2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, September 21, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 2, Number 8

[ Page 543 ]

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2009

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Petitions

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to present a petition from a number of constituents of mine with regard to the interest-free loan program for leaky condos.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Coell: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

We Can't Cope with Dirty Air

D. Horne: The protection of our environment is something this government sees as a top priority and a driving principle behind our policies and vision of the future. The protection of our environment is also of great importance to the people of British Columbia. In fact, this government widely recognizes the leadership and vision on environmental issues, and it's one of the reasons why the people of British Columbia put their trust in us once again to lead their province.

[1005]

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

In the throne speech delivered at the beginning of this legislative session, the government showed our continued commitment to protecting the environment with the announcement that the Burrard Thermal generating plant will be phased out. Once British Columbia brings on firm energy which can be relied upon 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, Burrard Thermal will only be used for the generation of electricity in emergency circumstances and as a facility for electric storage.

As someone who lives and is raising a family near this dirty facility, I want to say that I welcome this decision with great enthusiasm, as do my neighbours and my community. I'd like to give some background so that everyone understands why.

Burrard Thermal, on the end of Burrard Inlet in the Tri-Cities, has for decades been a major source of greenhouse gases. The most recent figures I could find were from 2007, in which Burrard Thermal reported emissions of 67,267.91 tonnes of CO2.

That's a pretty impressive-sounding number. It's a bit abstract for most people, so let me put it into concrete terms for my fellow members. The CO2 that Burrard Thermal spewed into the air that year was equivalent to 2,800 cars idling for the same period. This is despite the fact that for years there have been upgrades to the facility which came into service in 1962. However, despite some $200 million in upgrades, Burrard Thermal still produces a great deal of pollution. On the days it runs, it still produces a lot of dirty air.

While Burrard Thermal is running at full capacity, back when the opposition was last in power, this facility produced 7 percent of B.C.'s total greenhouse gases and was one of the largest sources of pollution in Metro Vancouver. Even when this facility's electrical output was at an all-time low in 2006, it was still the fourth-largest source of greenhouse gases in the Metro area.

On top of its serious environmental impact, Burrard Thermal is, very simply put, a health hazard. This is something the opposition Energy critic himself acknowledged on the Christy Clark Show on August 31. He said, "If you've got kids with asthma in the Fraser Valley, the last thing that you want to hear is that Burrard Thermal is going to be operating at any time," and I absolutely agree.

I also agree with this comment by David Suzuki: "The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 77 percent of particulates from natural gas plants are dangerously small. These fine particulates have a great impact on human health" because they bypass the body's "natural respiratory filters and end up deep in the lungs. In fact, many studies have found no safe limit for exposure to these substances."

These environmental and health reasons are why our government has announced that we must stop looking to these dated, dirty solutions to fulfil our energy needs. There are alternatives, and we must look to them for our future needs.

There are many clean air projects possible throughout our province. For example, a group in Belcarra is currently studying the possibility of catching the energy generated by the overflow tubes at Buntzen Lake in the Tri-Cities, a project that could power up to 18,000 homes with minimal environmental impact.

The difficulty is to complete the feasibility studies, to complete the environmental assessments. To ensure that these projects are possible and sustainable requires investment risk. Our government applauds the dedication and commitment of private companies willing to take that risk, companies willing to move British Columbia forward towards clean, green, energy self-sufficiency. If we care about our environment, we need to ensure that we are dedicated to moving to solutions that can truly make a difference.

Closing Burrard Thermal and eliminating tens of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases per year polluting greater Vancouver should be a no-brainer. However, it is interesting to note that the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 is critical of
[ Page 544 ]
this commitment. COPE issued a press release in which their acting president, David Black, said: "The two things that Burrard Thermal accomplishes that the government and their private-power friends can't simply abide are simple: it keeps rates low and guarantees security of supply."

Well, this is absolutely ideological bunk. It raises an important question, however. When it comes right down to it, will the opposition support this government's environmentally sound decision to phase out Burrard Thermal, a decision that will benefit the health of the residents in the Tri-Cities and beyond, or will they side with their union friends? Our position is clear. We can't cope with dirty air.

[1010]

R. Fleming: It's a pleasure to respond to the member this morning on the issue of air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction. In B.C. obviously, air quality is critically linked to matters of human health, whether it's a systemwide goal of improving human health by reducing disease or reducing what residents of the Lower Mainland have to endure on almost a weekly basis — and certainly this summer on a very regular basis: health warnings directed to the elderly and to children in our community from airshed poor-quality issues.

Long-term health issues around persistent organic pollutants that get into our bodies through the air that we breathe are something that becomes a disease-management issue for our health care system that is very, very expensive to treat and that impacts human health in ways that are almost unimaginable.

We have not had from this government, over eight years, an ambitious legislative agenda on air quality. That is despite the fact that in 2000 the Ministers of Environment in Canada came up with an agreement on Canada-wide standards for particulate matter and for air quality in our province. It begged a response from the government. It begged programs that would improve air quality, and yet none of that has happened in the subsequent years that that agreement was signed by all the provinces and territories.

In fact, it wasn't until April 2009, not very long ago indeed, that this government actually introduced particulate matter targets around ambient air quality and criteria for that. That was not legislation, either. These are voluntary targets. These are just guidelines for industry and for municipal government and the regional districts. They are non-statutory. So this government has a lot of work left to do on this issue. They've been very slow off the mark to getting started.

I suppose the good news in this is that as we strive to improve air quality, we are also, by and large, making the same efforts that we must make in this jurisdiction and elsewhere to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So improving and trying to save the atmosphere from the ravages of climate change is very much linked to efforts we can take to improve the air we breathe on a daily basis, reducing smog. But again, this government has failed to bring in ambitious programs that will achieve that.

We have targets now in legislation around greenhouse gases. That's a first step. But what's important, what's most important, are the action items that are going to get us there, and currently we have not seen the curve turn on greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, over the summer the very modest programs we had that were designed to influence, in some very modest way, consumer behaviour to make investments in households — energy efficiency investments, for example….

The LiveSmart program is something I'm referencing. Those initiatives, which were talked about ad nauseam by this government as some kind of indication that it has a support and an interest in prioritization of the environment, were unceremoniously dumped and scrapped. People found out on July 24 that rebates they could apply for, for high-energy-efficiency furnaces or high-efficiency windows, Build Green building products — all of those things where PST was exempted, for example, where rebates and energy audits for the homes could be attained — are gone.

You know what the grand sum total of that effort was that lasted about a year in terms of the attention span of this government? Some 11,000 households completed the audit cycle and applied for rebates. We've got over 2.3 million households in this province, and that was the signal to dump the program? I haven't even had the time to calculate in percentage terms how insignificant that is.

But you would think that in a recession, instead of having a minister of state for climate change saying that it's the wrong time to make efforts to improve the environment, they would say that it is exactly the right time, that it is the time to build the green economy of tomorrow, that it is time to sustain what is germinating right now — a green jobs sector that installs things like PV solar panels and energy-efficient installations in houses and that is changing and working with a green building code. All of those things require incentives, but they chose that as the time to end these programs.

I thank you for the time to respond this morning, Madam Speaker.

D. Horne: I'd like to reiterate, obviously, our government's firm commitment for the environment.

[1015]

The member opposite spoke about the fact that we have no plan. Well, we do have a plan when it comes to generating electricity in this province. The opposition continues to be opposed to that plan and continues to say on every occasion they can that they must have a moratorium on it, they must have…. I'll quote the Leader of the Opposition from October 2008: "Yes, we'd
[ Page 545 ]
put a moratorium." The member who at that point was responsible for it and Energy critic for the opposition said again and reiterated that he would definitely impose a moratorium on the IPP projects.

The difficulty with this is that this stance makes certain that we continue to operate Burrard Thermal, that we continue to generate huge amounts of CO2, that we continue to pollute our environment, and it's just unacceptable. Our IPP program and the wonderful companies supporting them are delivering wind power, are delivering geothermal power, are delivering solar power, as well as run of the river. Each of these is an environmentally friendly source. So to say that this government has no plan or is not committed to the environment is simply ridiculous.

The other issue, on the LiveSmart program. This government put that program into place, and that program was a huge success. That program basically met its target in the first year, and that's why, obviously, given the economic condition that we currently face, we weren't in a position to expand the program. But the program ran its course. It was hugely successful. Many, many homes and many, many households in British Columbia participated. Many went through the environmental audit, and obviously it will have a huge impact as time goes on. But to say that it was simply cut is wrong. It's just simply wrong.

The program and protecting our environment are something that you can't sort of pick and choose which things are good and which things are bad. Burrard Thermal produces significant CO2 emissions into greater Vancouver, and this opposition continues to show that they are opposed to shutting it down. While they support their union friends and make certain that we continue to have very poor air quality in the Tri-Cities region and in Vancouver, it's simply just wrong, and it's simply something that this government will not allow.

