Hansard — Monday, May 28, 2007 a.m.

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		8209
	Community
	N. Simons
	M. Polak
	The management of off-road vehicles
	B. Bennett
	B. Simpson
	Navigation
	G. Robertson
	H. Bloy
	Benefits of a strong economy
	D. Hayer
	B. Ralston

Tabling Documents		8218
	Office of the Ombudsman, special report, Victims of Crime; Victims of Change: Transition and Discretion in Crime Victim Assistance Legislation in British Columbia

Second Reading of Bills		8218
	Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007 (Bill M210)
	D. Cubberley
	J. McIntyre
	S. Simpson
	R. Cantelon
	C. Wyse
	M. Polak
	L. Krog
	R. Hawes
	J. Horgan

Community is obviously a very broad topic, but I'd like to talk about the values that underlie community and the importance that the role we have plays in promoting and supporting community.

Community can be defined in different ways by different people. I'm going to be focusing primarily on the communities that I represent that have characteristics of other communities, that are made up of agencies, individuals, businesses, physical characteristics, natural environment — the communities that make up the places where we live.

In particular, I think that when we talk about community, we need to talk about what our role is in supporting the voice of community and the decisions that they make over what takes place within their immediate environs.

When I speak about community and I think about the communities I represent, I know there is one characteristic that sets them apart from many others. It happens to be the only constituency in the province that is entirely ferry-dependent, when you consider that you can't get from my constituency to any other constituency by road. I believe that is the characteristic of Powell River–Sunshine Coast that is different from anywhere else.

In fact, the upper Sunshine Coast relates primarily with northern Vancouver Island and the lower Sunshine Coast relates to West Vancouver. The islands within the constituency go either to Powell River or to Gibsons.

When I speak about community and the need for government to play a role in promoting community, I think about the issues that are core — core community values, core community agencies. I would start with how we look after our children in our communities. What resources are available for our communities to ensure that children have a healthy upbringing, an upbringing that is stimulating for their minds, that is safe for their person, that is a place where they can learn the social values that make our communities as strong as they are?

When I think about child care, I think about the policies that have an impact on how many children have places to go when their parents are going off to work, how many children get the kind of skill development and social development that are necessary for them to be successful in schools. We need to remember that a direct relationship exists between government policy and the tools that are available in community to provide assistance to children and to their families.

Of course, there are the schools, and schools, we know, form in large part a core. They often are centrally located in small communities where they provide a place for people to meet, a place for the community to meet with one another, for the generations to sometimes mix in ways that they don't have other opportunities to do so. In particular, schools provide a place for meetings to take place and for performances for up-and-coming musicians, up-and-coming dancers and theatre performers.

Schools do form an important part of community. In rural ridings that can be emphasized even more, because they probably are one of the only places where all sectors of the community meet.

Communities are important in how they serve senior citizens. How our communities are strengthened by the presence of senior citizens in our community and the importance of contemplating the effect of policies for senior citizens that may impact on community…. I speak specifically about issues around senior citizens living out of their own homes and in long-term care facilities and the need in our community for those facilities to be within the boundaries of the community. As I mentioned, all too often we have families who are cut off from their loved ones because of difficult transportation, obviously because of the geography, and also because of scheduling and cost.

When one is promoting the cohesiveness of a community, one must consider all the factors that lead to encouraging or getting in the way of that building of community. In particular, when we talk about community in ferry-dependent communities, we're talking about a way of life that is different from other communities. As I mentioned, one of the factors is that there is no road out of the constituency after 9:15 at night and no road back in until first thing in the morning.

When one talks about community cohesiveness, one often thinks about all the various agencies that work together on a constant basis to promote cohesive communities. When we contemplate policies and administrative direction and regulatory requirements, we should consider the impacts that these have on the cohesiveness, the sustainability and the future success of communities.

If I may, I'd like to continue afterwards to talk specifically about legislation that does promote communities — healthy communities, safe communities, communities that have a sense of their place in our society and a voice in the direction of the policies set by our society, set by our government in the best interests of community.

M. Polak: I am pleased to join my colleague across the way in talking about the importance and value of

communities. Of course, Langley is known…. One of its mottoes is: "The community of communities." That's because we are not only Langley city and the township of Langley, but within that, we are places like Murrayville, places like Willoughby, places like Milner — areas that all harken back to family names and to historic realities that then, through their use, remain in place to teach our children and to once again reinforce the importance of communities.

I'm reminded of a community catastrophe that occurred in my riding very shortly after the provincial election in 2005. It was a good example of why Langley and many other communities thrive in the midst of change. There was a terrible fire at a community agency building, that of Langley Family Services. It's an umbrella organization for different social service provision within Langley, and one of their main buildings was destroyed by fire, which later turned out to be arson.

I got the early morning call. A bunch of us went down to oversee the damage and what was going to happen from that. The amazing part about it was how quickly the community pulled together to be able to provide additional spaces for them. The provincial government came in with some emergency funding to help them relocate various services.

All in all, all those pieces represent what community can mean when we're in crisis. I think that's very often what a lot of us think about when we think about community. How do we respond when someone has a problem?

There are also forward-looking, proactive and positive things that we can do every day to build communities. In Langley we do some of that too.

One of our community programs, community volunteer initiatives, is the downtown ambassadors program. The downtown ambassadors program started a little more than a year ago. It won a provincial award this year.

These are volunteers who wear some bright blue T-shirts. They walk around downtown and help people with various things that they might need — for example, understanding where a different shop might be or another service. They basically make the downtown a friendly place for people to be and offer assistance to them with respect to various things that will make their visit to the downtown of Langley more enjoyable.

The wonderful thing about it is that as these volunteers give to the community, they of course receive back. As they pass by my office in the daytime, they'll often stop in and say hello. It's really amazing just how much joy they receive from the kind of service they're providing within Langley. It's a wonderful program and, again, another builder of community.

It's not always just about the kind of friendly things we need to do. One of the great pleasures I had this week, when I was back in my constituency, was to provide to the city of Langley the announcement for their traffic fine revenues, and I was very pleased to provide them with over half a million dollars in traffic fine revenues, which will be returned to the city of Langley so that they can in turn provide community safety initiatives that will make our community a safer place.

It's a reflection of some good enforcement. It's a reflection of working together — between the township, the city and our local RCMP detachment — but once again a way in which communities come together to build on something that will provide for the safety and security of everyone in the region and thereby build up the relationships we have with one another and the strength of our community.

One of the very special things we do in Langley, because it's the birthplace of British Columbia, is celebrate Douglas Day. Douglas Day is there to commemorate the early pioneers who were there at the beginning of our province and, of course, British Columbia becoming British Columbia. What we do, though, is honour those pioneers who are living within our community with a special dinner every year. So Douglas Day is another way that we not only build community but remember those who have worked all their lives to build community.

Certainly, every area has its unique features, and in Langley one of them is the number of trains that pass through. It's been a terrible trouble for people not to be able to cross through the city without having to cross over a train track. We actually have five level crossings in two square miles — but, no more.

Another exciting thing that's just happened in Langley and that draws our two communities together, ties them together now with pavement, is the new overpass that has just opened at 204th Street to great fanfare. The Minister of Transportation, who was there at the opening, commented on the number of community people who came out to that event. [Applause.]

N. Simons: I'm glad that the member opposite took the opportunity to mention transportation, because transportation is obviously one of the main factors that links communities together. In particular, I mentioned earlier that transportation facing the Powell River–Sunshine Coast community is entirely dependent on a private ferry service.

My comment is that I hope government understands and that the unique circumstances faced by ferry-dependent communities are recognized in terms of the strategy, the legislation and, in this particular instance, the contract and the performance terms that would recognize the importance of promoting safe, cohesive and strong communities.

It's clear that our food prices are higher because of the ferry service. Our issues around housing and transportation are all tied to building strong communities.

If I could just mention some regulations and legislation that actually have a negative impact on some of the communities and that I think need to be addressed through better consultation. First of all, there's the

attitude of government in Victoria in terms of how it relates to various regions of the province and the considerations that need to be taken into account when decisions are made around legislation and regulations.

Specifically, we can talk about meat regulations and how they impact on our small communities. Organic farmers will go out of business. Organic farmers will stop selling safely and healthily raised animals, and this is going to have an impact on our constituents.

Child care resource centres closing. This is a place where people, families came together to find out how they could access child care so that they could go to work. These centres are closing.

Services for seniors. We have senior citizens in our community that are sent off the coast, and families are spending a lot of money going to visit them — if they can in fact visit them.

The decision-making process over mining and forestry has been taken away from community members and put in the hands of regulatory bodies that may not represent the interests and the concerns of that particular community.

