2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th 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, March 3, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 7, Number 1

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Madame Speaker: Good morning, hon. Members.

The Rev. Margaret Cornish was ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada in the year 2000. She served as associate priest in Christ Church Cathedral, Vancouver, before becoming rector of St. Alban.

Reverend Cornish will now lead this House in prayer.

M. Cornish: Let us pray.

Holy One, thank you for this day and the peace and prosperity which make it possible to gather today together.

We are mindful we meet on the traditional territories of the Coast Salish First Nations and thank them for their hospitality.

We also acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands we represent and thank them for their care of the earth and its creatures.

We pray for all who bear the burden and privilege of leadership in this province, asking for gifts of wisdom and resolve for Premier Clark, for the Speaker of the House, for all ministers, committee members and staff of this Legislative Assembly.

Grant to these women and men, who confer with one another and on whose word and attitude so much depends, guidance and the grace of humility — that they may be ready to see a point of view which differs from their own and keep before them not only the welfare of their own constituency and province but the whole of Canada and beyond.

Bring them renewed vision and energy for serving with integrity.

Inspire them to be ever bold, compassionate and patient in leadership.

[1005]

Teach this Legislative Assembly to look mercifully upon the world today, use this assembly to heal the divisions in our society, and draw us together in understanding respect and unity of purpose.

In your name we pray.

Amen.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

PROTECTING THE AGRICULTURAL
LAND RESERVE

N. Simons: Good morning to my fellow MLAs in the House.

Today I rise to make a statement about the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. I titled this statement "Protecting the ALR," because unfortunately, after 40 years of what could be considered the most visionary legislation passed in this chamber, it still has its doubters, some of whom have a place in this House.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

This surprises and troubles me, because after 40 years, this is no longer a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects each and every one of us — all the grandchildren who are mentioned in this place, and their grandchildren as well.

The legislation that created the agricultural land reserve, unlike a lot of legislation in this House, is about the next seven generations. In 1972 a government decided that losing 6,000 hectares, or about 60 square kilometres, of agricultural land a year would gradually make us more and more reliant on food from elsewhere. Food security could not exist, and food sovereignty would forever be impossible.

There are renewed threats to the ALR. Some documents were leaked, foretelling the possible decimation of the commission that oversees and adjudicates the land under the reserve. It was suggested in these documents that possibly the Oil and Gas Commission should have greater power, that it should take over in some areas from the ALC or that the commission itself should come under the Ministry of Agriculture, removing its independence. Threats to the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission would render it essentially a land bank and a tool for developers and speculators.

Threats to the agricultural land reserve come in many disguises. People who don't understand issues like food security or who don't support the agricultural sector in this province find reasons to demean the commission and the work that it does. Some talk about how difficult it is to farm rocks or how valuable a piece of property would be for condominiums. They miss the point, and sometimes they have not-so-secret agendas.

Our province is also in the midst of discussing the possible single largest exclusion of land in treaty 8 territory because of the needs of today, without adequate contemplation of the needs for tomorrow. This was accomplished by legislation removing the Agricultural Land Commission from the authority to oversee the project.

There's a good way to ensure the continued protection of our scarce and valuable and non-renewable precious land. It is by strengthening the commission that oversees it. The worst thing that we could do as a province is introduce doubt about the commission and the reserve's future.

Just in the last few months since the cabinet documents I mentioned were leaked, in the intervening period
[ Page 1722 ]
when the government failed to distance itself from those documents, we saw the application for land exclusions jump exponentially. This is essentially what the problem is when politicians and government interfere with what is an independent and quasi-judicial body.

[1010]

The decisions we make about land in this province must be made without fear or favour to special interests, well-financed threats or overly enthusiastic developers who don't see or who have never looked at — or contemplated and possibly haven't given consideration of — the needs of future generations. The Agricultural Land Commission, in order to protect the reserve, must remain not just independent; but provincewide, it must be independent of government.