DIGNITY

S. Fraser: Any civilized society must provide adequate health services through the continuum of life, from beginning of life to end of life, from birth to death, and for many British Columbians, end-of-life care is provided through hospice. Hospice is synonymous with quality end-of-life care. In short, many British Columbians and their families are allowed dignity in their last days not because of the Health Ministry, not because of the health authorities, but through the non-profits known as our hospice societies across the province.

I am proud to stand with our hospice societies as an advocate for what they do and the priceless help that they bring and provide for those who are dying, their families, their friends and their caregivers. And I stand here today to ruffle some feathers and blow the whistle on what I believe is a betrayal, a betrayal by this government, when it comes to underfunding the hospice societies of British Columbia.

There are three societies in my constituency, Alberni–Pacific Rim. The Oceanside Hospice Society in Parksville-Qualicum faces a huge challenge providing end-of-life care with a large and growing seniors population, with the request of services growing at 10 percent per year.

Pacific Rim Hospice, with so many unique challenges providing end-of-life care for the people of Tofino and Ucluelet and all the Nuu-chah-nulth communities in the region, as well as covering for gaps in the system like nursing staffing and covering for the absence of any intermediate or long-term care beds on the west coast….

Then there is Ty Watson House. I fought hard alongside volunteers in Port Alberni to finally get Ty Watson House open. VIHA, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and this government gave the runaround to the people of Port Alberni for years, and way too many of my constituents were denied quality end-of-life care, were denied dignity.

[1020]

Well, the doors are open on Ty Watson House, and the work they do is amazing, with dozens of people receiving quality end-of-life care. VIHA's preferred alternative seemed to be acute care beds in the West Coast General, costing ten times as much as a hospice bed.

Acute care in our hospitals is no place to die in dignity. Acute care is for those recovering, not for those dying. Even VIHA had to admit that for all those years of fighting, the people of Port Alberni were right. This is from the Vancouver Island Health Authority. After the first years of the beds being opened, a letter of congratulations was sent to the executive vice-president and chief operating officer from the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

"Clearly, your hard work and dedication in raising the funds and bringing your dream to fruition have had a significant impact on the community. You have managed to successfully deliver high-quality care with generosity and compassion while embracing a holistic approach that encompasses physical, emotional and spiritual concerns. I would like to extend my admiration and congratulations to you on behalf of the Vancouver Island Health Authority."

Well, for all of that, this government has refused to provide basic core funding for hospices. In fact, this government's travesty, known as this budget, has caused panic amongst the volunteers and staff of hospices across this province.

The Liberals threatened to pull or critically reduce the only meagre funding received from gaming revs. The Liberal government has threatened the very existence of many hospices by breaking a social contract and using precious funds designated for our community non-profits to cover their budget deception. Let's look at the folly of this shortsighted and small-minded Liberal decision to reduce or remove funding and not provide essential core funding for our hospice societies.

First, this government's own ministry's 2006 end-of-life framework clearly identifies hospice societies and
[ Page 546 ]
their services as an important component of end-of-life care, and it isn't hard to see why. In 2007 alone the staff and trained volunteers of the ten hospices that form the Vancouver Island federation provided compassionate care and support to a total of 7,500 individuals facing end-of-life issues. Over 1,500 hospice volunteers contributed in excess of 150,000 hours. For you bean-counters over there, this equates to almost $2.5 million of service just from hospice volunteers.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would ask you to be careful in how you address the government benches.

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is $2.5 billion, just for the catchment area of Vancouver Island. If that were extrapolated to include the 70 hospices across the province, that would equate to $9 million in services that should have been provided by the health authorities.

These trained individuals work in homes, in care facilities, in hospitals and through hospice facilities. In the ministry's own 2006 document it states: "It is important to devote adequate and appropriate resources to end-of-life care."

Instead of reading and heeding their own report and providing core funding which is levered into the best bang for the buck compared to anything provided by the ministry, the Liberal government has threatened to reduce or remove the woefully lacking dollars that have always come from direct-access gaming grants. This play certainly explains why and how the Liberal government has messed up this government's finances.

Hospices across the province need core funding. They are a valuable and essential part of our health care continuum. Yet every year hospices are required to re-establish their worthiness — go cap in hand, if you will — to receive gaming moneys, which are now formally being absconded with by this government. This is no way to run our health system.

I want to hear the Liberal members try to explain to this House and to the people of British Columbia why they are ignoring their own recommendations by denying basic core funding for hospice. I want to hear them explain how that makes business sense. Then I want to hear them explain how they could ever consider breaking the social contract, threaten to pull this small amount of gaming funds that hospices do get and, in so doing, justify denying British Columbians the right to die with dignity.

[1025]

J. Les: I am pleased to be able to rise this morning and respond to the member opposite on a topic that is actually of extreme importance to all British Columbians. I think one of the measures in a civilized society is how we care for those who have reached the end of their lives and the care that we provide to them.

I would point out, first of all, that there are many preferences amongst the great variety and diversity of people that we have across the province, and for some, indeed, hospice is the preferred option that they would choose in terms of their care at that point in their lives.

For some people, through a variety of circumstances, acute care in a hospital is what they absolutely need. It's now nine years ago that my own father passed away. He passed away in the acute care section of the Chilliwack General Hospital. My mother cared for him in that unit. You couldn't have driven her out of there with a 2-by-4 if you had tried. She was able to care for him right to the end — in conjunction, of course, with a very caring staff in that hospital.

I think we have to just stop and make mention of the fact that our caregivers in this province, whether they're RNs, LPNs, care aides and the many other people associated…. I have the deepest respect for these people and the care that they provide to our friends, families and relatives as they pass on.

I sometimes think we boil this down to a discussion about statistics and a bunch of political blame-casting, but you know, let's have a bit of a respectful tone here. I think that is appropriate.

In terms of the hospice landscape across the province — if I can refer to it that way — in 2001 there were only 57 publicly funded hospice beds in all of British Columbia. That has now been increased to 275 publicly funded hospice beds. I am sure that there is demand for more, and obviously, that demand will only increase in the future as we have an increasingly aging population. But again, let us keep in mind that this is only one of the care options that people prefer.

Many people, simply because of circumstances, must be cared for in an acute care hospital. Others prefer to die at home. A lady in my community passed away last week — someone who I was well acquainted with. She had fought cancer for quite a number of years but stayed at home right to the very end and passed away at home. Again, for many people, if their care at home is manageable, that is indeed the care option that they prefer.

Just in terms of seniors care generally, of course, we've seen a tremendous increase in terms of the care options, even if it isn't end of life. Many people, as they enter into their 70s, 80s and 90s, need an increasing provision of care services. So we've had a tremendous increase in the assisted-care beds that are now available in the Vancouver Island Health Authority. There were no assisted-living units in 2001, and there are over a thousand of those today.

Residential care beds have increased from just under 5,000 to now over 5,000. Also, support to those who need home support — where they live in supportive housing units or, in many cases, in their own homes.... There's been a very significant increase in the support provided to those elderly people as well.
[ Page 547 ]

I can't say enough about how impressed I am by hospice care providers across the province. I am pleased that we have been able to very significantly increase public funding for hospice care, but again, let us keep in mind that care provided in acute care facilities and also in a variety of other settings are equally as important. There simply is not just the one area that we need to focus on.

[1030]

Unfortunately, there are many people who die every day across the province of British Columbia, and each of those people is entitled to dignity in their final hours.

S. Fraser: I have no qualms discussing this with the member across, and I have no qualms with his statement about the importance of acute care beds in this province and the role they play for end of life. That is not what we're talking about; we're talking about hospice, which provides another alternative form of end-of-life care that is extremely valuable.

As I said earlier, thousands of people on Vancouver Island receive the help of hospices. That is parlayed many times over for the number of people that receive help through hospice — the family members, the friends and the caregivers that are there to the very end for many as they are dying. Those people receive care from hospice.

Acute care beds get funded through the health authorities. That's what is at issue here. This ministry's own report in 2006 acknowledges that hospice is and must be part of the health care continuum and that it must be adequately funded. That is what is at issue here.

The government has not heeded their own report. Not only are they not providing essential core funding for hospice to provide quality end-of-life care for the people of British Columbia that require it; they have threatened the very meagre funding that they receive through gaming grants. That has happened through a budget deception. That is what's at issue here.

People deserve dignity at end of life. Hospice, for many people, provides that dignity. The health authority, the ministry and the government know this. They know the statistics, and they have the report that says they should be funding it — hospice — and they are not.

So my challenge to the member opposite, the members opposite, the minister and the Premier is to pick up their 2006 report on end-of-life care — the framework that was commissioned by the ministry for the ministry — read it, act on it and ensure that hospice is funded adequately to provide quality end-of-life care for the people of British Columbia that require it — the thousands that require it and the thousands more that will be requiring it as the aging population grows.

