislation on them, that we are going to significantly increase their risk. They see the imposition of a requirement to allow pets in residential accommodation as a huge increase to their potential risk.

The other side of the coin, as I mentioned a moment ago, risk and return being commensurate…. Somehow rents either have to skyrocket if you're going to allow that, because you've got to allow for the kind of damage that can happen when you have a pet in your property, or…. Also, you've got to somehow compensate for the people you will lose in other parts of your rental accommodation. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville referred to that. People with allergies, for example, will have to move out of buildings that have pets if they're highly allergic. There are people like that. That's not covered at all in this bill. That also increases the risk to investors in rental accommodation.

There are landlords — under this bill they would be termed as landlords, I'm sure — many of them, thousands of them, throughout this province that augment their incomes by putting basement suites in their homes. There are communities — certainly the community I live in, Mission — which have created situations that would allow basement suites to exist rather than fighting what is happening all across the province. The municipality that I live in has taken steps to try to control what happens but allow it to happen rather than trying to shut down suites. There are quite a large number of suites where I live.

These people who own the homes in which these suites are located are, under this bill, landlords. They are landlords. This is their personal residence. Many of these people put a suite in their residence to either care for…. Sometimes it's to house elderly family members or children, perhaps, who are having some difficult time getting started. A lot of them have a suite in their home because they use it for a mortgage helper. Their family income isn't high enough to support the mortgage payments on the home that they've purchased, so they put in a suite.

In that suite they take a chance every time they rent. Whoever they have for a tenant can really interfere with their personal life. If you start saying that they have no choice but to accept pets, this is just a further incursion, a potentially huge incursion, on the lifestyle of those that would have suites — have to have them for mortgage helpers. In the end, if they're left with no alternative but to take the suite out — allow pets, which perhaps they can't, even through allergies of their own children — it means that in some cases they would lose their homes. These sorts of things haven't even been contemplated in this bill.

I read through Hansard, and I watched the member from the opposite party speak last week. She got up a couple of times on a point of order and said how our speaker from Coquitlam-Maillardville had somehow alluded to the fact that she didn't care about people with allergies. I've listened over and over to both members from the opposite party talk about how we in government don't care about all kinds of things. For her to get up with that point of order, I thought, was just the height of hypocrisy.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I've only been in the House here for less than a year — it's coming up to a year — and I still have this huge difficulty understanding this kind of hypocritical behaviour. Prior to being in the House here, I was a mayor in my community for eight years. So I'm used to political life, but I'm not used to the level of hypocrisy that I hear day after day here, when it's say one thing yet do another. It just never ends; it's astounding to me. I wish we could get to a stage where we would end that kind of behaviour, where we would think about both sides and remember the kinds of things that we aim at other people, and if something comes back, we don't stand up with this hypocritical behaviour that I saw last week. It was a little much.

What I did want to talk about is what's wrong with this bill. I'm going to call on some of the experience that I had in municipal politics. That's kind of where the rubber hits the road with respect to how people coexist. When you have friction between people out there in communities, they don't come to Victoria to lay a complaint. They phone the mayor's office generally, or they phone the bylaw officer, and they will start to complain there. The complaints never come here. We live in this sort of isolated bubble in Victoria, where we don't really see what's going on in the street. We don't know — or maybe we don't care in some cases — what's going on in families directly as they coexist with their neighbours. This bill is going to create a change within their own homes. It's going to create a situation where we have huge frictions.

I just want to go through a couple of things here. The first one it says here is: "A tenant is liable for any damage done to the residential premises, the grounds, the common areas of any building on the property or to other premises within a building, or physical harm done to persons caused by a pet kept by the tenant or pet(s) of the tenant's guest(s)."

Mr. Speaker, I'm just envisioning now that the tenant has a dog that destroys the carpet. The tenant is perhaps on social assistance or has a fairly low income. He's caused thousands of dollars' worth of damage. He's liable for it. So the landlord should be able to take great comfort that he can collect for the damage that's been done.