I am saying that this government needs to bring back the decision-making to communities because communities know what they need more than anyone else. They know what they require in order to remain sustainable, promote healthy living and promote the possibility of their children remaining in that community instead of having to leave and go somewhere else.

In British Columbia we also have industry and business that are very much strongly supporting community cohesion. I recognize that, and I encourage that. I'm hoping that with individuals understanding the importance of community, with business leadership recognizing the benefits that they accrue from strong infrastructure and strong government support, they recognize that as well, and I'm hoping that government will, in turn, recognize the unique nature of all of the British Columbian communities across this province so that regulations and legislation can meet the needs of those communities without impacting negatively on others.

B. Bennett: This morning I'm going to offer a brief argument on why the province of British Columbia should have a management regime for off-road vehicles. I've been on my feet in the House over the past six years a few times talking about this issue. I'm not sure which famous person said this; it might have been Rudyard Kipling: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

B. Bennett: The member from across the way said that he has said that once or twice himself. I am going to keep trying, Madam Speaker. I think it's an important issue for British Columbia, particularly in rural B.C., so I'll keep trying. And if I'm back next term, I'll try then if we don't do it this term.

Off-road vehicles, or ORVs, are snowmobiles, quads — those little four-wheel-drive machines — and motorbikes. They're widely used across the province. It's actually a fairly big industry across the country. Places like Alberta have a $600 million industry. That was in 2002 — the last time they did the stats on this. It's a very big industry in places like Ontario and Quebec and in some states.

There are many good reasons, in my opinion, why we should have a management regime for ORVs in B.C. Just a few of them are: environmental protection; land use; sales tax; there's a problem with theft of these machines in B.C.; British Columbia is also a dumping ground; tourism; agriculture; and then there's a problem with out-of-province recreators that needs to be managed.

Before I go into the reasons for a management regime more specifically and in more detail, let me just say that there are many, many people in B.C., I know, who wouldn't care if they ever saw a quad or a snowmobile or a motorbike and wouldn't care if they ever heard one in particular. To those folks, I say that we recognize that, I recognize that, but B.C. is a big place. There are places where quads and snowmobiles and motorbikes can go and places where they should not go. That, I think, is really the gist of a management regime — to make sure that we have people recreating in places where it is reasonable for them to recreate.

The first and probably the most important reason to do this is to protect the environment. I, myself, have ridden up logging roads on quads many, many times, and I think it's a fine thing to do. I've had my family with me when I did that, and I know there are many, many seniors across the province and many young people that ride up logging roads with quads and do no harm.

But there are places in this province, obviously, where we should not be taking quads or motorbikes and, in some situations, snowmobiles. Those places, for example, are riparian areas along rivers and creeks, wetlands, alpine terrain, grasslands and any of the other sensitive areas. If you've ever seen the damage that can be done by motorbikes and quads and four-wheel-drive vehicles in wetlands and riparian areas and in grasslands or in the alpine, in fact, you'd know why that should be better managed. It's unfortunate that you need rules to manage just the minority of riders, but that is often the case.

The second reason why we need a management regime is for our land use plans. I know I've been involved as an MLA in a couple of very difficult land use planning exercises in the East Kootenay.

What happens is that taxpayers, people who work in the mines and the forests and in our communities, volunteer their time. They come out night after night after night, sometimes for years, to develop a land use plan which usually contains a recreation access chapter. They buy into this.

They believe that what they have done is important, and they agree that they're going to be able to take their quads or their snowmobiles into certain areas and

stay on the trails and the roads, but not go into other areas. Then they finish the plan, and the plan goes up on a shelf, and basically we as a province don't have the legislative tools to ensure that that land use plan is complied with. So in terms of our land use plans having the kind of community acceptance and credibility and legitimacy, I think that's another reason why we need this management regime.

I was going to mention sales tax. I will mention it briefly. I know that the government's capacity to collect sales tax is not something that's going to motivate most British Columbians, and I understand that. But I think there's a reason to mention it in this statement, and that is that right now there is no sales tax being collected on the exchange of used ORVs. If you sell your snowmobile or your quad or motorbike to your neighbour, there is no way for the government to collect that sales tax.

Again, I realize we're not going to get a lot of support from the general public on this. But when you think about it, it's not really fair that some people pay sales tax on the purchase of recreational equipment, and other people don't. It's just, I think, a fairness issue.

Tourism potential is a very important reason why I think we should have a management regime for ORVs in the province. My dad is 86 years old in Ontario. He still buys his annual snowmobile pass, his trail pass. He still buys his annual ATV pass. They call them ATVs instead of quads there. He and his retired cronies go out and sometimes ride for days and days. They have trails that link right into some of the communities. You can go in and stay at a motel. You can use the restaurants.

There's great potential. As I said earlier, in Alberta in 2002 this ATV/snowmobile industry was a $600 million industry, so we have great potential for this in British Columbia.

Another very important reason, and one that I don't think really gets thought about very much when we talk about the need to manage these off-road vehicles, is access — and fairness. Many of the people who use these quads are seniors. Many are people with health issues. They have a bad leg; they have a bad back. They are perhaps disabled in some significant way. Those folks are not able to get to the top of the mountain and have the view. They're not able to get back into the back country unless they have the use of a snowmobile or a quad or a motorbike. I think that also is something that we should take into account.

Agriculture. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my friends in the ranching industry and in the farming industry. Just talk to a rancher about broken fences and ruined crops, and you'll know that there is a good reason from the agriculture industry's point of view to manage these vehicles. Again, I'm talking about the minority of riders. I think the vast majority of people that use these machines are actually quite responsible.

I did also want to say on behalf of any of the MLAs and any of the people in the province who live adjacent to either the U.S. or Alberta that there is an issue around needing to manage out-of-province riders that come in from Alberta and from the U.S. These folks come in, and we want them. We want their money and so forth. But quite often they'll bring their snowmobile or their quad into the province, and they buy their gas on the Alberta side and don't spend any money. They also need to be managed.

B. Simpson: It's a privilege this morning to stand and support the member for East Kootenay in his longstanding desire for a management strategy for off-road vehicles.

One of the very first tasks that I did as an MLA in my riding was to get involved in damage done by two quads to the Jubilee Trail in the Wells-Barkerville area. They ripped up this trail. They chewed up large portions of the trail in areas where there was significant underground water runoff, and the trail was going to be eroded significantly.

I want to go on the record and give my thanks to the Ministry of Forests and Range staff in that region who were able to go to that trail and find the money necessary and find some expertise to do some trail repairs.

Unfortunately, because of two individuals who drove those quads up what should be a hiking trail, we now have a wilderness trail in our area that has concrete abutments at the base of it. That's not very appealing for us from a tourism perspective or from a naturalist perspective.

I agree with the member for East Kootenay that it is a select few individuals who do that. Unfortunately, all of the individuals who snowmobile, who quad or who motorcycle get tainted with that.

What I find interesting, though, is that the government has at its disposal a lot of work that has been done and, in fact, draft legislation that has been done by a group — the Off-Road Vehicle Coalition. That coalition is made up of the Grasslands Conservation Council, Quad Riders Association, Federation of B.C. Naturalists, B.C. Snowmobile Federation, Canadian Parks and Wilderness, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, Greater Kamloops Motorcycle Association, Outdoor Recreation Council, Trails B.C. and various other associations.

Since September of 2002 the group has been working on a management strategy and, in fact, in January of 2006 tabled 47 recommendations with government and has been working with government since then on draft legislation. Last fall — remember the sitting that we didn't get? — that legislation was supposed to be tabled in this House.

The very management strategy, the licensing, the registration, a trust fund to manage trails and do stewardship on some of those trails, a trust fund that would also allow for significant work on conservation and stewardship — it's all there. It's all available. It was supposed to come into the House as a piece of legislation in the fall last year. We didn't get it.

This group has now been told that we may see it in the spring of '08, but as we've seen in this session, we

have a lot of legislation to get through, and we're not getting through it. In January 2007 that group put on their website the following statement: "The ORV Coalition and its partners do not want this legislation delayed. We urge you to contact your local governments and MLAs to discuss the importance of this legislation and the urgent need for licensing and registration."

I stand in full support with the member for East Kootenay. We would like to see that legislation come forward. We would like to see this government table that legislation as expeditiously as possible because this is the best of all worlds.

You have all of the groups who have done the work. They know what they want to do. It's a self-policing model. It involves licensing and registration. It involves trail stewardship. It involves all of the things that need to be done for a management plan. The only thing that needs to be done to make it happen is that the government needs to bring the legislation forward so that we can get on with the job.

B. Bennett: Thanks to the member for Cariboo North. I appreciate the fact that he's squarely on side with the need for a management regime. I only wish he had been here during the 1990s. Perhaps when his party was in government, they could have actually created some legislation, because I know this is an old problem. Nonetheless, this side of the House has had six years, and we have not done it either.