That is what's at issue. That is the challenge I lay at the feet of this government. It's about dignity.

managing our resources

P. Pimm: I rise today to speak about a topic that's important to me as a northerner, important to all the people of the north and important to our government. As chair of the northern caucus and someone who was born and raised in the north, spent all my life in the north, raised my own family in the north, I'm proud to call the north my home. My own kids are now making their own lives up north. My mother and her friends, which include many senior citizens, all continue to enjoy the northern lifestyle. Many are looking at the north for retirement as well.

We have strong communities, strong values. We take care of each other. When people in our communities are in need, we step in and help. When people have issues that need to be addressed, we've got a provincial government that listens, cares and responds.

We have a different way of life in the north, with our own set of challenges that sometimes require the special attention of Victoria. I'm pleased to report that the government, the northern caucus is working to keep our region's issues in the forefront and to ensure northern and rural affairs remain a top priority for B.C. and the Liberal government.

On economic issues we've never had a government more in tune with the north and all of its potential than the one we have in this B.C. Liberal government and our Premier. Our government has carefully managed our natural resources to create and maintain jobs, to keep our communities thriving. We know how important it is to keep the province as competitive as possible for industry and business so that we can afford the comforts that come along with a striving industrial sector.

[1035]

By keeping our resource sector strong, it allows us to advance other issues that are near and dear to the people of the north, and that is our health care. The members opposite appear to cherish a health care system in disarray. They often try to convince us that health care is in crisis, and I couldn't disagree more. I see a state-of-the-art, accessible health care system that's the envy of the entire world. Certainly there are challenges, but we're meeting those challenges. We are being responsible with our budget so that we can concentrate our government spending in areas that are most important to all of us, and that includes health care.

Madam Speaker, let me be specific about the state of health care resources in northern B.C. One of my first duties as a newly elected MLA was to preside over the groundbreaking of a brand-new Fort St. John hospital and residential care project. This new hospital and residential care project marks the first hospital replacement of this size in the north. It will be a crucial component of the future care available to northern residents in northeastern B.C., and it replaces a facility built in 1962.
[ Page 548 ]

The new Fort St. John hospital and residential care project is being constructed on a 40-acre parcel of land donated by the city of Fort St. John, and it will include a 55-bed acute care hospital and a 123-bed residential care facility, along with an integrated services centre for food, laundry and material services. These are the kind of partnerships that keep our communities strong.

The new hospital will also include academic space for the northern medical program, a partnership program between the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia and the University of Northern British Columbia. The NMP was established in 2004 to address the shortage of doctors practising in northern B.C. communities.

The 54,000-square-foot residential care development will replace the aging North Peace Care Centre in Fort St. John and will add new residential care for our area, again, a perfect example of our government's eight-year practice of being responsible with our tax dollars so that we can secure the funds to finance these amazing additions to the northern health resources.

It's very exciting to be moving forward on this project. The new hospital will increase the number of acute care beds to 55 from 44 at the current facility. Fort St. John is growing rapidly, and these additional beds are needed to help accommodate the community's future health care needs. If my mother ever requires care, I want her to be in the same community as I am, and that consideration is what the government is delivering to northern B.C.

In addition, the emergency department of the new hospital will be about 2½ times larger than the ER at the existing hospital, to allow for an enhanced short stay for patients requiring less than a 24-hour visit. The balance of this space addresses all the necessary functions a current ER has while reflecting a newer, more updated patient-flow approach.

The project has been one of Northern Health's top priorities, and people in my neck of the woods are extremely pleased to see the funding secured and shovels hitting the ground. As I speak, the work and all the local construction jobs that are part of it is currently taking place up north. The project is a public-private partnership between Northern Health and ISL Health. This project will benefit our local community and will provide a positive working environment for staff and volunteers alike.

The northeast B.C. is a beautiful, welcoming place. This new hospital and residential care facility will become a model of excellence in rural health care. The total project cost is $297 million, and the fixed-price contract makes certain that ISL Health assumes all construction, design, long-term maintenance and operational risks as well as other costs related to the project. That is responsible and careful management of health resources.

This health care project marks an important stride towards improving our local economy through the creation of much-needed construction jobs and the purchase of local supplies and materials. The new Fort St. John hospital and residential care project is a cornerstone of the province's commitment to revitalize health care services in the north.

[1040]

Fort St. John hospital and residential care project is part of an overall three-year $14 billion capital infrastructure program, which includes $2.5 billion for capital spending in the health sector supported by the province and will create up to 88,000 jobs and help build vital public infrastructure in every region of B.C. That makes us all proud to be part of this government, part of the government that represents the north.

B. Simpson: I rise to respond to this. It was billed as a discussion on natural resources, and it seems to be a kind of "We have one project for the north" speech. To the member, one project does not qualify this government for having a northern strategy. The northeast part of the province has economic development because of oil and gas and because of the heavy subsidies that this government has done for oil and gas in this province, despite the fact that it supposedly has a climate change initiative as well.

The oil and gas subsidies I'd like someone on the other side to rationalize in light of us having to address the immediate need to get on with a climate change agenda. How do we reconcile a strategy driven to support oil and gas with climate change?

But forby that, I was up in that area of the northwest when I was with the Finance Committee, and we heard that there are all kinds of social implications of economic development that are simply not being addressed. There's insufficient housing. There's insufficient infrastructure. Mental health and addiction services definitely need more support. So the member is actually glossing over what is on the public record on the Finance Committee hearings in that area.

The member also knows that the forestry in that area is in a meltdown. It's in serious trouble, like it is throughout the rest of the province.

But the north is not simply the northwest. The north also includes the northeast, and I would invite the member to go and spend some time in the northeast, in communities that have 60 percent to 90 percent unemployment, that are struggling just to figure out how they're going to put food on the table or keep roofs over their heads.

It's not appropriate for any member in this House on either side to gloss over realities in order to make a political point, as seems to be what is going on today. We need a strategy for the north that is a true strategy for northern development and that takes into consideration all of the realities in the north, not just one or two projects that will have a short-term gain.

By the way, that project that the member speaks to, the so-called P3, is actually an interesting one to look
[ Page 549 ]
at in the structure of the P3. The public is the one that's putting the money forward on that, and the private partner is going to get the benefits. It begs a very good, hard look if that's the way that we're going to go with P3s in the future. I'm not sure why we want to give these private partners all of the gains out of these when the public is the one who is making the project work.

With respect to other communities, Mackenzie, I would ask again the member to go visit Mackenzie and see what's happening in that community. There's certainly not a lot of enthusiasm for this government's northern agenda in Mackenzie.

We need a northern strategy. We need a government that truly does listen, and if the government is listening, they should repeal their plans for the HST. That's loud and clear, and they ought to listen to the public on that. We need a government that truly understands that the public resources of British Columbia should drive a true northern agenda by remaining in public hands for public benefit so that we can build a social and community infrastructure throughout the entire north that benefits not only the current generation but future generations.

One strategy in Fort St. John is not a northern strategy. We need a true northern strategy. We really need a government that's going to listen to the north, not abandon it, as this government has.

P. Pimm: The hon. member brings up a couple of good points that I think should probably be touched on.

A good strategy for the north — I definitely agree with that. That's, hopefully, something that I'll be able to accomplish through a good northern caucus. I think those are going to be some good, solid things.

Now, you referred to the northeast — that I should go to the northeast. I'm actually from the northeast, so I'm pretty familiar with the northeast. I think maybe you were confused there, but that's okay. That's all right.

Housing shortages. Certainly, every area has its own little problems here and there.

[1045]

I do want to just count a few more ways that we're working on the health in the north. Between 2002 and 2009 the province has invested $400 million in capital projects within Northern Health. Cancer patients will have state-of-the-art care through the $100 million in funding of the northern cancer control strategy, which includes the B.C. Cancer Agency centre for the north in Prince George; $65 million in enhancements and expansions at Prince George Regional Hospital in maternity and pediatric care, an expanded ER, the northern medical school program, updated ICUs and ambulatory care.

Northern Health spent approximately $28.6 million on home care and home support in 2007-08. That's a 142 percent increase since 2001. Northern Health has increased the number of residential care beds and assisted living units for seniors by 30 percent since 2001 to 1,331 beds today. Northern Health will spend approximately $41 million on mental health and addiction services in '08-09, an increase of 43 percent from the $28 million spent in 2002.

Installation of the north's first fixed MRI machine in Prince George means that 5,000 more procedures are completed each year than were completed in 2001 — an 800 percent increase. More patients than ever are getting surgery they need locally. Since 2001 Northern Health's residents have benefited from a 90 percent increase in the number of hip and knee surgeries.