In the real world, where many of us live, there's a thing called an empty judgment. You can pursue the tenant through legal action, and if you're successful in court…. If the person doesn't have any money, they're not going to pay you. Your remedy, I guess, is to go to court. An empty judgment is when there is no hope of recovery because the person you've sued has no assets. You wind up with a judgment, and it's just a piece of paper. It gives you nought — nothing. That's what is going to happen here in huge numbers of cases. There's no point in even putting that in here. What it's going to do in a court system that's already overburdened is just add another level of burden on our already overcrowded courtrooms.

If we move over to some of the other parts of this bill: "The landlord may apply to an arbitrator for an order requiring the tenant to remove a pet from the premises and property or to terminate a tenancy agreement when…." Then we look at "when." When can we do this? "The tenant fails to care for the pet."

Mr. Speaker, my experience in local government says that when you have these broad-ranging well-meaning definitions, there is absolutely no way to enforce any of this stuff.

"The tenant fails to care for the pet." Who decides? What is "care"? Can anyone describe what care is? Maybe it means that the tenant doesn't love the pet. He doesn't care for him. Maybe it means he's just not looking after the pet properly. But in whose definition? It doesn't say. Is the arbitrator then to be an expert in pet care? Are we going to hire an army of people out there who are, perhaps, veterinarians and people who understand pet care and can describe it in fairly precise terms — it would have to be — because, of course, the tenant's continuing occupation of the property is sort of contingent on an arbitrator's ruling. Maybe we would be putting people out of their homes just because an overzealous landlord said: "He's not caring for the pet." Maybe we should set up an appeals commission just in case the ruling goes the wrong way.

"The pet causes noise which repeatedly disturbs other tenants." What does "repeatedly" mean? Twice? Ten times? Does anyone know what "repeatedly" means? Is there a definition for "repeatedly"? "Disturbs other tenants." You know, Mr. Speaker, I know people who get disturbed, who get very angry if someone turns on rock and roll music. That's very disturbing even at a low volume. I know people who are disturbed by all kinds of noises and others who aren't disturbed at all, who like to have a lot of background noise. What is "disturbs"? Is this kind of leave-it-up-to-

the-person-who-says-they've-been-disturbed, or is it up to the pet owner to say: "I didn't disturb you"? Who decides?

These are things that we're going to send to an arbitrator. On what basis could anyone possibly deal with those kinds of terms? I'm speaking from an experience basis here. I've seen municipal bylaws that we have attempted in various municipalities to enforce through the courts, which have been tossed out of court because the definitions aren't there and the wording is nebulous. They're just tossed out after spending a lot of money.

"The pet generates obnoxious odours." What is an obnoxious odour? I have absolutely no idea. I can think of smells in my life that I find obnoxious, which really bother me. Gee, you know something? I think back to experiences that probably a lot of us had as a kid in high school. Lemon gin is an awfully obnoxious odour to me. I've really got to tell you. I can't stand the smell of lemon gin to this day. That's an experience from when I was about 17 years old. To others, though, it's still on the shelf. I guess it's not obnoxious. I don't know. I don't know what an obnoxious odour is.

Why would that even be in here? How would you get an arbitrator to look at something like that? It just doesn't make any sense. This is just typical of ten years' worth of legislation that's piled up in this province that's just so dumb.

"The pet enters areas of the property where entry by the pet is prohibited by these terms." So: "Your dog isn't supposed to go into the laundry room, and I'm sure I saw him in there. I found a pet hair in there." "No, no, that wasn't a pet hair." This is the argument that will go on in the arbitrator's office. "That wasn't a pet hair. It fell out of my head." "No, it's a dog hair. I can see it. I'm sure I saw your dog. I saw a tail wagging in there."

How are you going to enforce this? The dog or the cat or whatever went into some area and then went out again quickly. Is this grounds then to terminate the tenancy agreement or require the tenant to remove the pet? "I'm sure your dog dashed into the laundry room where he's not permitted for a moment, so that dog now has been terminated from tenancy in this property. He's got to go." Is this the kind of act that we want? I don't think so.

"The pet causes a health hazard to other tenants." What is a health hazard? Can you really describe what a health hazard is? A health hazard could be that the pet looked like he was a bit angry. "I'm sure I saw him snarling a bit." That may be a hazard, if he gets mad, if he bites me.