I agree with the members on the other side of the House that we need to do it, given that we are in government and that we intend to stay in government.

I want to make a couple of things very clear, Madam Speaker. I think that just because you ride a snowmobile, a quad or a motorbike, it doesn't make you anti-environment or a bad person. I have ridden all three of those types of machines, and I know that many, many other tax-paying British Columbians continue to ride them in a responsible way. As the member said, and he agrees with this, it's a minority of users that creates the need for rules.

I would like to correct one thing the member said. The member said that there was legislation that was ready to go into the House last fall. That's actually not correct, and I understand that the member wouldn't have access to the same information I do. I know that the Ministry of Tourism is working on a management regime right now. I have talked to them, and I'd be glad to fill the member in on what's happening there. I hope we have legislation ready to go by next spring, but that remains to be seen.

It is a bit more complicated, perhaps, than what some of us realize. We're going to have to collect enough money to make this a self-financing model, I think. We're going to have to convince ICBC to manage the database. We're not only going to have to find legislation that sets up a regime of rules, a code of conduct, but we're also going to have to have, I think, some penalties that are meaningful. We're going to have to authorize COs, forest service workers, probably people in the tourism industry and definitely the RCMP to enforce whatever the legislation is, and that's the only way it's going to work.

I'd like to think we can move this forward in a bipartisan way. I appreciate what the member for Cariboo North had to say, and I thank you for the opportunity.

G. Robertson: I'm going to speak today about navigation. Where are we, and where are we headed? These are the most obvious of questions asked of a navigator — the navigator being that person charged with planning, directing and guiding a vessel.

My life depended on good navigation when my wife and I sailed a 40-foot ketch across the Pacific in our 20s. It was a great lesson in the importance of knowing where you are and where you want to go. Failure at navigation can be fatal, and survival is a great motivator, so I was focused, well informed and diligent with my duty.

Eighteen years later I find myself in an unexpectedly similar predicament. There is a very direct connection between the role of government and that of a navigator. Just as the people on a ship count on the navigator for safe travels to where they want to go, society relies on our democratically elected governments understanding where we're headed and ensuring that we're on course to get there.

For both navigator and government there's the additional responsibility to lay out a course that is as smooth as possible for all on board. That means finding the course that ensures our well-being and that can sustain us for the long term.

But the so-called voyage that our society is on is not as simple as life on board a ship. We don't have governments that establish a clear destination that achieves broad consensus among our population. We never all enjoy a smooth ride, and we're now realizing that because of the way we are travelling, we're currently on a dangerous, one-way voyage into the unknown. Humankind's perilous course ultimately stems from a lack of wisdom and integrity and from a total disconnect with the laws of nature. It's as if we're off on the three-hour tour with Gilligan and the Skipper unwittingly fumbling with the charts and controls.

But this is not a goofy sitcom. We are putting life on Earth as we know it at risk due to irresponsible navigation. On the good ship British Columbia, we don't really know where our current course takes us, yet we are steaming ahead with throttles wide open, burning up our very limited supply of fuel in a few short generations. The wind is blowing steadily, but we've chopped our masts down for biofuel, and our sailmakers are busy feeding the boilers.

A quarter of our complement live in the virtual bilges, impoverished, while the officers and first-class

folks feast on the lavish stores. This is anything but a smooth voyage for many whose every day is consumed with making do under grim circumstances, ignored by the decision-makers.

Those decision-makers speak to us in their own cryptic navigation jargon, telling us:

But our sentinels in the crow's nest, whether they're eminent scientists in climatology or forest health or people who make their living from the farms, forests and oceans, are seeing dire and unprecedented changes in the world around us. They warn us that life as we know it will no longer be possible if we persist on this course. They cry out to the navigators that we're steaming full bore into the eye of a hurricane of unimaginable force.

Again, what's up with the navigators? Are they clear about our position? Are they listening to the most experienced eyes and ears aboard? Are they using the most accurate charts and best tools for navigation? Evidently not. Have they read the millennium ecosystem assessment or the IPCC's climate change reports? Have they walked around the downtown east side lately? Do they get why cancer or mountain pine beetle or mad cow disease are proliferating?

Somehow governments have abandoned good navigation. They're fixated on how fast we're going and on how well some of the passengers are living. They have abandoned the discipline and rigour of using keen observation and the best tools available to assess where we are as a society and the most sensible direction to head from here, as if somehow the direction we're headed and the means of travel are not vital to our well-being.

We are indeed aboard a vessel on a great journey. This vessel, our planet, has everything we need to thrive and more, but it has limits. Our journey is not one way into the great unknown. It's a challenging endeavour to become a truly just and sustainable society. Rather than treating it like a jet boat tour, every generation must accept its obligation to make progress that benefits our kids and the world they will inherit.

Navigation is absolutely critical to our well-being today and to our future. It's about being utterly truthful about our current position regardless of how politically challenging that might be, and it's about knowing where we need to go. As the storm winds rise and the seas build, our options narrow. It becomes harder and harder to maintain balance, to adjust course and to find calmer waters without endangering much of what we hold sacred.

I beseech the navigators opposite to come to their senses and accept their responsibility to make genuine progress. It's all hands on deck as a province and as a planet. The people who have entrusted you know in their bones that our course must change profoundly.

H. Bloy: I'm not sure where to start on navigation. I think it's very ironic that he has used those terms. I didn't want to do this, but I have to go back to when they were the captain of British Columbia, and they were directing that big boat we talk about. They ran that boat right into the rocks and destroyed the economy of British Columbia.

I find it amazing that they could talk about navigation when they can't find their way around their own caucus room to make a decision and that they are talking about how to navigate. In fact, the boats they navigated are still sitting over there in North Vancouver and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages. This is amazing. God.

Deputy Speaker: Member, member. You remember the parameters around the content of this part of the morning.

Navigation. Wow. Rudderless and lost in the '90s. That's how I would look at the navigation that led to what we do. You talk about navigation and where we're going….

H. Bloy: Would the member from Powell River like to talk, or would he like to sit there and listen? Why are you continuing to interrupt every time we're here? This member should be out.

H. Bloy: Madam Speaker, I would like to make my presentation, and I would like to make it so that it can be heard. I don't want the time interrupted by this one member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast on a constant basis.

H. Bloy: Rudderless and lost in the '90s. You know, they don't know how to drive a boat. They don't know how to navigate it. They didn't know where they were going. When we came into power — they're right — we were last in practically every economic indicator in British Columbia. We've gone from last to first in every economic indicator for all of Canada. That has to be applauded. That's where we're going, and we're leading the way.

How we did that is that we set goals. We ran it like a business. We set goals marginally, and we went to achieve them.

H. Bloy: You know, I guess that's why they're so lost. They can't even work as a caucus. They don't know where they're going. It's all about complaining and saying no, no, no, but they have nothing to offer. They have nowhere to go. You know, because, those fast ferry boats are still sitting over there….

Deputy Speaker: Member, one second, please. The issue is on the topic, being on the topic, and the issue is about making political statements towards others.

H. Bloy: On the topic. They named every great thing we're doing in British Columbia, and they thought it was wrong. They say: "Open up the pocketbooks, and throw money and throw money. For sure it'll get better." You know, they threw money, and it didn't get any better. They had the highest number of people on social service ever in the history of British Columbia. So how did that social policy they talk about today actually serve British Columbia, where we have more people working than ever before?

We're not rudderless. We are on a direction to make life better for every individual in British Columbia, not just for a select few of their buddies of what they talk about. We're heading for every British Columbian to make this the greatest place on earth to live. That is our goal, and that is the direction we're taking.

There were so many things that the member from Vancouver talked about that it's hard to keep up, to remember everything that he said, but I can tell you that we have set a direction. We have set goals. Many of the national economic councils of Canada have said that the direction that we have taken here in British Columbia is being duplicated across the rest of the country. They are looking at us as a leader to help.

When the '90s were there, we had the largest…. The rest of Canada had a huge economic advantage because they took advantage of it. British Columbia drove us into the ground, drove us to the bottom of every province in Canada to last place. That's what we've been working on for six years.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to introduce to the House this morning Mr. Timothy Kamsteeg and his grade 11 class, who I believe are sitting behind me, who are from Pacific Christian Secondary School. They're here today in the Legislature to learn how it is we manage to give a feeling of solidity to pure air.

G. Robertson: Rather than degenerate into the partisan babble of the member opposite, I'm going to move back to the topic at hand. I've spoken in broad and metaphorical terms about the dangerous absence of good navigation from our leadership in government. I want to address some specific tools to change that, because significantly changing our course is most sensibly done with the right charts and instruments.