The northern medical program, part of UNBC, is part of the government's commitment to increase the number of medical school graduates over the next five years. Twenty-five medical students enter the program every year. Hazelton and Fort Nelson each have one more family physician as a result of the Family Physicians for B.C. incentive program, which recruits doctors to work in the underserved communities across the province.

Integrated health networks are being developed in six communities across Northern Health. The IHNs are a partnership between Northern Health, northern physicians and northern communities that will result in enhanced coordination and team-based care.

That's how a responsible government manages our health resources, and that's how our government takes care of the north. Besides that, the government has decreased taxes while increasing the level of services.

Economic Potential of Rural B.C.

D. Donaldson: Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we have three members from the north — at least three — in the gallery. Maybe they are the only three. Oh no, there are a few more up there. There are two from Stikine, my constituency, and another member from the Nechako Lakes — my colleague from Nechako Lakes, from his constituency — Dee McRae, who lives in Houston and works in adult literacy. Welcome to them today.

Today I'd like to talk about a very important topic for my constituency, for Stikine and for rural areas in B.C., something that is important for all parts of the province. It is the economic potential of rural B.C. We have incredible natural resources where we live — minerals, oil and gas, animals, agriculture, our lifestyle, recreation — and the focus is usually on natural resource development.

But the real economic potential of rural B.C. lies with the most important resource of all, the people who live there. You can spend all you like on infrastructure to support the development of these resources or on attracting capital, but if you don't understand that it is the local human resource that is key, then you're headed for trouble. Projects won't get underway, bad decisions will be made, and most importantly, locals will lose out by not being able to participate and benefit the most from development in our own back yard.
[ Page 550 ]

The worst-case scenario is continued high unemployment while importing workers. We have a prime example in our area. Right now unemployment is 90 percent. I take exception to the member for Peace River North talking about: "We all have our own little problems." Ninety percent is a significant impact on our social and economic conditions.

But ten years ago, when there were jobs, we still had 60 percent unemployment. What is the key to turning that around? The key is creating literate citizens and adult literacy, and that's what I'm speaking to today regarding our economic potential in rural B.C.

It was said by one expert that literacy is the Velcro to which all other knowledge sticks. This couldn't be more pertinent when it comes to participating and supporting the economy. Judy Cavanagh, the executive director of Literacy B.C., was quoted as saying: "One million British Columbians do not have the literacy skills they need to succeed in today's economy. Improving their skills helps everyone. As people's skills improve, they can get better jobs and become more engaged citizens."

[1050]

In fact, 40 percent of adults in British Columbia do not have the literacy skills they need to fully participate and succeed in today's world. It's the human resource, and literacy is the way to tap into it.

This government appeared to understand that four years ago. Premier Campbell set out a five-point plan called great goals for a golden decade.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Please, no names.

D. Donaldson: Oh, sorry. My apologies.

Our Premier, the Premier, set out a five-point plan called great goals for a golden decade, and making B.C. the best-educated, most literate place in North America is one of them. Unfortunately, the Premier appears to have lost interest. He's saying one thing and doing another.

A prime example is cuts made in July. Sixteen regional literacy coordinators — the funding gone, dedicated people working around the province. The impact was felt especially hard in rural communities.

The regional literacy coordinators have the expertise in subject areas like adult literacy to support the non-profit volunteers in communities. They do many important functions, especially to provide consultation and support to literacy and adult basic education practitioners, volunteers, learners and community members.

After much discussion and coordination between experts, community groups and this government, the regional literacy coordinators were put in place just last year. Now they're gone. This is the kind of here-today, gone-tomorrow approach that creates chaos in our rural communities.

Then just last month funding for two new programs run by Literacy B.C. was cut. The B.C. Literacy Directory and the Read Line cost only $60,000 to operate. These are important programs, especially for adult literacy in small communities, where you just can't go down the street, perhaps to another agency or organization or institution that can help.

Again, the executive director of Literacy B.C., quoted in the Vancouver Sun: "The B.C. Literacy Directory and Read Line offer a simple way to connect people with the services they need to succeed. Cutting funding to these tools just does not make sense." As she pointed out, the demand is still there, but how will it be met — by the communities?

Ministries need to be talking to each other on the other side, internally. How do you expect the community to pick up these services, and the non-profits? What happens in the interim? No plan whatsoever by this government.

In another revelation made last week in response to the budget speech, the Minister of Education, the Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy, said: "We're continuing to work towards our goal of making B.C. the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction in the continent." A few days later we find out that grants to reading centres in small communities were cut by the ministry — again, saying one thing and doing another. They're not walking their own talk. They're paying lip service.

In my constituency reading centre funding in Atlin, Dease Lake and Telkwa was eliminated by the minister. I've been to these reading centres. In Dease Lake they have 10,000 books crammed into a small basement run by volunteers. Their grant was a measly $1,400.

It's not like people in that community or in Atlin can go elsewhere. The nearest public library for Dease Lake and Atlin is in the Yukon. That's six hours' drive or two hours' drive for those people. How is that working towards the goal of making B.C. the most literate jurisdiction on the continent? It defies logic.

These kinds of services and programs are important, and more important than ever in these challenging times. The role of community literacy is to build human and social capital. Community literacy programming helps people to lead an agent life, and adult literacy creates producers, not just consumers of services and products. It creates resiliency in our communities.

People see themselves as the glue that holds communities together and as influencers. Once they have become part of the glue, part of the increased resiliency, then they are participating in community. That's the kind of resilience we need in these tough times.

J. Rustad: I'd like to thank the member for Stikine for bringing forward this topic this morning and in particular for his comments around literacy and the importance of literacy.

[1055]

Just to start off with in my response to this, the member has suggested that he has unemployment levels in the 90
[ Page 551 ]
percent range in some of his first nation territories and 60 percent overall in the upper Stikine. Those are staggering numbers. Anywhere else…. I mean, think about it. Nine out of ten people unemployed, yet this member has not once stood up and supported any projects that would go ahead and create job opportunities in that area and in the north.

This person has never stood up and supported Highway 37 electrification and the work that could bring and the opportunities that could do for the northwest and for his riding. In particular, I just want to mention that just a single mine, just one single mine, could generate between 1,500 and 2,000 jobs — just one mine. That's between direct and indirect jobs. Those are permanent, long-term jobs. There are four or five unbelievably strong projects in the northwest that could benefit from the transmission line.

I would also like to suggest that if that member had stood up during the election and showed his same opposition to those kinds of projects, likely he wouldn't be here. People in that riding need jobs. Literacy is very, very important. There's no question. We need to be working with the people to solve literacy issues. But to suggest that literacy comes before jobs…. They need to go hand in hand.

The topic for his speech here this morning is economic potential for northern B.C. There is no question that there is enormous potential around that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan…. Once when I was on the Education committee and we toured the province for literacy, we toured up through the northwest, and we looked at the various projects that were undertaken. We looked at the work of some $54 million of that government spending on literacy is taking place around the province. We looked at what school districts were doing and the colleges and libraries as well as the non-governmental agencies and how those works were being done.

Yet the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan suggested, when we were down in the southeast corner of the province, that people may be better off if they could have opportunities to go back to school, as opposed to having a job. I often wondered, when I heard the speech here from the member for Stikine, if he is not suggesting the same type of approach.

Throughout the northwest there is enormous potential for bioenergy — in forestry, the opportunity to use wood waste. There's enormous potential for energy created from clean energy sources along the corridor. Yet that person, the member for Stikine, has suggested a moratorium on those types of projects. I have yet to hear something that will reduce that number of 90 percent.

Many years ago, in many of the mining communities as well as forest communities, literacy was such an issue that the companies undertook many projects, many initiatives to help with literacy within the workplace. We see many examples of this even today happening throughout the area and even in the northwest.

Yet once again, for the economic potential of northern B.C., we need to see those jobs. We need to see that potential. We can't just stand there and say: "Government needs to throw money at it." Government needs the revenue from it. One mine — just one mine — can produce $1.7 billion for the federal government, $3.4 billion for the provincial government. Think of what we could do with those kinds of opportunities and types of services.

Literacy is critically important, but it needs to be taken hand in hand with job creation, with a strong economic foundation, to realize the full potential that northern B.C. has, in particular the northwest.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for the comments from my colleague from Nechako Lakes. I'm afraid, though, that he's missed the point. I am on record in support of the federal funding for $130 million for the northwest transmission line as being good for the north, if this government can get their act together. Not one new metal mine has opened in the northwest under eight years of this government, and that's under the highest commodity prices on record.

The rural economy is dependent upon the people who live in the north and dependent on the people who live and have these kind of developments in their own back yard. Full participation is necessary for everyone to reap the benefits, and adult literacy is essential.

[1100]

Instead, the Minister Responsible for Literacy has cut $55 million from her budget, when she said before the election that she would protect education.