If I have an allergy, that's a health hazard. If there's a health hazard caused to me in the building because I have allergies, does that give me the right to then have every pet in the building removed? Can I go to the arbitrator and say: "There has been a health hazard caused"? As the landlord, can he say: "Two of my other tenants have allergies, therefore I want all pets in my building removed"? Can he do that? Is the arbitrator going to hear that? It's not really very clear, so I'm not quite sure. I know an arbitrator isn't going to be sure either. Again, maybe an arbitrator could make a decision, and then we could have an appeals commission. Perhaps we could provide some assistance to those who need to be represented in front of the arbitrator's appeal commission, because the pet was hazardous to somebody's health.

"The pet is infested with fleas." What does "infested" mean? I'm not really sure. If the pet has six fleas, is he infested? If he's got 1,000? I mean, how many fleas on a pet is an infestation? I don't know. I looked that up in Webster's dictionary, and I couldn't find any definition of "flea infestation." It doesn't have a number.

If I'm a tenant and I'm in front of the arbitrator because my landlord has taken me there, saying, "That dog/that cat is infested with fleas," I say: "Look, here's a note from my vet, and he doesn't have fleas anymore." He might have had fleas at one time. Pets frequently will have fleas, and then you treat the fleas, and they're gone. I guess the intent here is maybe to deal with someone who just doesn't care about their pet, who fails to properly care for the pet by allowing the fleas to just stay there and never treating the fleas. I don't know, but it's not clear here.

None of these conditions that would cause arbitration really work. They're ill-conceived; they haven't been thought out. They aren't from the real world. These are the things that cause huge problems. I know that the member opposite has municipal experience. She should know that when you write city bylaws that aren't really explicit, you have huge problems enforcing them. They don't work. These are like bylaws that will be tried by an arbitrator and are so nebulous, so general, that they can't work.

I look at this bill, and I think: well, what changes can be made here? Even down to notification of the landlord…. You have to have a description and a photo sufficient to identify the pet. If you have a pet puppy, that changes. Do you replace the photo as the puppy changes, as it matures? I don't know. It does say that if you have a pet different from the one the landlord was notified of, then you are in violation. So if you replace your pet puppy with another puppy — without the landlord's consent, I guess — you could be pulled in front of the arbitrator. You could either be put out of your apartment or your rental accommodation, or I guess they could just order you to terminate any pets on the property. Mr. Speaker, this is just so nebulous.

What should happen? What really should happen? I think, if you look at what has been happening for the last decade in this province and you really think about it, that what we should be doing here does start to become slightly clearer. What's happened over the past decade is that we've rushed into all of these different things. I'm not going to mention some of the things, like the fast ferries and all that stuff, that were rushed into with no plans. But in the last decade we saw, over and over, all this stuff that we went headlong into

I'm thinking of things like Surrey Place Mall. Let's buy Surrey Place Mall and spend millions and millions of dollars renovating it. We don't really have a plan. Yes, that's it. We'll put a new university in there. We'll charge them rent that's higher than any other square footage probably in the province, maybe in the country — right? We won't really understand where things are going, but we'll own this mall. Won't it be good? Then we'll move ICBC over there. We won't ask anybody in ICBC if it's a good idea. We'll just do this stuff. Now we own a mall. We're going to lose a hundred million dollars on that mall, but it's okay. We're in ownership. It's great. We don't have tenants either.

What I talked about at the start — if you're an investor in property or in anything — is risk commensurate with return. Surrey Place Mall. To get a return on the investment we made that's commensurate with the risk we've taken, we would probably have to charge five or ten times what any square footage anywhere in that area rents for. In fact, unfortunately, there isn't a tenant out there who would pay us anything near what we would have to get in order to get a market return on the investment we've made.

The previous government and the members opposite don't understand that pretty simple principle. If you don't understand anything about returns on investment and anticipated return, then you should stay away from that. You shouldn't be anywhere near investments. You shouldn't be anywhere near people who make investments if you don't understand them.