What we observe and measure is fundamental to precise navigation and to good government. Relying on GDP growth and the tenets of classical economics alone to steer our course will doom us. These don't count the poverty — the highest child poverty rate in Canada — and homelessness in our communities as deficits. Those boost the GDP, and they treat the environment and natural resources as expendable, short-term inventory rather than long-term assets that must be managed in perpetuity.

For accurately determining our current state, we need to use tools like the genuine progress indicator. Relying on GDP and debt-to-GDP ratios is incredibly short-sighted. GDP is prone to overvaluing production and the consumption of goods and not reflecting the improvement in human well-being at all. GDP was never intended to be used as a measure of these things and was not supposed to be a measure of goodness of any government decision. Its use to justify such decisions is a fairly recently phenomenon. The genuine progress indicator is an attempt to measure whether or not a country or province's growth, increased production of goods and expanded services, has actually resulted in the improvement of the well-being of the people.

The genuine progress indicator takes into account the enhancement of nature's ability to provide services, to generate water, air, soil, food. These things are part of a more inclusive ideal of progress. They're more easily perceived and believed by most people than our raw industrial production metrics.

GPI also reflects sustainability — whether a country or province's economic activity over a year has left that place with a better or worse future possibility of

repeating at least the same level of economic activity in the long run. For example, agricultural activity that uses replenishing water resources such as river runoff will score higher on a GPI than the same level of agricultural activity that drastically draws off underwater aquifers, pumping irrigation from wells.

For setting our course ahead, we need honest and binding sustainability principles, and we need all significant decisions to go through a sustainability lens. These responsibilities also extend to business and community leaders. In business, triple-bottom-line management that is committed to social and environmental responsibility, The Natural Step principles for responsible investment, are crucial progressive initiatives for our future.

D. Hayer: Last week it was made very clear on the editorial page of the Vancouver Sun that British Columbians are benefiting greatly from the strong economy this government has created over the past six years. The Sun's editorial stated that the after-tax income of British Columbians is 15 percent higher today than it was three years ago. Now, that's pretty significant.

People now have 15 percent more to save to help their families buy new homes, buy more goods and spend, which boosts our economy and makes our economy grow even further and faster.

The Vancouver Sun noted a recent report in Stats Canada which has underlined the fact that British Columbia's economic performance is translating into higher personal incomes. Last year alone aggregate disposable income surged 7.5 percent over the previous year, and adjusted for the population growth per capita, personal disposable income was up 6.2 percent, the largest increase in disposable income in two decades.

The Business Council of British Columbia calculates that an increase in disposable income last year combined with the back-to-back gains in 2004 and 2005 means that we have seen the biggest jump in incomes since Expo 86. That is phenomenal, and it speaks volumes about what this government has done to make life better for British Columbians.

I'm sure this government will continue to lead the nation with progress, security and income growth for our residents. Since we have improved personal disposable income year after year, I am certain we will continue that trend. Certainly, we will continue to provide the guidance and direction that will cause incomes, security and pride in our province to grow and grow.

Today we have store and business windows displaying large help-wanted signs. We have newspaper job listings overflowing. Today we have more jobs than workers. We have work and jobs wanting people all across the province. That means two things: this government is doing the right thing, and workers can command wage rates appropriate to the skill level.

In a strong economy people are well paid. They have money in their pockets, and they can now afford to buy luxuries beyond the necessities. In other words, they themselves continue to add fuel to the economy.

A decade ago people were fleeing British Columbia in droves. Today the tide has changed. Those same people, and many more, are choosing to come back to British Columbia. Employees are in demand. They have secure employment. Their skills are needed. They have some money in their pockets. They want to raise their families here. They want to pursue their dreams. They want to establish themselves here because not only does a strong economy bring security for the future, it allows us to build and maintain a powerful safety net of educational opportunities, excellent health care, programs for our seniors and a deep commitment to environmental improvements.

People again believe in British Columbia, a province that fell very short during the 1990s. No longer is that the case. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in the history of the province, and new jobs just keep on growing. In fact, we have heard often in this House that over the next 12 years more than one million new jobs will be created in British Columbia.

That means that with only about 650,000 students enrolled in our kindergarten-to-grade-12 school system over that time, there will be an additional 350,000 vacant jobs that need to be filled in that next decade.

We simply don't have enough people to fill them, which means incredible opportunities for our young people and an incredible opportunity for immigrants to come here and pursue their dreams of prosperity the way they used to — all because this government has created an economy that encourages people, encourages investment and provides policies that encourage education, good health, happiness and a livable environment.

Actually, as was noted in the throne speech this spring, British Columbia's environment will not only be just livable, it will be among the greenest and healthiest in the world. This government has already taken steps to combat greenhouse emissions, reduce pollutants and create more parks. This government has committed to having all electrical energy production created with zero emissions within the decade. We are not just talking the talk; we are actually walking the walk on the environment.

We are committed to hybrid vehicles and to emission reductions to a level less than we had in 1991. This is a good policy, and it is made without the economy grinding to a halt or even slowing down. Industry and development are on our side, and many of the scientists are supporting our programs.

By creating a strong and powerful economy, we're able to do all these things and to live up to our commitments — like the new 148,000-square-foot hospital being built in the Green Timbers area of Surrey; the tripling of Surrey Memorial Hospital's emergency; and Surrey's new renal care facility, announced last week, that will help those with kidney ailments throughout the Fraser region.

Our government has also introduced significant changes to personal income taxes: a 25-percent cut in

taxes in 2001; 2005 tax reduction; and a tax cut of 10 percent on the first $100,000 of income announced in Budget 2007. As a result, 250,000 British Columbians now pay no provincial personal income taxes. That means any British Columbian who has personal taxable income less than $15,500 will pay no provincial income tax.

Our prosperous economic times have also allowed our government to increase the income threshold for the rental assistance program, which has made such a difference in the lives of low-income earners.

These are just a very few of the many good things that have happened in British Columbia and in my community of Surrey. Time does not permit me at this point to elaborate on all of them, so I look forward to comments from my colleague across the floor.

B. Ralston: Last Thursday the member for Surrey-Tynehead and a number of other MLAs attended an event in Surrey called Breakfast with the Bank, which is a fundraising event for the Surrey Food Bank.

There we learned that 14,000 people a month from Surrey and Delta use the services of the Surrey Food Bank. The executive director, Marilyn Herrmann, told the group that almost half of the food bank's clients are children, 11 percent have disabilities, and 10 percent represent the working poor. Marilyn Herrmann also advised that it was her impression, and the statistics confirmed, that a growing number of the working poor are availing themselves of the services of the food bank.

Now, many Canadians — and I would say the majority of Canadians — strongly believe that increasing the minimum wage to a level that will raise workers in full-time employment is an effective way to lead Canadians out of poverty and to reduce Canada's growing wage gap. Indeed, the government's own Progress Board, in its report on social conditions, spoke of a persistent and prolonged difficulty for many citizens in British Columbia's population to lift themselves out of poverty.

While there is a strong economy in many parts of British Columbia, there are also a number of people who are being left behind by that strong economy. Minimum-wage earners in British Columbia are about 92,000 — 5.6 percent of the labour force. There has been no increase in the minimum wage since 2001. Those who receive the minimum wage…. It's not simply limited to teenagers living at home with their parents. Married people and single people make up 21 percent of minimum-wage workers nationally, and 6 percent of minimum-wage earners are single.

In my view, an increase in the minimum wage would be an important policy that would help Canada's poor and Canada's working poor. There's no compelling evidence that suggests that this would result in job loss. None of the economic studies confirm that. Indeed, they say that there would be little or no impact on employment from the minimum-wage increase. But significantly, in Canada the government of Ontario has taken steps to increase the minimum wage. I'm going to read a little bit from the news release, because it's really a striking contrast between the attitude of the members across the floor and the attitude of another Liberal government — perhaps also a small "l" liberal government — in Ontario.

They're taking steps in Ontario to share the benefits of the economy with the working poor, and they say that's to the advantage of everyone in Ontario. One would wish that the Minister of Finance and those opposite would take the same approach here.

Thus far, there's been an obdurate, absolute refusal to take any action on that policy. With that, I wait for the reply from the member opposite.

D. Hayer: I appreciate that comment from my colleague opposite from Surrey-Whalley. I was at the same breakfast he was at, at the Surrey Food Bank, which I have been supporting for many, many years — more than a decade.

Also, I want to say about the minimum wages…. Ontario's economy is starting to go backward. They used to be one of the strongest economies in Canada, but actually they're going backward. We have taken a different approach, which has made this economy the best economy basically in Canada. Therefore, the people don't earn minimum wages. You can't even find, in some places, people at $15, $18 or $20 an hour.