Adult literacy is about participating, and that's what we need more of: participation. The Minister of Housing and Social Development said in his response to the budget speech that you cannot fool a population once they can read and have literacy. Well, I couldn't agree with him more, but again, this government has cut in the area of adult literacy, so voting can't be that important to them. Maybe this government is worried by a literate citizenship.

What does it all come back to? It all comes back to what kind of province we want. Where I come from, we want a fully engaged local population who is invited to make knowledgable decisions about what kind of development is appropriate in our own back yards, to participate fully in the kind of development we believe is appropriate and to be able to disagree and still live as neighbours, to respect the diversity of opinions and perspectives and to include those perspectives whenever we make decisions about our collective future.

To be all we can be, to fulfil our human potential — that is what a literate citizenship means, and this is the
[ Page 552 ]
way to a prosperous and satisfying future for those of us living in rural B.C. and, in fact, all across the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call private member's Motion 8.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 8 — GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON GANG VIOLENCE

J. van Dongen: Mr. Speaker:

[Be it resolved that this House support the actions of this government to fight gang violence and urge all federal parties to continue to implement BC’s recommendations to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada.]

I'm pleased to speak today to this motion. I want to particularly concentrate on urging all federal parties to continue to implement B.C.'s recommendations to strengthen the Criminal Code.

Crime statistics show that all categories of crime are down significantly in British Columbia, except homicides. Homicides generally are related to serious drug and gang crime activity, so it's timely to talk about our priorities in British Columbia for Criminal Code amendments. I think the current political situation in Ottawa requires that all of us urge all parties in Ottawa to continue to focus on the amendments that British Columbia put forward last spring.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It is a very serious need, and there is an opportunity to continue to work to put through some of the amendments that the federal government has already tabled and some of the amendments that they're working on.

I should point out to the House that the Criminal Code is really the foundation of our criminal justice system, and there are three priority issues that British Columbia put forward last spring.

Number one is eliminating two-for-one credits for time served while awaiting trial, and this is a piece of legislation that is well on its way. The federal government has tabled this legislation in the form of Bill C-25.

Really, there have been some serious abuses over the years of the two-for-one credit, sometimes three-for-one credit where defence lawyers and criminals have exploited the system, in some cases asking for solitary confinement so they could get a higher credit. I'm very pleased the federal government has tabled this. It has passed third reading. I urge the opposition in British Columbia to continue to urge their colleagues in Ottawa to support this important legislation.

The second priority that British Columbia put forward last spring is the making of amendments to the Criminal Code to expand the abilities of police and prosecutors to obtain and use wiretap evidence, especially for new technologies. The main part of the Criminal Code currently was written in 1974. It relates strictly to phone technologies. We need to update it to bring it into the modern world in terms of communication tools that are now available.

[1105]

The need for these amendments is urgent so that we can modernize the search-and-seizure and the intercept provisions of the Criminal Code. This is something that the police have been working on for a long time. It is supported by the Canadian association of police chiefs. It's supported by the B.C. association of police chiefs. Until we get the Criminal Code, in respect of access to technologies, into the 21st century, they will be always working behind the eight ball dealing with criminals.

Again, the federal government has introduced new legislation, Bills C-46 and C-47 — two parts of new legislation. This has been tabled for first reading, and I urge our provincial opposition to really encourage their federal colleagues to support this legislation. The police require it. The police and Crown both need to have the tools to fight serious crime.

Thirdly, there is an issue known as disclosure. This, again, like the two-for-one credit, is an issue that evolved through what is called judge-made law. Under the current disclosure law, which has evolved without the conscious decision of Parliament, defence lawyers can call up no end, absolutely no end, to evidence, whether it's relevant or not, thereby really gumming up the justice system, slowing down procedures, slowing down criminal prosecutions.

This is again an area that demands the best attention of our federal Minister of Justice, and I know that the federal minister is focused on these things, but he is looking for people in Parliament, all of our Members of Parliament, to support the bills that have already been tabled so that he can continue to table additional critical legislation.

Our integrated police teams have made it very, very clear how desperately they need these amendments. Again, we as a Legislature and all federal parties need to support the federal government on these changes.

So that, by way of introduction for this motion, really sets out, I think, the basic purpose of this motion, and I look for the support of all members of this House on the effort on the priorities that British Columbia has put forward and will continue to foster very aggressively.

We're working with our western partners. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General were in a western law enforcement meeting just this past weekend, and we
[ Page 553 ]
continue to work hard to strengthen our ability to fight serious crime in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to speak to this motion. I actually want to speak to the whole motion, because I think it's quite interesting.

Anyway, I'll deal with the part of the motion that my colleague from Abbotsford South chose to stress, and that is British Columbia's desire to see — not just British Columbia, but provinces right across the country, from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and many others — some changes to the Criminal Code that will enable provinces to be more effective in the war in fighting gang violence and the dramatic growth of gangs that we have seen, especially here in British Columbia, where the number of gangs, since 2001, has grown by more than tenfold, and those changes are important ones.

There is the issue of bail reform. Well, we said we need to have bail reform made. You know, for individuals involved in gang violence and violent organized crime, there's a lot of concern about the fact that, you know, they're out on the street even though there's a record of gang violence associated with that. We've said that we want to see changes around bail reform that make it easier to keep those types of individuals off the streets.

[1110]

The issue of two-for-one credits, again, is something that we talked about prior to the election campaign and during the election campaign and are talking about it after the election campaign. It's one of those things where…. We're not changing our mind on that, you know, unlike the government on other issues. We felt strongly about it before the election, during the election and after the election, and we want to see changes in the two-for-one conditions around sentencing. We think that that's an important change that needs to take place, particularly when it comes to those individuals involved in organized crime and gang violence.

Wiretap legislation absolutely needs to be brought up to date with the technology of the 21st century. Organized criminals, gang criminals, are using the latest technological advances to further their criminal activities, and we need to be able to deal with that. There do need to be some significant changes on the issue around wiretaps. We've supported that. We said so before the election, we said so during the election, and we continue to say so after the election. That's our message to Ottawa. It's a priority for us, and we want to see those measures adopted, so that's not a problem.

What I did find interesting was that the first part of the resolution, which the minister didn't really want to dwell on — and given this government's record, I can somehow see why he didn't want to dwell on it — was: "Be it resolved that this House support the actions of this government to fight gang violence…."

Well, we do want to see a stepped-up fight against gang violence in this province. The problem with the government is that for too long it's been half-hearted or that they have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Let me give you some examples.

We had a throne speech tabled before the election, where they forgot to even mention the term "gang violence." There were bullets flying, gangland shootings throughout the Lower Mainland one after another after another. A throne speech was tabled, and not one mention was made — not one. Then a few days after that they tabled a budget, and it cut funding to prosecutorial services. So their efforts are open to some very strong criticism.

The opposition put forward ideas that we also felt, on top of the changes that we want to see made in Ottawa, were things that we could be doing here in British Columbia. What are those things?

Well, we've said: "Let's deal with the issue of gang colours." A former Solicitor General from Chilliwack indicated that this would be a good idea. We tabled a proposed private member's bill, and then the government said: "No, no, we don't want to do that. That's not on the government's agenda." Then what do we see? We see a notorious gangster using the excuse that it was not gang colours, that it was a trademarked line of clothing. So he was paroled, and he's out on the street. A bill like that may have helped to keep him behind bars where he belongs, but this government said no to it.

The other suggestion that we put forward was the issue on body armour. What did the government do? They pooh-poohed it. "No, no, we can't. We don't want to do that. We're not going to do that. It'd be ineffective." Then we saw a wave of gangland shootings and the public demanding that action be done, and what happened? The government suddenly realized — guess what: "We want to do something."

The government's record on those areas alone is open to criticism. Yes, we want to see changes in Ottawa, but just as important, we want to see changes here in British Columbia from this government — not just around the measures in terms of combating gang violence but also in recognizing that a number of the cuts that they have made have a detrimental effect on families, on the social cohesiveness of families, whether it's education and schools or sports and those types of things, which provide people with opportunities to get away from gang violence.

Hon. Speaker, we support the changes at the federal level, but we want to see more done here, because when you look at that first part of the motion, it's open to an awful lot of scrutiny and an awful lot of criticism.

[1115]

D. Hayer: I support Motion 8 from the MLA for Abbotsford South, and I also ask all the federal parties to support Bills C-46 and C-47. They have been introduced, but they need the support from all political parties to
[ Page 554 ]
make sure that the federal government passes those bills.

I support both the action of this government in its fight against violence, and I join this government in its call for the federal political parties to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada as recommended and advocated by the government of British Columbia. It is vitally important to me and to my constituents that there is an appearance, an impression, that our court system is a revolving door for criminals. That is not acceptable to me and my constituents.