Here we've got this act that's been put forward with heavy recommendation from the member opposite but without any discussion at all with the people who would supply the money to drive this bill. That's the people who invest in real estate. What would be a good thing to do? I think that pets should be allowed in rental accommodation. I don't think there's anybody in this House who doesn't think that's a good idea. But how do you get them in there and still keep the investment happening and still keep rental housing appearing on the market? When investment in rental housing dries up, what happens is that there is a supply-and-demand thing out there where price pressure starts to happen, when prices start to get pushed up. But we have an answer.

We'll have a rentalsman that'll keep rents artificially, then…. We'll put a cap on rents so that people aren't punished. All that does is tell more and more potential investors, "This is not good. Stay away," and they are. They've been staying away in droves. What happens when investors stop investing in real estate is that the government has to start picking up what's not being provided through the free-market economy. Gosh. When we're the landlords, we can do anything we want. We had people in the last government who said: "Government can do anything it wants. We can provide lots of housing. We can set the rules as lax as we want. We don't have to worry about a return on our investment. After all, it's a bottomless pit, or it seemingly has been for the last ten years. We don't have to worry about deficits. We'll just borrow more money."

Well, it doesn't work that way, and everybody out there in this province — or most people — understands that. We've come to the end of the time when it's just lay out the money in the government without plans. People understand now that the government has to live within its means just like they have to in their everyday lives.

What should happen right now is a heavy consultation with landlords and with the groups that represent those landlords. Somewhere we have to get them to the table and say: "What do you need to make your increased risk, by allowing pets into your rental accommodation…? What do you need to do that, to agree to that?"

What we shouldn't do is say: "You must allow pets." What we should do is allow some inducement, whether it be increased damage deposits or whatever. There are landlords out there who wouldn't mind allowing pets, but they don't want to get stuck at the end of the day with replacing the carpets or having to fix things that pets have destroyed inside the house, because there are irresponsible pet owners. For every responsible pet owner — or every 20 responsible pet owners maybe — there will be an irresponsible one, and that's the one that's going to cost you a lot of money. When you as the investor have to replace carpets, for example, when a tenant moves out, I can tell you that any possible return on your investment, probably for years, is gone. If you are forced to allow this to happen, if the government is forcing you into a loss situation, all it's going to tell you is to get out of the investment business, the real estate investment in rental property — quickly. All of your acquaintances will see the same thing.

I can tell you, that kind of irresponsible imposition on investors is what has driven them out of this province for ten years and into other provinces that are far more friendly environments, where they understand risk commensurate with return. They understand that in other places. This government, I know, does, and I am really proud to be a part of a government that's now starting to turn things around. We know private money is what is going to be needed to drive the economy.

I want to just close by saying that consultation is the key here, absolute consultation with the place rental housing starts. That's the guy who'll take a nickel out of his pocket and invest it. Then, once we've got that consultation complete, we find out what's needed. Consultation can begin with the tenant organizations, but not until we have landlords that are willing and happy to allow this — not anything imposed on them.

There isn't enough in this bill to salvage it, in my view, with amendments. This bill is a disgrace that should be removed, and we should move on to new legislation that would come after consultation with the industry and those that make it go.

M. Hunter: I am pleased to rise to speak about the bill. I want say off the top that I recognize that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has addressed in this bill some very important, troublesome and complex issues. There is no question that the issue of the rights of tenants versus the rights of people who invest in rental housing is a difficult one. I want to say that I do understand the importance of the issues raised, but I want to go through the bill and raise some concerns I have with the approach the member takes.

I think there has been a little bit of a back eddy of assumptions here — that if you're opposed to this bill, somehow you are not in favour of pets or people who rely on them. I think that's unfortunate. It certainly isn't true in my case, and I don't think it's true in the case of other members with whom I have spoken on this bill. Certainly in my own case, having been a pet owner for 20 of my many years, I understand very greatly the role that pets can play in family environments. I'm one of the last people that's going to stand here and deny all the scientific, anecdotal and other evidence that suggests domestic pets play a very important role in the physical and emotional health of many people in our society.

I know that the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals makes the point that the benefits of pet guardianship, as they call it — pet ownership — to human physical and emotional health have been well documented. Over the last decade studies have found that companion animals assist children with the development of language skills, empathy, responsibility and self-esteem. In an era where we hear lots about child behaviour problems, obviously pets can play an important role in the development of children in our society.