I think what we have to take a look at is the approach we have, which…. It was also stated by the chartered accounting institute, saying how the businesses are growing and the economy is growing and to make sure we help to keep this economy strong.

What we want to make sure of is that we have a powerful, buoyant economy. Because of our powerful, buoyant economy, we are increasing the changes we are making in Surrey, including the Surrey Memorial Hospital. Without the strong, buoyant economy, we would not see hundreds more homes being built for our seniors and we would not be seeing literacy among our children increasing every day.

We would not be seeing massive transportation infrastructure improvements throughout the province and throughout Surrey, including the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of Highway 1 from Langley to Vancouver, which our colleagues from the NDP from Surrey don't seem to support, or haven't

come in the House to openly say they support it. Surrey businesses and residents and the working people want that. The infrastructure is very important to move goods and people quicker. It is needed because our growth and prosperity demand those improvements.

For example, the city of Surrey increases its population by 1,000 people every month. Other cities to the east of us — like Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack — are growing by leaps and bounds as well. Our ports, which create so many jobs on the west coast, also need these roads to move their goods, because we need the east-west corridor for that.

If we don't have improvements in the transportation and if this government did not have the vision, we would not be generating such a strong economy. Heaven forbid if we go back to the old days of the 1990s, the dark old days. But we will make sure our government and members on this side of the House will not allow that.

We want to make sure we have a good, healthy health care system, a livable environment, exceptional education opportunities, housing for our seniors, housing for those less fortunate people, and a bright and promising future for our children and our immigrants.

We must maintain a buoyant economy to make sure that happens so that people don't have to work at minimum wage. We want to make sure British Columbia stays on track, keeps on going in leading the economic pack as it has been doing in Canada and finally providing hope, promise and prosperity for our citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is the benefits of a strong economy that allow us to do all this.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a special report of the Ombudsman, Victims of Crime; Victims of Change: Transition and Discretion in Crime Victim Assistance Legislation in British Columbia.

Hon. C. Hansen: I call Bill M210, entitled Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Bill M210 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps I could request leave to make several introductions before I speak.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to introduce to the House today a number of guests who are here to hear this debate on Bill M210. One of them is Nancy Wong, who is a constituent of mine from Saanich South. She is the person who first contacted my office back in 2006 regarding the lack of consistent provincial policy on this issue. Her son Brendan, who is seven, has anaphylaxis and must carry an EpiPen with him at all times.

We're also joined today by Caroline Posynick, mother of eight-year-old Griffin, who has an anaphylactic allergy; Lorna Davies, who is Griffin's grandmother and is here from Edmonton to watch the debate; Tracy Zeisberger, who is the mother of Lucas, also anaphylactic, and is a member of PACT, which is Protect Allergic Children Today; Yvonne Rousseau, who is the B.C. and Yukon regional coordinator for the Allergy/Asthma Information Association of Canada, who lives in Kelowna; and Keith Germaine, who is the father of an anaphylactic child.

D. Cubberley: It's been suggested that I should move second reading of Bill M210.

D. Cubberley: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to speak to Bill M210, Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007, a bill I had the privilege to introduce in this House some weeks ago.

Anaphylaxis is a condition of heightened sensitivity to a range of allergens — mostly foods, but also insect bites and particular man-made substances like latex — that trigger an extreme allergic reaction. Anaphylaxis has the potential to be lethal. Even when the exposure is momentary or involves only a trace quantity of the allergen, it can kill, and it can kill very quickly.

We're talking here about the safety of children, a theme this government made central to legislation it introduced in the House this session. Real steps were taken to protect children in the classroom, to address their vulnerabilities. Passing Bill M210 would effect protection as profound as or more profound than that conferred by other bills passed by government this session, and it is sorely needed.

Anaphylaxis involves the safety of some 13,000 vulnerable children at schools in every district across this province. It's equally deserving of the attention of legislators, equally worthy of legislation mandating action in every school district at every B.C. school as any of the other issues addressed by legislation in this session. Voluntary policy doesn't keep kids safe. Leaving it to chance is not working.

Anaphylaxis strikes fast and without notice. A passing exposure to peanut butter or a dairy product or some other food that could turn up in any lunchbox or school cafeteria anywhere in British Columbia on any

Anaphylactic children's bodies overreact to the presence of a substance that for most of us is harmless — an allergen. Anaphylaxis is a systemic reaction to the allergen's presence. The body literally goes into overdrive to try to deal with it, and the reaction is what damages the heart, brain and other organs, and sometimes claims the life.

If you have any allergic sensitivities at all, as I do in a very mild form, I think you can easily grasp how fast the reaction sets in and how completely it takes over. I know that in my own instance, I have a non-specific allergic reaction. It comes up in a variety of circumstances. Sometimes it's temperature that triggers it or atmospheric change, and sometimes it's dust particles in a room.

When it happens, I go from normal to having the worst symptoms of a full-blown cold in a matter of 90 seconds. It begins with a sneeze, which becomes serial and uncontrollable. My eyes swell up and stream, my nose runs, and I cough and splutter. I mention this because I think that anyone with an allergic sensitivity of any kind gets just how quickly this strikes and so can put him- or herself in the shoes of a child for whom the reaction could be not merely inconvenient or distracting but deadly.

Seconds count. Life hangs in the balance. The early administration of epinephrine via a special injector, which most diagnosed anaphylactics carry with them, is essential. The adrenalin offsets the reaction which tends to shut down circulation and starve the body's organs. It buys some time to get a child to emergency. It may need to be done more than once just to sustain the potential for life to continue.

If teachers, principals and support staff don't know about epinephrine, don't know how to use an EpiPen or where the EpiPen is and don't know what steps to take next and in what order, kids can die. Sudden preventable death in a classroom scars everyone connected to it, for life. Yet many B.C. schools have no plan to reduce risk or track kids, provide no training to teachers or other school staff and haven't a clue what would need to be done in an emergency situation to save a life.

That's why M210 is needed, because vulnerable kids are exposed to unnecessary risk in classrooms that are not prepared for an emergency. If members have met with anaphylactic families, as we have in the course of developing and introducing this bill, they will know what their experience is with inconsistent conditions and varying attitudes at B.C. schools.

Anaphylactic families live with anxiety for their child's safety — a matter of life and death every day. Every morning when they say goodbye to their kids at school, they entrust their safety to the community they're part of. That community must be prepared to assume that responsibility. Those kids need the help and openness of school principals and teachers to create an environment that reduces their risk.

When Sabrina Shannon died in 2003, her reaction was triggered by consuming french fries in the school cafeteria. She asked about the oil they'd been fried in. That was the most obvious threat to her life. She asked about it to make sure they were safe. She did her part. Then she ate the french fries, and then she died.

She asked, and staff gave her an answer that was correct as far as it went, but she was susceptible not just to nuts but to dairy products too. Her fries were likely served with a spoon used to ladle poutine onto other french fries. At least, that's what the coroner believes happened.

Sabrina would not have been exposed if cafeteria staff had been trained to reduce risk. She might not have died if the school had a clear plan in place and then followed it. Instead, she was walked slowly to the principal's office, where she sat spiralling downwards while staff desperately tried to contact her family instead of calling 911. She sat in shock as her body began to shut down and her EpiPen, which could have been used to give her life-saving adrenalin, sat unused in her locker because no one knew to go and get it. Seconds count, and life does hang in the balance.

Today at B.C. schools it's voluntary whether or not a plan is in place to reduce risk, whether principals maintain individual plans for identified students, whether teachers have been granted permission by parents to intervene in case of emergency and whether or not staff are trained in the sequence of steps to take when anaphylaxis strikes.

Many families report good experiences with individual principals, teachers and schools, but most families will tell you that the situation changes depending upon where and with whom you're dealing. Families are tired of having to advocate for policy and training at every school they attend. They're demoralized by the small number — and it is a small number — of senior staff who believe this whole thing is being overdramatized, that these kids should be taught to take more responsibility for themselves even if they have to get a really good scare in order to get them there.

This scenario is just not good enough. B.C. needs to become a leader and establish mandatory planning at every school district, placing a responsibility on principals to be cognizant of anaphylaxis, to plan for and track each anaphylactic child, and to ensure that teachers and staff are regularly trained to recognize and respond effectively to reactions. That's what this bill provides for, modelled on the leadership shown in Ontario in response to Sabrina's needless death. That's what we can do here today in British Columbia by acting now rather than delaying action until a child dies in a B.C. classroom.