It seems that every criminal who comes before the court has been there before, and many, many times, and still they again go free with little more than a slap on the wrist. That has to change. We need to protect our citizens, and we need to send a clear message so that politicians and governments across this nation understand and support community and victims' concerns and are willing, through direction to our courts, to take away that advantage from the criminal and give that back to the victims.

Madam Speaker, rarely a day goes by in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead that that a constituent of mine doesn't tell me that the impression that our court system sends out is that the rights of the criminal take precedence over the rights of the victim, and that is wrong. That impression is wrong, because…. We have to change that, because we have to make sure that there are more rights for the victims and society — that our courts take into account what the needs and the rights of the victim and society are when they're looking at the rights of the criminal. That must be changed to balance it.

That is why this government with this motion is calling on the federal law to give prosecutors more power to keep criminals off the street. We're calling for tighter bail restrictions and elimination of two-for-one credit or three-for-one credit for time served while waiting for trial. That is why we are calling for the moderation of wiretap rules, so that the police are less hampered in their pursuits of justice. And that is why we're calling for the federal politicians to adopt recommendations to simplify evidence disclosure required to speed up the prosecution.

That is why last week our Attorney General and Solicitor General spent time discussing crime and its prevention with their counterparts, with other western ministers during the conference in Saskatchewan. Our Attorney General told them that British Columbia will continue to press Ottawa to strengthen the Criminal Code and other legislation to deter serious and violent crime. That will provide the Crown with the evidence needed to bring gang violence and criminals to justice.

He also said that British Columbia believes that in order to stay ahead of the criminal element, we will require amendment to the legislation to recognize the use of technology such as cell phones, BlackBerrys and the Internet. The world has changed since the last amendments were made, Madam Speaker.

Our Solicitor General told the western justice ministers that in B.C. we have done a lot of work on combatting gun violence and gangs by emphasizing intelligence-led, integrated policing. At the same time, we need a balanced approach. That means not only being tough on gang members but being equally tough on society, the social conditions that breed them, so we can prevent young people from joining gangs in the first place.

We want to send a clear message that criminals are not welcome in B.C. and that we will do whatever is in our power to get rid of them, get rid of the gangs and keep our communities safe and strong for our society.

The prevention of crime, the prosecution of crime and the containment of crime is incredibly important to all residents of British Columbia. That is one of the most important topics of conversation in my riding, in my city and across the province. In fact, this coming weekend in my constituency, at the Guildford Sheraton Hotel, the British Columbia Crime Prevention Association, of which I have been a member for a long time, is holding their annual general meeting.

In addition to the AGM, there's a 2½ day symposium that features 39 workshops. I can assure you, Madam Speaker and this House, that gang violence, ideas to fight crime, will be part of those discussions. That is why I support this motion and the action of this government to combat gang violence.

We are adding 168 more police officers tasked directly to fighting gang violence. We are adding ten more prosecutors to work with the police to prosecute the gang members. If the federal politicians follow through on the British Columbia recommendations to tighten up our courts, we will be building 300 more jail cells able to hold more than 600 criminals in jail.

[1120]

That is a direct investment of $185 million for more facilities and more imprisonment, because the only way we're going to discourage the gangs is to discourage recruitment and jail and prison time. A long, lengthy prison time is a strong deterrent.

In fact, our government has a commendable list of action that it has taken to battle the crime element. One of the most important, in the minds of my constituents, is the forfeiture act which is designed to take away what is important to the criminals — their profit motive. Through the Civil Forfeiture Act, we can now penalize those profits from the criminal by taking away the profit and the assets. That hurts them the most and makes the criminal's life a little more difficult for them.

In fact, our government has seized more than $7.5 million worth of assets. Hopefully, there are millions and millions more to come from that in the future. A great deal of the money that is obtained by the government from the Civil Forfeiture Act, almost a million dollars of it so far, has been returned to the victims and reinvested in victims services and a crime reduction strategy. That works, and that is good.
[ Page 555 ]

Another positive step is the $2 million strategy to prevent youth recruitment by the gangs, and a further $1 million to continue the Youth Against Violence phone line, which is on top of the new gang hotline and reward program to encourage people anonymously to provide tips that lead to the arrest and conviction of gang members.

Our government has been proactive in fighting against violent crime and gangs, and just over the last few months we have seen more than 180 gang members and 155 of their associates arrested and charged with more than 800 serious offences. That is good, and that is very important.

That is sending a clear message to my constituents and to British Columbia that this government has put its money and its action where its mouth is. We are fighting the crime, we're fighting the violence and the youth gangs, and we will continue to do everything in our power. We will also ask the federal government and all politicians from all political parties to be proactive and join us so we can eliminate the gang violence and violent crime.

That is the good news and the decisive action our government is taking. We want to make sure that all the members in the House send the clear message to federal parties: we need to work together to stop gang violence and reduce the crime.

I support this motion fully.

G. Gentner: Everybody deserves to feel safe in their own community neighbourhoods and at their place of work. It's time to take real measures to bring gang violence under control.

In my community, North Delta, it's interesting…. In a suburban community you wouldn't think this would be such a major issue, but it's hit us all — every community. I remember six years ago I had a guest in from California to stay with us. I called him a granola cruncher; he was a bike racer. He was from Sacramento, and he said to me how safe it was in Canada. He was quite overwhelmed with how safe he felt on the streets.

Ironically, that night about midnight the semiautomatics just down the street in my suburban, Sleepy Hollow bedroom community rang out, and I was embarrassed. The front door of the neighbour down the street was shot right out. It brought home the fact that gang violence is everywhere.

We also must recognize in this discussion that violence goes beyond gang violence. We sometimes forget the other part that's hitting our communities hard, and that's domestic violence.

Violence has been around and gang warfare has been around for some time — the Bindy Johal situation, his murder in the late '90s. During this particular decade it seemed to culminate. We know about the chronology and over these many years how gang violence has escalated. Even during the early part of this decade criminologists had warned of the consequences.

By the summer of 2007 the city of Vancouver prompted one of the largest police investigations in the city's history against gang-related violence, amidst fears that perhaps bystanders that were narrowly missed would soon be caught in gang-related violence.

[1125]

The Premier was quoted at the time of the situation in 2007, and he said: "It's a concern for all of us." And that was it. You know, what was the result by the fall, by November? We had a dispute by then–police chief of West Vancouver, now the Solicitor General, with the then–Solicitor General with no result. The bell rang, the clarion rang, but we had no action.

This was not simply confined to Vancouver or just gang members. Innocents were to be victims. A couple of months later the predictions came true, with innocent bystanders being Ed Schellenberg and, of course, Chris Mohan. Two innocent bystanders were killed while they were busy doing what they do best — working. Of course, there were four others with criminal backgrounds who were also shot and killed.

It took almost two years since that incident before there seemed to be any action from this government to act. Today family members still mourn. The question is: where was the action then?

Miraculously, 2½ months before an election this government seemed as though it was concerned. We were involved with the slaughter on the streets of the Bacon brothers' foray, and suddenly, we also knew that the Schellenberg and Mohan families were going to go to Ottawa and, there, talk to the Justice Committee on March 11. Just a month before then, the government decides and announces it's going to do something about it. Yes, the Attorney General did wind up going to Ottawa and joining the family, but it almost seemed too little too late.

Here we are today with a rise of gang violence in our streets that is truly appalling, and certainly it has to stop, but we also need a comprehensive plan. It doesn't excuse this government, the province, to simply walk away and say: "It's an Ottawa problem."

Since coming to office with this government in 2001, this government closed ten jails, 24 courthouses and the Vancouver Pretrial Centre. In my community of Delta it shut down our courthouse, and it moved the family courthouse elsewhere, and jails were impacted.

While this government inflicted these cuts, the number of gangs grew from ten to 129. Who's counting? I hear the members opposite say it's much higher today. The House Leader from this side was talking briefly about…. There's no initiative in the throne speech. There's nothing in the February throne speech. Frankly, I didn't read anything in this throne speech, not one mention, about gang violence.

Perhaps this is being reinvented because the government is in trouble politically. It's in trouble because of its cuts to social services, family, kids, sports. We know through the
[ Page 556 ]
peer pressure that bully groups, bullying, is on the rise. We've got to go beyond simply agreeing with a plan with that of the federal government. We've got to inveigh a plan that is far more comprehensive.

It is a culture that has grown and is out of control today. The major problems with fighting gangs is that you are also fighting against drug trafficking. It seems to be the fire behind the furnace within the gang problem. It's driving the issue. It is the heart of the turf wars. We know that drugs are well beyond a $6 billion item per annum. We know that's traded in the U.S. for cocaine, which comes back to Canada, and it's traded for guns.