Studies show that our relations with animals reduce feelings of loneliness in all age groups. We tend to focus on seniors and the value of pets for seniors, but studies show that these benefits do occur in all age groups. There are therapeutic benefits for people with disabilities, and pets buffet the stresses of urban life — although I will say, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes, when you're the owner of a large dog, they actually do create some stresses for urban life. I could, if you're interested, outside the chamber, give you some examples of how dog ownership can actually lead to grey hair and not to less grey hair. That's a bit of an aside. The point is that there are clear benefits to pet ownership that have been documented.

At the same time, we can't just assume that the health benefits that accrue from pet ownership are universal. Allergies seem to be the disease of the new millennium, and there are a lot of people who are allergic to pets. I think that in finding this balance between the rights of pet owners to have accommodation and the rights of others who might live in the same accommodation, it has to be taken into account that while pets can afford a personal relationship and benefits to health and emotional health, there are also some physical downsides that we just can't ignore or pretend don't exist.

This is obviously an issue that over a long period of time has generated a lot of pressure from various interest groups. In preparing for my intervention and the debate on this bill, I've done a little bit of searching through websites and written materials. This is not a new issue. This issue goes back in various parts of North America for decades. Indeed, in Ontario over a decade ago, the province took some action with respect to pets in rental housing.

We shouldn't underestimate that this issue has had a lot of airing and a lot of debate in public over a long period of time. As usual, when there are lots of interest groups involved, you tend to get some rather interesting propositions. I do think that the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals operates as something of a standard and a place of neutrality where you can get some balance in trying to access some of the discussions that have gone on around this issue over the years.

The B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals does acknowledge the concern that landlords and housing managers may have in allowing pets in housing. The SPCA believes that with reasonable, clear and humane guidelines in place to establish a code of behaviour and responsibilities for pet ownership and guardianship, both tenants and landlords would be well served. I think this proposition from a respected organization that has the concern of pets and pet owners very much as its mission is a very interesting proposition based on what we see in this bill, which tends to be rather prescriptive.

We have seen a variety of approaches across North America for a long period of time. For example, I was interested to learn that in San Francisco, the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has what they call an open-door program, which educates landlords and tenants as to each others' needs. Indeed, the success of the program is that the proportion of apartments that allow pets, I assume, in greater San Francisco over the period of this program has gone from 11 percent to 57 percent. Under this program, landlords whose tenants adopt their pets from the SPCA in San Francisco can sign up for a $5,000 guarantee against pet damage.

So there are innovative approaches that involve education around North America, which seems to me to be a direction that we might want to examine how we would go in addressing these complex issues here in British Columbia. The issue really comes down to whether or not this is a matter of human behaviour, a whole complex of human desires and differences around pet ownership and residence, and whether it's an issue on which we should seek to educate people or whether we should seek to legislate.

I've seen it said that the problem here is not animals but their owners. It's a little bit like the gun debate, I guess — that it's not guns that kill but the people who own them. People say there are no bad pets, just bad pet owners. I personally think that's rather simplistic. I wonder whether or not a person who was on the wrong end of the activities of one of the dogs I talked

Like most things, these things are usually debatable, depending on which end of the lead you happen to be, if the animal is a dog.

To go back to the theme of whether or not we should be looking at legislating or educating or a combination of two approaches of dealing with these issues, I note that the Solicitor General has indicated that there are some changes coming to the Residential Tenancy Act. We've had the distribution of a discussion paper in plain English that makes some of the issues in landlord-tenant relationships, hopefully, a little more understandable, so people don't have to deal with arbitrations that have become a very important part of the landscape of that legislation. In light of the stated intent of the Solicitor General in that public consultation, I think this bill is in a sense premature, while we wait to see what the Solicitor General tables in this House, and at the same time dated.

The timing of the bill is, in my mind, very suspicious. If the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant wanted this kind of legislation, the last government had ten years to deal with it. She herself had a period of five years in government in which this kind of change to the Residential Tenancy Act could have been introduced. It's hard to escape the conclusion that there is some political motivation in bringing this bill forward — almost a wolf in sheep's clothing, if you'll excuse the pun, Mr. Speaker. The bill seems to put the member's political agenda ahead of what I think is an intelligent, balanced approach to dealing with the complex issues which this bill entails.