We've heard since then some talk about guaranteeing it will remain independent, but we have to remember that even small leaks sink boats. The commission must be able to get on with its work. It must be able to conduct the boundary reviews it has wanted to do. It must have the resources necessary to modernize its mapping and to digitize its database.

The Agricultural Land Commission needs the resources to enforce the act, which it is charged with doing. Illegal use of land in the agricultural land reserve brings the entire system of land protection into disrepute. The commission needs to have the time and space to work with farmers, because protecting the land alone will be futile if we have no farmers.

Overriding all of this is the need for the government to recognize that the legislation passed 40 years ago is even more essential now than it has ever been. The ALC is strong, and it can be made stronger. By doing so, it will protect our lands, where we'll be able to grow food for today and for tomorrow's tomorrows.

L. Throness: It's a privilege to respond to the motion of the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast in support of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. I want to reiterate my support for the ALC and the ALR. My constituents support them, the people of B.C. support them, and our government supports them. That includes support for the commission's independence as well. I don't think that's the issue.

I want to deal with what I feel is the real issue, and that's the state of the family farm in B.C. A B.C. Statistics study in 2012 showed that farms are declining in areas of B.C. and farmers are getting older. In fact, the average farmer in B.C. is 56 years of age — the oldest in Canada. Obviously, younger people are not taking over the family farm.

The amount of farmland owned is also in decline, and what's interesting is where that decline is occurring. It's in the northern parts of B.C. — the Peace River, Cariboo, Nechako and Thompson-Okanagan regions. They all experienced decline in ownership between 2006 and 2011, but the amount of farmland owned in the Fraser Valley actually increased by 7 percent in that time. In fact, 29 percent of the farms in B.C. are in the Lower Mainland.

There are two triangle-shaped areas of land in the province, one in the Okanagan and one that makes up the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, that produce 85 percent of the farm-gate receipts in B.C. but only comprise 10 percent of the land. Most of the farmers in my area, in Chilliwack, are quite prosperous. Some of the most beautiful and well-run farms are in my riding, including two of the largest dairy farms in Canada.

In the north farmers are less prosperous because the growing season is shorter and land is not always as high in quality. This means that farms in the north are less viable. In the long term this is a recipe for decline, but that's not where our government is interested. Our government is not interested in managing decline. It's interested in growth and preserving and growing agriculture in B.C.

Now, the mandate of the ALC is to preserve agricultural land but not to preserve farmers or to preserve farms or farm communities. Over time you could see a strange situation in which the ALC would preserve all of the farmland in B.C.'s north, but no actual farming would take place, and farm communities would dry up.

That's why the fourth point in the mandate letter of the Minister of Agriculture is important, and I want to quote it: "Bring forward ALR changes that will further encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in B.C." It's striking at the heart of the problem — the problem of northern farm vulnerability.

To address this problem, I would recommend two things to the government. I would be keen, first of all, to preserve the status quo in the south, where the economic value is highest, where 85 percent of the farm-gate receipts are produced, but I would allow more flexibility in the north where farms are more marginal.

[1015]

For example, a farmer might want to operate a second business out of the family farm, which would allow the farm to remain viable. It wouldn't mean, necessarily, taking land out of the ALR. It would simply allow an off-farm stream of income to supplement farm income in order to allow the farm to prosper.

The second thing I would recommend would be to concentrate the government's activity on the main economic driver in the north, which is natural gas. More industry means higher population, more demand for food, higher incomes and land prices for farmers, better services available in rural areas. In short, the way to increase the viability of farms, farmers and farm communities in B.C.'s north is to develop the economy of the north. We're doing this through the development of natural gas.

To sum up, the patterns of farm activity and farm ownership in B.C. are changing, and we need to change along with them. There's no value to our society in preserving a rigid technical structure of the ALC while
[ Page 1723 ]
agriculture declines all around it. We can't close our eyes to what is actually happening in B.C.'s north.