I have to quote Sgt. John Ward, who said: "Organized crime has stretched into every corner of B.C. and onto most city streets. It is not an exaggeration to say that organized crime is a cancer eating away at the social and moral fabric of British Columbia." Sergeant Ward was talking about every corner, including the Legislature. Let's not forget that it was a drug deal that led investigators in the raid in this Legislature.

You know, it's all amongst us. Jasmohan Singh Bains, a 33-year-old who recently went down, was fined $242,000…. It was his connection with the drug war that led to the investigation here. I'm not going to drive any aspersions on the government relative to this. I know it's before the courts. But I'm bringing to view that….

[1130]

Interjection.

G. Gentner: No, of course not.

It brings to view that it's all around us. The drug culture is all around us. It's on every corner, every street. We have got to fully understand that, yes, we have to make a pitch to the federal government. We have to work with the federal government. But this is out of hand, and we've got to certainly do something about it from a comprehensive….

I leave that with you, hon. Speaker, with the knowledge that we've got to stop the rhetoric and talk, and we've got to work together and solve this gang violence situation in the province.

D. Barnett: As I rise here today to support this resolution by MLA van Dongen, I am very proud….

An Hon. Member: Abbotsford South.

D. Barnett: Abbotsford South. Thank you.

Gang violence is something that starts at home, and we all know that. But unfortunately, once our children are out of their homes and into society today, you can be the best parent in the world, but it is not going to help you. They have minds of their own. The technology they live with every day of their lives, their television sets and what they hear from adults throughout this province guides them in directions that most times are not ones that satisfy us.

Gangs are in the rural communities as much as they are in the urban centres. They have not just come to the forefront. The federal government has come to the table in the last couple of years. Their legislation must be strengthened before police forces have the ability to go out and do what they need to do to curtail gangs.

My brother was a policeman for 37 years. I heard the frustration in his eyes and in his heart, and it was because of the federal laws that govern our police officers and our justice system.

But I'm not going to stand here and talk too long, because I believe it's time that everybody…. Don't worry about a plan. Worry about changing the federal Criminal Code so we can deal with what we know we have to deal with.

I would like to say one thing or two before I do sit down.

NDP news release November 8, '07. I am absolutely thrilled to sit here on this side of the House with our Solicitor General, Kash Heed. On this day: "If we want to seriously address the gang violence problem, the approach should be to have an open mind and a willingness to learn from experts like Constable Heed." This was from a member on the opposition.

An Hon. Member: Opposition House Leader.

D. Barnett: Opposition House Leader. Yes. Thank you very much.

So I am totally thrilled that we have a Solicitor General who has the ability to lead this government forward and to push harder with the federal government to curtail the issues out there dealing with gangs and violence on our streets.

B. Ralston: I can well understand why the member from Abbotsford would bring this motion before the House, given what's happened in Abbotsford recently, where the community has become engulfed in gang violence. That's something that we all, on both sides of the House, deplore and no doubt is a matter of immediate concern to his constituents.

The strategy in this motion of the member who's introduced it seems to be to attempt to deflect all the attention to Ottawa. That is a strategy which I don't think will work and which, I think, the public recognizes isn't the source of all solutions.

Certainly there are some amendments which are before the House of Commons. We on this side of the House support those amendments. In a minority parliament, a number of political games are being played on both sides. Unfortunately, some of those amendments haven't come forward as quickly as they should.

[1135]

Certainly our power here to influence the federal House of Commons is rather limited, but there are some things that the government can do.
[ Page 557 ]

It is significant that, for example, last year…. I could show you the cover of Maclean's magazine, but of course I'm not permitted to show props, so I'll content myself with just reading it. Maclean's had a cover story: "B.C. World Crime Superpower: A Global Hub for Gangs, Drugs and Dirty Money. Again, that's the sort of image of our province that we on both sides of the House utterly deplore, but it's becoming an increasingly common one.

The BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, recently did a story focusing on Vancouver and Whistler as part of their pre-Olympic coverage, and the overriding concern that was expressed was the proliferation of gang violence in the streets of the Lower Mainland.

The Economist magazine — again, a magazine with an international readership — similarly focused on gang violence.

So increasingly, our province, regrettably, is becoming identified in the minds of the public around the world with that kind of gang violence. That is an impediment to future economic development. That's an impediment to tourism, to say nothing of the deleterious effects on life here in this province.

The government has utterly failed in their strategy to fight crime. All of this has happened on their watch. Over the last eight years the number of criminal gangs, in the study of noted criminologists at Simon Fraser, has increased tenfold here in the Lower Mainland. It's not simply good enough to blame the need for legislative changes in Ottawa on the failure of this government to act.

At the same time as this motion comes forward, there have been steps taken by groups and organizations. In particular, I want to talk about the city of Surrey's crime prevention program where they tabled a very innovative and detailed program with four strands calling on looking at preventing and deterring crime, apprehending and prosecuting offenders, rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders, and the reality and perceptions of crime.

I want to just close by focusing on one area, because it's about crime prevention in the most profound way. One of those ways is to target young people who need guidance at a vulnerable age, and the experts will tell you that the age between 13 and 17 is when most of the recruitment to gangs takes place.

One of the ways that young people are deterred from joining gangs is that they do other activities. They do other good things. An important part of that is often participation in sports and team sports.

It's significant that Canadian Tire, a well-known Canadian corporation, has a program called JumpStart where they subsidize…. They say, according to the research that they've done, that fully one-third of Canadian families can't afford to place their children in sports and recreation activities because of financial barriers.

They say that participation in team sports encourages a healthier lifestyle; increases self-esteem and confidence; improves school performance, future education expectations and more positive relations; and strengthens support networks. That's why they have implemented this charity and called upon the public across the country to support it.

Yet what do we see here in British Columbia? The very basic supports for the B.C. School Sports association — $130,000 to encourage competition among public school teams and private school teams across the province — cut.

So when a major charity, a good corporate citizen like Canadian Tire, says that this is something that we believe strongly enough to do, it clearly affects children and youth in deterring them from entering into gangs.

It's regrettable, indeed, that this government has not chosen to follow the example of leading corporate citizens like Canadian Tire and the many coaches and parents across the province. So I can well understand why the government wants to blame Ottawa, but the problem is here, not in Ottawa.

[1140]

S. Cadieux: I'm pleased to speak to this motion today, and I'm pleased to hear that members of the opposition want to work cooperatively and together on this issue.

In a world where the media and pop culture continue to glorify violence and make celebrities of common criminals with their use of language and imagery and sensationalism, it's for certain that we need to work with extra diligence to counteract the growing level of violence in our communities. Even here, members of the opposition have chosen to use words like "notorious" when describing some of our low-life criminals.

We need to ensure that our law-abiding citizens are safe and feel protected. We need to ensure that hoodlums and low-lifes are treated like that — that those who choose a life of gangs and drugs and violence are not shown the support, compassion and freedoms of their good neighbours.

Guns aren't new. Gun violence isn't new. Drugs aren't new, and neither are gangs or mobsters. But what is new is that it doesn't shock us when the stories hit the news. Last week alone, near my home, bullet holes were found in a local school and a local home not six blocks away from mine. That is new. It's no longer an issue in select areas of the province. It's an issue in every community.

On election day this past May, a man was found shot near Highway 10. In a story we all are familiar with, not long ago Chris Mohan and Ed Schellenberg lost their lives for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. What was that wrong place? It was work — work. Not a seedy bar or a dark alley, but work. What will it take before we as a society accept that our laws and our system need a fresh, stronger approach?

When the most common lines to follow a news story about a shooting are "the victim is known to police" and "the victim is not cooperating with the investigation," should
[ Page 558 ]
we not be alarmed? The police are doing everything they can to protect us, and our courts seem to be ineffective. I'm not suggesting that we can eliminate crime or the criminal element from society, but we certainly must be able to send a message that we won't stand by and cower.

We certainly can make the consequences fit the crime. We live in a wonderful country. Our freedoms are protected by laws, but we seem to forget that with rights come responsibilities — responsibilities to ourselves, our families, our communities and our neighbours. Our laws exist to protect our rights, our society and our ability to live and function together in peace. They are here to protect, not pervert.

I'm not satisfied with a system that's paralyzed. We as citizens, political leaders and governments need to work together to strengthen the Criminal Code. This is not a party issue. It's a safety and security issue. It is about doing what is right and just, and correcting a system that has not kept pace with the changing dynamics of society and the criminal element within it.

We need to be bold and brave so that our citizens don't fear leaving their homes. The experts have made recommendations, and we need to trust those experts and move those recommendations forward. I'm proud that this government has chosen to take a stand with a comprehensive seven-point plan to fight organized crime and gang violence. It is working.

Over the past number of months, 180 gang members and 155 associates have been arrested and charged with almost 800 serious offences. In November 2007 we created the Uniform Gang Task Force, which patrols gang activity, and the task force is working. It's made 124 charges, 39 firearm seizures, four armoured car seizures and six seizures of body armour. And when did body armour become something you could purchase?