Support for this bill is widespread. My office has received well over 600 communications in support of it from families, interest groups, advocates and the education community. I have a list of those associations that have passed resolutions in support, including the B.C. allergists, Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth, B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, Central Okanagan Parent Advisory Council,

Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils of Saanich, school district 73, the parent advisory council in Kamloops, Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, Greater Victoria Teachers Association, Central Okanagan Teachers Association, B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association, the B.C. ambulance paramedics, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Fraser Health Authority, and school districts 63 and 23. The letters and resolutions in support continue to come in.

I mention that to indicate how wide the base of support is. This is an issue that resonates with the public. It's an issue on which editorial opinion solidly supports the passage of this bill. I believe that we distributed to all members of the House a copy of the Vancouver Sun editorial strongly urging that this bill be supported and that we not delay further.

I know that the minister has offered up a committee as an alternative to passing the bill, I think, as a backhanded way of acknowledging the widespread support for the bill. But this step is neither needed nor warranted. It represents delay when what's needed and possible is action now.

Delay and incomprehension are what have greeted anaphylactic families for a long time now — closed ears and closed minds. What's needed now is transformative change — what the Premier speaks of approvingly. Why is this House afraid to mandate transformative change for vulnerable kids? What will it take to get this government to act now?

Well, maybe it will take the kinds of letters that I receive from parents who are dealing with this on an ongoing basis. I'll just give you the flavour of it. This is what happens in B.C. This is a letter to the Premier.

That's the tenor of the letters. Even where plans are in place, there isn't enough awareness within the school community under current conditions to ensure that the plans are followed or that the reaction is recognized quickly.

What I wonder is: will it take a death in the classroom? I certainly hope not, because that will sit heavy on the shoulders of every legislator in this chamber, knowing it could have been prevented — knowing that if we had put our support behind the bill, we would have moved our schools to where they need to go.

Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of work to be done. This is just an indication of the direction that's needed for change.

I know I don't want to live with that, and I can't imagine that other members do either. And teachers, who are the ones who'll be there when it happens, don't want to live with it either. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who inevitably will find themselves unprepared to deal quickly with a life-threatening emergency. You'll think differently, if you do that non-partisanly, about school policy on anaphylaxis.

We're asking the House today to listen to the appeals of these families, as the minister said she's doing when introducing appeal processes, discipline registries and model schools. She's listening to what parents want. Well, parents want this change, and this House has the chance to do just that and to be praised as a result of doing that. It's just like the booster seat example, which has played very well with the public — not leaving it as voluntary action on the parts of parents or teachers in schools, but making it compulsory because we know that will save lives.

A week after I introduced this bill to the House, young Carley Kohnen of Victoria died in a direct parallel of the events that claimed Sabrina Shannon's life. This city was shaken into uneasy awareness by the tragic finality of her innocent acts. Like Sabrina, she asked about the food before eating it. But she was inadvertently given inaccurate information. Shortly afterwards a fatal reaction set in, and like Sabrina's, her EpiPen sat in her locker at school unused and unavailable. Those around her were baffled by what happened and today must live with the terrible memory.

Here in Victoria we can put ourselves in the shoes of this young woman whose life was stolen from her at 13 — the same age as Sabrina — who needed the help of the entire community in order to avoid untimely death. I believe we can honour young Carley's life by passing the bill that's before this House. We can make a non-partisan gesture that will speak to parents everywhere and improve safety at our schools.

Why not let it be non-partisan just this once and do the right thing? Do the thing that people want us to do and pass this bill into law. Let's actually breathe some real life into that slogan and actually act now for our kids' sake, for their safety at our schools.

J. McIntyre: I would like to respond to Bill M210, the Anaphylactic Student Protection Act. Let me start by acknowledging the member for Saanich South's efforts in working hard to develop this bill and to build support for it. I think his efforts have no doubt created heightened awareness, which is very important, and also probably accelerated the efforts to deal with this very important issue.

I think there's no doubt that some form of action is required. The time has come. From my perspective, I think the key question is: what is the ideal route to ensure our children's safety and to minimize the risks?

It's clear from some of the public reaction and from the feedback that, unfortunately, the policies and the actions to date don't appear to be consistent from school to school, much less across districts. This is despite a number of efforts, things like distribution of the anaphylaxis handbook for school boards.

I understand the importance of schools needing to acknowledge the situation, to prepare for emergencies and to train staff to administer EpiPens when required. I agree that education and training are absolutely vital to success in minimizing the risks to our school children and to avoid tragedy.

I myself had several serious asthmatic attacks a number of years ago. I suffer every spring from hay fever. I've also experienced living with a child with allergies. My son, now a tall, red-headed — and I have to say handsome, even if I say so myself — 21-year-old, started early in life allergic to milk. I had to get him on soy formula. Then he went on to develop allergies to eggs and fish, nuts, MSG, etc. So I know.

It's very scary when you're first introducing new food items and you experience an allergic reaction. You think: how severe is this? What's next? How will I protect my own child?

Our family, in this case, was very fortunate. Despite all of the inconveniences and ill side effects that his situation created, it was not life-threatening. But you're in that situation, and you never know. Just this alone gives me a slight inkling of what parents of anaphylactic children feel like and what they must have to cope with on a day-to-day basis, as the member before me elaborated on.

I've heard from a few constituents on this issue — one in particular who has detailed her situation as the mother of an anaphylactic youngster at preschool who is severely allergic to eggs. Unfortunately, the policy at the school is apparently not followed consistently amongst staff, despite her very best efforts at educating staff and advocating for better awareness and procedures. So I've heard firsthand about the anxiety of parents and how involved and on guard they must be virtually 24 hours a day. I'm most sympathetic.

It leads us to inquire about what actions are underway now and what are the next best steps to take. I should remind you that it is school districts that are responsible for setting student safety policies and guidelines for managing the risks associated with anaphylaxis. Parents, students and schools should already be working to make sure that a safety plan is in place for those with any known health emergencies, including anaphylaxis.

The vast majority do have policies in place. As mentioned earlier, there's a handbook that has been distributed to all school boards, along with guidelines that have been developed by the Allergy/Asthma Information Association. Granted, it doesn't seem to be enough. It doesn't seem to be sufficient today, and that's really the nub of the issue. Where do we go from here?

Let me reassure you — all listening today and all in this House — that the Ministry of Education takes this issue very seriously. It has established an anaphylaxis advisory committee to review the current practices and explore mechanisms to ensure a consistent approach across all districts and schools within the district.

This committee is comprised of a wide variety of education partners. Let me name them. On the committee will be individual parents; parent advisory council reps; medical health officers; ministry officials; health authority officials; reps from associations such as the B.C. Medical Association, the Allergy/Asthma Information Association, Anaphylaxis Canada; and all the related education partners such as the B.C. school superintendents, the school trustees, the principals and vice- principals and of course the B.C. Teachers Federation.

In fact, I understand that the minister has invited Sabrina Shannon's mother Sara, whom she's already met with, to provide valuable input to this committee on her experience in Ontario.

The committee is meeting days from now and all through the summer to plot the appropriate course of action. It will be seeking expert advice on managing the risks and exploring best practices. I know from the parent that I've been speaking to in particular that there is a great deal of research and existing work already done on developing the appropriate measures — such as allergy-aware policies, including communications to parents and ideas for things like free food celebrations — that can actually work once in place.

Once we have a commitment at the school level to properly deal with this issue, I'm confident that we don't have to reinvent the wheel. The minister has said that we're not ruling out legislation. However, I'd like to point out that it's not always the best answer. Prescriptive legislation, by definition, will not necessarily keep our students safe. Simply passing a law doesn't guarantee compliance or enforcement, particularly when we are looking at things like increasing awareness and establishing consistency right across the board.

I'd like to reassure those listening to this debate today that this government is committed to having a provincial framework in place by this September at the start of school to support all schools across the province in ensuring that they have the best possible safety practices. The key point — whatever mechanisms school boards have in place — is that they are applied consistently and, most importantly, are workable in individual school settings. We need to be effective, and we need in these next few months to develop the best practices based on the expertise.

In closing, again I'd like to thank the member for Saanich South for his work on this bill and for drawing all of our attention to this life-threatening situation we find ourselves in. I look forward to the ministry committee's recommendations and to seeing a firm policy, at a minimum, in place by September of this year.

We need to act, and I have confidence in the process in place when we have experts and those dealing firsthand on the ground with the situations advising us on how best to go forward in the immediate future.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place today to talk about the Anaphylactic Student Protection Act, 2007. This is a piece of legislation that I support very strongly. What I want to talk about today in the few minutes that I have, though…. It isn't to go into the details of anaphylaxis and the impacts. My friend the member for Saanich South outlined that very well.

I do know, as we all know, that anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can sometimes be fatal and has proven to be fatal in cases, including very recently here in the Victoria area. I know that I learned about this issue. I'd always been aware of it, but I learned about it very much from a constituent of mine, Pam Lee, whose son is anaphylactic. It really heightened my awareness, and it has made this certainly an issue of importance to me.