When you look through the bill — and the member for Maple Ridge–Mission did so in a rather amusing way a few moments ago — and at its structure, what it purports to do and the way it's laid out, it follows a tried and, I would say, discarded approach — certainly discarded by this government — of prescribing how we expect people to behave. Prescription of what people do and of what a vicious or dangerous dog might be…. All of these things, I think, lead to more confusion rather than less. For example, the proposed act would prescribe what breeds of dog are vicious or dangerous. You know, there are a couple of breeds on there that I might suggest could be added, based on historical evidence. German shepherds at one time were known to be animals that you stayed away from. They are rather large and quite intimidating to a lot of people. They're not on the list.

Again, prescribing in a definition of what a vicious dog is seems to me to be a backwards way of doing things. Dog breeds do change. Dogs like Irish setters, which I owned 25 years ago, were intelligent, interesting dogs at the time. Something happened in the breeding, and they no longer qualify as interesting. In fact, you hardly ever see them anymore. The same kind of thing happens in the breeding of dogs that are a little more aggressive. So I think prescribing what breeds should be prohibited is the wrong way to go.

The act prescribes what a rodent is. I did a little bit of research on rodents. Yes, they include certainly gerbils, hamsters, rats, mice and guinea pigs, but they also include other rodents. The term rodents, as commonly defined, includes other species that are not uncommon as domesticated pets: chinchillas, squirrels, hedgehogs, raccoons, skunks, prairie dogs and opossums. These may not be as common as dogs and cats, but there are exotic pets out there that people actually in private homes do take care of.

The question arises: if we're going to be this specific and prescriptive in defining what a rodent is and limiting it to four or five species of more common rodents as pets, what happens if I have one of these particular animals? Does that mean that the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act, which this bill would seek to impose, don't apply? What happens if I do have, for example, a chinchilla? Do I then have to go through all the rigmarole of going and having an argument with my landlord? Do I then have to go to an arbitrator? What guidelines does the arbitrator have? I guess you could argue pretty straightforwardly that a chinchilla isn't a guinea pig; therefore, you get kicked out of your home.

This prescriptive approach doesn't address the issue. The issue that we should be looking at is whether or not we can come up with a system of relationships between landlords and tenants which respect the rights of the landlord, which respect the rights of the tenant and all of the other arguments that I've made about the value of pets and do it in a logical rather than a prescriptive way.

The bill would prescribe that the pet be spayed or neutered. As a pet owner, I happen to think that's a decision I should make. If I have a pet that happens to be of a behavioral type which has an appearances that is pleasing and I happen to live in an apartment, I can't breed this animal after a year. I have to prove that it has been spayed or neutered — again, prescription of behaviour. I think the bill is trying to suppose that this is how we're going to find the balance between pet owner and landlord interests, but it does so by saying: "Well, I'm going to tell you what the balance is." The balance, or part of it, is that you can't have an animal that's not spayed or neutered.

It requires that pet litter be placed in garbage bins. Now, this is not the place where you would normally talk about these issues. In my community and I think in many others around the province, the disposition of dog feces in garbage containers is prohibited, and for good reason. The prescription of how you are going to deal with these inevitable parts of a pet's life to me not only contradicts, certainly in my municipality, municipal ordinances…. Again, it's prescriptive and doesn't seem to me to be very sensible.

The bill would prescribe reasons for evicting a pet or terminating a tenancy. What happens if there's another reason, if there's another problem that the bill doesn't foresee or doesn't address? One guarantee

about life, Mr. Speaker, is that you can't write a rule for everything that's going to happen.

I'm very concerned about this whole prescriptive approach that this bills contains. I think it could be well argued that the list is incomplete. It doesn't address consequential issues that are extremely important, such as liability for damage caused by pets. It doesn't even go into that issue. Certainly from a landlord's point of view and from a tenant's point view — if you happen to be the owner of a pet that causes a lot of damage, even though you didn't intend it; these things can happen — it leaves whole gaps in approach which I find very troublesome.

I note the time, and I think I would like to now move adjournment of this debate.