Yet the NDP has voted against every budget that put 1,100 more police on our streets, hired more prosecutors, invested in corrections facilities and funded crime prevention programs. The member for Port Coquitlam also said, as recently as March this year, that we need to be doing everything we can to be fighting organized crime, gang crime, here in B.C. I think that means pushing for changes to the Criminal Code in Ottawa. I'm very pleased that he has said so.

It's high time that each member in this House stands up and says that we won't accept gang violence in our communities. We will not give it lip service. We will support the actions of this government to fight gang violence, and we will continue to urge the federal government to implement B.C.'s recommendations to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada.

[1145]

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to get up and talk about this motion and the amendments, which of course I support — as do politicians, I think, at all levels of government as we struggle to find solutions to gang-related violence and gang behaviour across Canada and especially in the Lower Mainland. Even Coquitlam, where I live, is now plagued by this awful, awful behaviour, and that's something new. We used to be a little, quiet, backwater bedroom community.

I'd just like to talk a little bit about the other end of the spectrum. Most of these amendments, which we do support, are focused on the far end, the punishment end, and obviously, we do have to make some changes in that area. But I believe the work that I have done my whole life in social services, which is to talk about the prevention end, and the work that's done in communities…. It has not always gotten support from the provincial government financially in order to help groups to help youth from heading into this lifestyle.

Now, several people have mentioned the current round of cuts, the school sports association and social services cuts in my riding. In my area we've lost a depression group for youth. We've lost survivors groups and working with survivors of sexual abuse, and that's certainly something that affects youth enough that would draw them into, perhaps, criminal activity. One never knows. Also, the lack of funding to restorative justice programs and the lack of focus in recent years on youth workers in all of our schools, starting at middle school.

I just wanted to mention those as being very important programs that the province could be funding instead of cutting. That would help to keep youth from going into this lifestyle to begin with.

I'd like to talk about one group in particular in my riding. It happens to be a group that I'm very familiar with because I started this group in 1992, and it's still going strong. In fact, last year it won an award from the Solicitor General's ministry. The Community Safety and Crime Prevention award of 2008 was awarded to the PoCoMo Youth Services Society for its Project Reach Out, and I'm going to read from the ministry's own words here.

"Serving street-involved youth in the tri-city area who are extremely vulnerable, this fills a gap in service. In 2007 they connected with over 2,700 youth; in 2008, doubled that number to 4,600. The need is growing, which reflects the value of the program.

"It's an award-winning, grassroots not-for-profit, providing a unique mobile outreach service. It's an after-hours program; operates from 7 until midnight on weekend evenings and two days of follow-up; a staff team of adult youth workers, youth mentors and volunteers providing early crisis intervention, brief one-to-one support, after-school programming, referrals and follow-up support. PoCoMo programs align well with the three pillars: prevention, early intervention, intervention and support."

The MCFD is not funding any outreach services in the Tri-Cities. We have applied for funding several times from the ministry, particularly after winning the award last year. We have not been successful in getting funding. Our staff are spending far too much of their time raising funds to pay for youth workers when we should be out helping at-risk youth.
[ Page 559 ]

I have a letter here signed by the Solicitor General, and I'd just like to read one paragraph.

"Government acknowledged Project Reach Out for your longstanding commitment to addressing the issues of youth crime, gang recruitment and exploitation of youth. I commend you for the innovative services that you provide by directly connecting with youth in the Tri-Cities. At the current time I regret to inform you that my ministry is not able to consider any new funding requests."

It's signed by the Solicitor General three months after the award was given to this group for their work in keeping youth from gang recruitment.

[1150]

I see this as a provincial issue as well as a federal issue. I see the prevention end as being every bit as important as the punishment end. Let's keep the kids out of the gangs, and then maybe we won't have to worry so much about the other end. This is a program, this type of program, that should be supported by the province.

R. Howard: I rise today to speak in favour of this motion. Few things are more important to our communities than our personal safety. We must continue to take steps to ensure our citizens feel safe in their homes, safe in their streets and neighbourhoods, and safe in their community.

Madam Speaker, our government has taken this problem seriously and continues to do so. In February of this year this government announced a series of measures taking direct aim at organized crime and gang violence. Seven measures in particular: more police officers; more prosecutors; more jails and secure courts; tougher laws; a crackdown on illegal guns; outlawing armoured vehicles and body armour; and of course, the new gang hotline and rewards program.

I had the privilege of chairing, as a city councillor in my city, the community safety committee and dozens of meetings with our officer in charge. I learned firsthand of the challenges that the RCMP and our local police force had in terms of processing paperwork. They were spending so much time behind their desks processing paper, trying to get convictions, trying to get arrest warrants. Officers were being taken off the street in significant numbers, placed behind the desks. This, of course, is something we must work on with our federal partners to make sure does not continue.

This government has taken serious action, and I think the question that needs to be asked is: is it working? Well, the 2008 Canadian Centre for Justice Stats indicates that it is — overall crime rate down in our province for the fifth year in a row; violent crime down to a 20-year low; over 2,000 fewer violent offences; weapons offences are down 17 percent; and very importantly, an 11 percent decrease in the number of youth charged.

This government takes this seriously and has delivered serious results and will continue to do that on behalf of the citizens. This motion is further evidence of that.

R. Fleming: I don't have a problem with the words of the motion we're debating this morning. I have a problem with the context. It comes on the heels of government declaring its fight on gangs after thousands of young people and British Columbians are already entrenched in a dangerous criminal lifestyle.

The rhetoric from this government comes after gangs have proliferated into hundreds of formations in the Lower Mainland and around the province. It comes after we have in this province developed an underground economy that in some estimates — Interpol's, for example — is the equivalent of 6 percent of the gross domestic product of our economy.

That's what people are fighting over and dying over in our streets: crime and criminal activity worth billions of dollars of market share, if you wish. That's where the deadly turf wars come from. That's why the bullets are flying in our shopping malls and in leafy communities, like we saw in West Vancouver last week. That's what's at source here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You know, we have garnered the international attention of the world. Did anyone even associate Abbotsford with fatal criminal homicides 15 years ago? Nobody would have. Today dozens of bodies on the streets in that community.

We've attracted the attention of the BBC; CNN; the Economist, the current issue on the shelf associating Vancouver as a deadly city, noting that the homicide rate is on parity with U.S. cities associated with being dangerous. British Columbia is being compared to Colombia, the other Colombia, in the Economist, and all of this is being reported on the eve of the Olympics.

I want to make one other point that I think is critical to this debate. It's a commitment the government made that they have let go, and that is to build a community court system.

[1155]

Surrey and Victoria have been promised this by the former Attorney General. We have had no action on that. We campaigned on that on this side of the House, and we think it needs to be done to make the justice system more effective.

Integrated policing — something that has been talked about for years. When I look at what the Solicitor General's ministry has done in my community in the capital region…. They have talked about it since 2003. They've convened task forces and round tables. At the end of the day, we can't even integrate the canine unit because there's been no pressure to do so from government. There needs to be leadership from government.

Bringing this back to the budget, and I hope the members can appreciate this point. We want to deter and keep youth from getting involved in this lifestyle. This is a serious point. It may be one the members don't recognize.
[ Page 560 ]

When you talk to parents in your communities — parents who have teenagers, who are trying to keep their kids and give them all the opportunities in life, keep them safe, keep them off drugs and keep them away from bad influences — many of those parents will tell you: "You know, without organized sporting activities, I don't know what I would do to keep my kids safe."

This budget that was introduced by the government cuts $14 million from organized sports activities, gets rid entirely of the $130,000 grant for school-based sports programs. Law enforcement will tell you that you cannot separate these activities from government. This budget, by doing that, has set back efforts to prevent gangs from forming, to prevent gangs from proliferating and to keep kids safe and on a path to a successful life. That's why I find that the motion has to be debated in exactly that context.

J. Les: I recognize that the time is very short. I just want to make one or two very brief points.

First of all, obviously I support the motion from the member for Abbotsford South. I've listened carefully to the debate from members opposite, and I find that their words are not very well aligned with their actions.

As I've pointed out in this House before, members opposite are members of the federal NDP party as well. I heard at least twice this morning members opposite saying that they were in agreement with the amendments that have been proposed in the House of Commons in Ottawa. Then their brothers and sisters in Ottawa are actually voting against those motions and those bills.

I find that a little incongruous, and I'm referring specifically to Bill C-15, which various NDP members in Ottawa have voted against, including the previous Member of Parliament, now the member here in this House from New Westminster. When she was there, she voted against that bill as well.

So while they talk a good line, again, their words are not in alignment with their actions.

J. Les moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Abbott moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175