Having seen what's happened around the introduction of this bill and what we've heard from people not just across the province but across the country, who have contacted us and spoken to us about the importance of this legislation…. This is a very critical piece of legislation for us to consider.

We know that the bill that my colleague from Saanich South has introduced is based on Sabrina's Law in Ontario. Certainly, there was significant debate in Ontario around this matter. From what I'm told by the many people who have spoken to me, it's a law that really provides the framework that we're looking for in terms of finding the kinds of supports that we can offer in a legislative way to deal with the questions around anaphylaxis.

It's a bill that I think is important because it's inclusive; it's not exclusive. It doesn't talk about banning products. It talks about education, public awareness and the importance of having consistency in terms of strategies and programs in our schools for dealing with these circumstances, should they arise. It helps to prepare our teachers, administrators, parents and kids to deal with this in the most effective way possible when these circumstances arise.

Does it ensure that they won't happen? Of course not, but it does say that we'll be as well prepared as we can be, hopefully, to deal with an anaphylactic reaction, should it occur in the school, to ensure that the result of it isn't tragic in any more instances.

We've heard about the supporters — parents, children, physicians, educators and the broad community interest. All of these bodies are telling us that we need the solution. They're all telling us that legislation is the solution we're looking for. The reason, I believe, that we're talking about legislation here versus regulation, which is one of the options…. I know it's an option that the minister has said this advisory committee will consider along with legislation and other things, presumably.

But what legislation does is ensure that there is a standard to comply with. The previous member, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi, talked about those issues a little bit. What we need is to have the standards in place and developed that we can expect compliance with. Legislation will set that standard so that, in fact, it will have a consistent structure across districts and across schools.

I think it also ensures, if we do this, that the materials and the procedures that are developed will ensure the highest standard. I believe the highest standard gets developed in a consistent way if we set the standard here with a legislative response.

I would hope that we will have legislation because I think legislation is the way to set that standard. I do believe that parents, educators, physicians are all telling us the same thing: a legislative response is what's required here, and it's what I hope we would see.

This bill was introduced by the opposition. I understand the political challenges around private members' bills from the opposition being adopted by government, and I accept that. I think this one — and there's lots to be partisan about in this House, and we all do it every day — is not a partisan issue. I absolutely know that every member on the government side of this House shares the concerns that we do around this issue and wants to find a solution that works for kids and families and does the best thing it could do in the schools. I understand that, and I believe that wholeheartedly.

This is not a partisan issue. I know I would be happy, and I'm sure that my friend from Saanich South would be happy, if the government decided to tear the cover off this bill today, make it a government bill and introduce it tomorrow, and we would have it passed by the end of the week. We would do that. I'm sure of that. It would be a government bill, and we'd all be happy with that because the result would be the result that we're all looking for.

I do believe that we all share the same objective in this House: to find a solution that works, that's inclusive and not exclusive, a solution that provides consistency across the province and a solution that will ensure that we hopefully never have to have another experience as we experienced here in Victoria recently and have experienced previously.

So I would encourage the government to make the decision to adopt this legislation now or to embrace it, make it a government bill and bring it back into the House tomorrow. I'm sure we could do what it takes to move and adopt this bill very, very quickly and have it passed before the end of this session at the end of the week.

R. Cantelon: There's very little that I or anyone else can disagree with. It's been said on either side of this House, with respect to the importance and urgency of this matter, that anaphylactic reactions of course can be fatal and have been fatal. I think every member on both sides of this House shares a very deep concern and appreciates the fact that the members opposite have raised this so publicly as an issue and raised public awareness to this great concern.

Certainly, public awareness is a very important thing, not only within the school system but outside, because public awareness is really the large lever that will help make the policies and enforcement regulations

There's no question of the importance or the urgency and the need to establish regulations to deal with anaphylactic reactions in a very consistent manner throughout the school district, throughout every school within every school district. That of course is what my colleague from across the aisle has mentioned, that we need to put in place measures that will ensure that policies and procedures are consistent throughout the school system so that no child should be at risk to anaphylactic reactions wherever they are in the province.

I too share minor allergies, but they're trivial compared to those who suffer very severe anaphylactic reactions. My son went from grade 1 through to grade 6 with a child who had severe allergies to peanut butter, one of the more common ones. Every teacher from grade 1 through to grade 6 understood the problem, and every student in every classroom that my son attended understood that even the merest hand-to-hand contact or transfer of peanut oil could cause a fatal reaction in this particular child. Everyone was consistently aware.

It presented challenges to every parent, of course, to substitute that common and valuable protein that is so common in children's lunches — peanut butter — but we managed. We didn't complain, and it was a very useful exercise in balanced dieting for us as well.

I would have hated to see any of those teachers, who so conscientiously took care in this situation, and the principal and school administration, be held liable for what might be considered a gross negligence. Of course, in this case there was no negligence. There was no incidence. I don't believe that the negative type of approach — to hold people personally liable, whether it be a teacher, a principal or an administrator — for what might be construed as gross neglect…. It could only be gross neglect because the act certainly precludes that any innocent omission or any innocent neglect or default could not be held liable.

That's where I differ from the opposition's presentation of this bill. I think it's everybody's duty. In fact, it already is the duty of every school administrator, every teacher and everybody involved in the school district to manage procedures and policies that take into account and ensure that the care and control of the students in their care is done in a way that protects and maintains their good health and protects them from harm. It is already their duty.

I appreciate that this bill has had great effect. I think this discussion is very positive, publicly and within these walls, in promoting the urgency of these concerns. They certainly are very urgent concerns.

I wholly agree with the content and the body of the procedures that are laid out in this bill. I don't think there's any fault that could be found with any of these things that are laid out as far as administrating policies go. Indeed, the Minister of Education has indicated that they are important procedures. It is important to have consistent regulation and training throughout the province and throughout the school system.

Steps have already been taken. In 2006 the Ministry of Education distributed Anaphylaxis: A Handbook for School Boards. I think that's an important step, but as both sides of this House have indicated, more strict, broad-based regulations need to be put into place to make sure that there's an emergency plan for every student who has an anaphylactic risk and for every school, teacher and school district. It must be in place throughout the province.

Again, the minister is moving forward with the anaphylaxis advisory committee, which includes the Minister of Health, provincial health officer, medical health officers, the Ministry of Health B.C. nutritionist's office, B.C. health authorities, B.C. Medical Association, the Allergy/Asthma Information Association, Anaphylaxis Canada and B.C. educational partners, including the superintendents association, the trustees association, B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, B.C. Teachers Federation, B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils and individual parents.

It's a very broad-based committee to ensure that they can anticipate every type of situation where an anaphylactic child might be at risk and how to deal with that.

As the speakers have indicated, there's a wide range of different types of anaphylactic reactions. I'm familiar, as I mentioned earlier, with the peanut butter one. But as the member opposite indicated, there can be subtle ones, where a spoon inadvertently was used that had been exposed to milk solids that caused the anaphylactic reaction. I would stress, emphasize and agree that we cannot afford to be too careful. It must be very broad-based, and it must be very effective legislation.

I support the intent of the bill, but I would say that I think that the Minister of Education will be coming forward with policies that need to be no less than completely airtight. They need to make sure that everyone is aware. A very strong educational component is required to make sure that policies and regulations are enforced right across the school, every school district, every school, every teacher so that there are consistent regulations in place right across the province to ensure that no child should be at risk because of an anaphylactic condition.

C. Wyse: Like other previous speakers, I do wish to acknowledge what everybody here in the House has acknowledged — that is, the need for action be taking place upon this issue of anaphylaxis and how it affects the student population.

What I would encourage this House to do is to pass a bill that actually deals with the issue — not study the issue further. We do know already that situations develop, albeit inadvertently, that put the life of a child at risk. What the bill does is deal with the situation once the child is experiencing the result of the risk. That doesn't require study. It doesn't require further work to be done on it. Those things we already know.

What we require is a situation that deals with the emergency once it has occurred. We do not require

further incidents in the schools here in British Columbia. We reduce the chance of that occurring by removing the situation where it is left up to individual boards to set something in place.

Policies and regulations have been there. It has been studied. The situation that faces us is an exposure to a risk that affects 1 percent to 2 percent of the population. That risk is serious enough for some of these individuals that death will occur without treatment.

We have a template that allows this Legislature to move with an effective piece of legislation. We should not, in my judgment, be arguing over who receives credit for bringing forward a necessary piece of legislation. The responsibility of the House is, in actual fact, to provide that direction where it is needed.