That's why I would recommend that our government propose some adjustments to the ALR. I don't think they would be controversial at all. I think they would be common sense. Such a proposal could involve legislation, and if the government chose to bring forward the legislation at the appropriate time, I would certainly support it.

N. Simons: As I mentioned, small leaks sink boats, and I think we just heard the small leak. Now, what is fundamentally at issue here is not just the size of the farm and what other things can happen on it. The Agricultural Land Commission has a delegation agreement with the Oil and Gas Commission that is working.

The protection of land for use as farmland in the future is there. There are different economies of scale in agriculture, where farms of a certain size in the Lower Mainland or in the Okanagan and the Kootenays are not the same as the farm and the ranch land that's necessary in the north.

I think what we do have right now before us in this province is the beginning of a slippery slope that British Columbians need to take notice of, because never have we heard any promises of changing the Agricultural Land Commission or the agricultural land reserve before an election. I believe that this is the kind of thing where a piece of legislation as iconic and as, in effect, sacrosanct as the Agricultural Land Commission Act is now under threat.

I think that we've just figured out that the government still intends to weaken the legislation that protects our agricultural land. It's going to do so with the sweet sounds of a harmonic little melody. In fact, what we read underneath it is a lack of real theory. I think that's the problem. I think we do need to save the farm, and we need to save the farmer.

When you see the robust interest in buying locally, climate change, scarce water resources, impacts of the environment on other growing areas and the cost of transportation of food, never has it been more important than it is now to protect the land, to protect our food security and to protect our ability to become food-sovereign.

In my constituency alone it'll take three days for our stores to lose all the food from their shelves. When you think about the province as a whole, the Peace River Valley could produce enough food for one million people. I think that when we don't look at the future needs of our province, when we only think about electability and about our four-year term, we are doing a disservice to the grandchildren that we talk about in this House and to the grandchildren's grandchildren.

I'm not going to have grandchildren, but I care as much for those generations to come as anyone else. When we see a government that has stealthily decided to introduce legislation ultimately, fundamentally, without consultation with the public, without consultation with the major sectors, without consultation with the commission itself, I think we are heading down the wrong path. It's bad policy designed on a bad framework and will result in negative outcomes for the province. As much as we hear flowery words from government and we hear half-baked support for the agricultural land reserve, we're in trouble.

R. Fleming: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Fleming: I'd like to welcome from Quadra Elementary, Ecole Quadra, in my riding, 25 grade four students who are here this morning with their teacher Siobhan Kivell and a number of volunteer parents.

[1020]

Amongst this group there is a student who was elected as Premier and another student who was elected as the official opposition leader.

They are studying the Legislative Assembly as part of their school program just now, and they're privileged to be able to come down here and take advantage of the tour services that the Legislature provides.

I ask the House to give this group of students and parents and their teacher a warm welcome in hopes that some of them will return some day either as guests again or maybe even as legislators.

Private Members' Statements

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

L. Reimer: As a newly elected female member of this Legislature, I'm honoured to stand with so many other women in this House to recognize that March 8 is International Women's Day. What a wonderful time it is to be standing here. For the first time in British Columbia's parliamentary history, three women currently hold the most senior positions in our Legislature. Our Lieutenant-Governor, our Speaker and our Premier are all women.

We have seven female members of cabinet, and that's nearly one half of the number in cabinet. More than a third of the members elected in this House are women, making this the highest percentage in B.C.'s history. It's higher than any other province in Canada. This also exceeds the target for female elected municipal officials that was set by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities committee that advocates for this sort of thing.

To me, this is extremely significant. It proves that more women are pursuing executive and leadership positions
[ Page 1724 ]
and that they are succeeding. These women serve as role models to younger generations in their communities, demonstrating that they, too, can achieve their dreams, no matter how big.