As has been suggested, if the politics require this to be changed, change it. Bring it back. Let's put it in place. That provides the protection once the emergency has occurred. Can we have assurances that that is going to reduce and remove someone's life being lost? Of course not. But having it in place — having schools understand who the individual is that is high at risk and where the treatment material is, and removing any other impediments that would interfere with treatment being provided — is what this bill does. That is what requires support.

Therefore, I ask this House to set aside politics, to set aside studying and to put this bill in place.

M. Polak: Schools are complicated places. They're very complicated places for teachers these days in 2007. On any day of the week a classroom teacher can be asked to deal with literally hundreds of issues related to students — their individual needs, health, safety, social issues — all of which he or she would never have had to deal with 20 or 30 years ago. Schools have become very complicated places, and we have really high expectations of classroom teachers and of school communities.

Despite the fact that they are complicated places, they shouldn't be frightening places for children. They shouldn't be frightening places for their parents. That's one of the reasons that when we talk about issues such as anaphylaxis, we do find that there is a non-partisan will to take action.

I think it's natural, when we're dealing with a response to a child death, that our reaction brings us to the highest level of action that we can take in this House, which is legislation. It's a natural reaction. But if our interest is in ensuring that we provide the safest possible place for a student in a classroom, school or cafeteria and if our interest is in ensuring that we really change a culture that right now has many people saying, "You know, it's not my responsibility. Kids should look after themselves," and "The parents should know better," and "I don't have to do anything," we have to be discussing what's going to work.

As a former school trustee for just about ten years I've seen lots of initiatives that were very valuable and that people were really on board with falling by the wayside because the action taken wasn't quite the most effective to achieve the desired outcomes. We've had examples of it ourselves with legislation.

Certainly, we can all recall the many debates we've had about concerns around how districts have managed class size. There was legislation that was put in place. It was firm, and it said you had to do this and that. It laid it out very specifically, and yet as we came to review those things and discuss what was happening out there, what did we find?

We found that in spite of the legislation, which had some pretty severe consequences for school districts if they didn't follow what was in the School Act…. In spite of that, we still had a number of school districts that either weren't in compliance or didn't know whether they were in compliance and couldn't provide the information if we asked them.

On the other hand, we have a lot of examples in our school system of situations that are equally serious and yet have been most successfully handled outside of legislation. One of the best examples of that is some of the award-winning approaches that districts have taken to critical incident response protocols around the province.

Many districts have gotten on board because of the work of individuals who brought this from the ground up — people who had an interest; people who had an expertise; the right folks around the table developing what they knew would work in schools, in boards, in classrooms. It has resulted in a situation where we have a very firm hand on what should happen in the event of a critical incident.

It's difficult to talk about not engaging in legislation and not be misunderstood as saying that it's not important. But clearly, when we're willing to deal with issues such as critical incident response outside of legislation, then it's obvious that we're not talking about the level of importance that something like anaphylaxis should have for us.

It isn't an issue of its importance. It's absolutely important. It's critical. It's an issue of what the best way is to go about this.

The member opposite gave a few examples of some tragic circumstances that befell some young students and that resulted in their deaths. As I listened, though, I noted a couple of things. In both of the incidents that I heard him describe, there was a plan in place that wasn't followed. You can have all sorts of plans in place. You can have all sorts of rules that people are supposed to follow. But if we haven't yet achieved that cultural shift that's going to make people feel responsible and feel that it's their job, you won't necessarily change the behaviour.

At the end of the day, the member opposite is correct in that this is going to involve the combined work of school principals, of teachers, of a broader school community. Legislation in and of itself is not going to teach a teacher about an EpiPen. Legislation in and of itself is not going to educate the parents in that school community as to how important it is that they're careful

with what foods they put in their own child's lunch. Legislation in and of itself isn't necessarily going to change the overall attitudes that continue to pose a danger for students around this province.

We also know that one of the benefits of putting together a committee, a task force or any of a number of community outreach activities that we engage in as policy-makers is that we learn from the people directly involved what will work. I know that's what we're all interested in here today.

I know that the ministry has been working since at least January on developing a direction to go with this. I know that school districts have been working on this issue for many years.

As we come forward to a commitment to make some changes and take some action in September of this year for the coming school year, I really believe from my experience that our best chance of coming out with a successful plan — which may or may not involve legislation — for students is to involve those key people who are on that anaphylaxis advisory committee. They can tell us the kinds of activities we need to engage in and put forward to ensure that we're beginning that cultural shift, that attitude change that is ultimately the only thing that is going to move us forward as we seek to protect all children who are entering our schools every day.

In closing, I value the fact that we do have these common goals and these common desires to see our students safe. I think that's important. It will lend itself to a successful resolution come the fall when we have a plan to put forward. I'm hopeful that we will never again have to face the tragic death of a young person in one of our schools as a result of this.

L. Krog: As I've listened to the debate this morning, I've begun to wonder if we're all talking about the same topic. Nothing sums this up better than simply reading into the record the explanatory note for the bill:

Hon. Speaker, I have watched the government members this morning dance around this issue. If they had brought in this bill, if the government had brought in this bill, you wouldn't find the opposition doing this semantic dance around this issue today. You would have found the opposition standing up and saying very simply and in a straightforward way: "This is good public policy, and why aren't you on board?"

It's astonishing to me when we are talking about the safety and lives of children in this chamber that we have the government talking about plans and talking about doing this and putting it off and a committee to study it.

I am a parent, and maybe there are members in this chamber who don't enjoy that luck, that privilege, that honour. But I can tell you, speaking as a parent, that the most horrible thought that passes the mind of any parent in British Columbia is that their child might predecease them. That is the worst thought that any parent ever thinks.

To listen this morning to this debate when this perfectly sensible bill is before the people in this chamber, when we have an opportunity to demonstrate true non-partisanship, when we have an opportunity to demonstrate to British Columbians that we're actually listening, that we're doing something useful in this place…. All I hear from the government benches is delay, obfuscation, "We'll deal with it. Policy may not work. It may not be enforced" — excuse after excuse after excuse. What an incredible, ridiculous dance.

It's very simple. This is good legislation. The government members should be ashamed of themselves. They should be supporting it as all the members on this side of the House will support it. It's a shame we have to go through this dance here today.

If the government had any leadership ability, they'd stand up today, admit they've been mistaken in trying to waste our time here this morning and simply say: "We'll support it. Let's get on with it and protect the vulnerable children in British Columbia."

R. Hawes: I'd like to start by thanking the member for Saanich South for bringing this forward and, as others have said, for bringing this up very high on the radar screen. I'm not going to stoop to the kind of level that the member for Nanaimo just did, because I don't think this is a partisan issue at all, and I don't think that it's a thing about leadership on one side of the Legislature or the other. I have real concerns about the inconsistent way that policy is being applied today, and obviously, the members opposite do as well.

One of the problems that I have with this bill as it sits…. It says: "Every board must establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy." If you leave it up to the individual boards, we're going to have, potentially, a different policy in each different school district. If we already have inconsistencies, it seems to me there is a distinct possibility that the implementation of this bill could just be a continuation of that inconsistent policy.

I know that the ministry is looking today and is planning to bring forward something in September, whether it be legislation or policy, that will create something that is consistent. I think that's a really important thing. I think that whether your child goes to school in Surrey or Dawson Creek or Kamloops, you should have the same assurance that the policies are going to protect your child. I'm not so sure that under this piece of legislation, well-meaning though it is, that assurance can actually be delivered.

I would rather see us bring forward a policy that looks at how to create that consistency, how to make sure that across this province we have in place something that is going to protect our kids regardless of where

they're going to school. I'm not at all convinced that this piece of legislation does that. I am confident, though, that for September there will be something that comes forward that is going to protect our kids.

Noting the hour — I know we have others that do want to speak, Mr. Speaker — I just want to leave it there then. While I'm very supportive of the intent of this legislation, I can't support the legislation today as it sits. I want to see the results come forward in September, and this is the end of the school year, as we speak.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased and saddened at the same time — pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak; saddened that I only have nanoseconds to do it.

I want to commend the member for Saanich South for bringing forward this legislation. I want to highlight that, as he said on a number of occasions in his introduction this morning, seconds count. If seconds count, why would we wait until September to take action when we can take action today? Why would we wait a minute longer, ten seconds longer, a second longer to protect children in our schools — not in one school, not in one district, but right across the province?

I had the honour to speak this morning with Mike Shannon, the father of Sabrina, who lives in my constituency. I'm pleased to have the moments that I do have to speak on his behalf, as a parent who's lost a child — the most horrific consequence that any of us can imagine. All Mike wanted me to say today is: "Let's take care of our kids in our schools."

How do we do that? Everyone should have the same responsibilities so that everyone can have the same peace of mind.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.