I had the pleasure, along with many of my colleagues, of participating in the Canadian Women Voters Congress mentoring program, and I brought my mentee here to Victoria to experience our recent throne speech.

Every year International Women's Day has a theme. This year's theme is "Strong women. Strong Canada. Canadian women — creating jobs one business at a time." This theme celebrates the essential role that women entrepreneurs play in driving growth, creating jobs and fostering innovation in the Canadian economy.

According to Royal Bank economics, majority-owned women's businesses contributed an estimated $148 billion to the Canadian economy in 2011. Additionally, women-owned businesses currently employ over 1.5 million Canadians.

This theme is especially salient in British Columbia as we have the second-highest number of female small business owners in the country, which is precisely why this government has invested $100,000 with the Women's Enterprise Centre to encourage even more women entrepreneurs in the province.

International Women's Day, with our theme this year, isn't just about celebrating the strides we've already made. It's also about blazing a path and helping the next generation of upcoming entrepreneurs, which is why the Premier created the Premier's women's economic advisory council.

The purpose of this council is to offer guidance to the government on how to expand women's business opportunities in key sectors. The council will offer advice to the Premier and cabinet ministers on issues, strategies, policy changes and potential actions to tap into economic opportunities for women that will help strengthen B.C.'s economy.

We also recognize that the jobs of tomorrow will go to the workers who are best qualified for them, which is why we are making a special effort to recruit women to consider skilled trades as a career option.

It's estimated that 43 percent of the jobs opening up in B.C. between now and 2020 will require trades and technical training. This is why this government is investing $4 million through the B.C. jobs plan to the Canada–British Columbia labour market agreement.

This investment will enable 675 women to access mentorship opportunities and trades training programs and to complete skills upgrading, and will support valuable programs in every region of the province — programs like the Industry Training Authority and the women-in-trades training initiative.

These programs provide information and training for women who want to pursue careers as plumbers, electricians, carpenters or heavy-equipment operators, just to name a few. In total, more than 2,100 women have benefited from the women-in-trades training program since it was first introduced in 2008.

Women throughout B.C. are realizing that a career in trades can mean independence, job satisfaction and great pay. Approximately 10 percent of all apprentices in British Columbia are women — up from 8.5 percent in 2009.

[1025]

This government is not only working to ensure prosperity for women in the workforce but also has made it a priority that they are free from the crippling effects of domestic violence at home. Women need to know that they are not alone and that help is available.

That's why we've created the provincial office of domestic violence, which has developed a three-year, $5.5 million provincial plan with government and community anti-violence partners.

We've consulted with experts and service providers from throughout B.C. to ensure that the voices of the anti-violence community are heard and considered. Our online public consultation process drew a tremendous response and gave us the opportunity to hear the experiences and perspectives of hundreds of British Columbians affected by domestic violence. We know that we need to continue to work hard to eradicate this insidious issue, and we are making it a top priority.

I know firsthand — as an MLA and before that, a city councillor, a community advocate, a businesswoman and, of course, a mother — that while there is much more to be done, on this upcoming International Women's Day we must honour the great strides that we have taken and also recommit ourselves to make sure that any barriers are removed and opportunity increased for these vital members of society and our community.

M. Karagianis: In rising to speak to this debate this morning, I'd like to thank the member opposite for bringing this topic into the House — celebrating women, successful women, on International Women's Day. But it strikes me that the quid pro quo in this is that in British Columbia we still have a long, long way to go to ensure that all women have the ability to be successful and have access to prosperity, to opportunities.

When I hear the member opposite talk about ways to help the next generation in business, I also think that we need to highlight the fact that more people live in poverty in this province than any other province, in British Columbia. That, disproportionately, is a story about women and families.

Fifty percent of single-parent families live in poverty in this province. So we can't talk about the success of women without talking about the flip side: how we are not going far enough to deal with poverty. That's an issue that this government has consistently avoided.

We still see no poverty reduction plan here in British
[ Page 1725 ]
Columbia that would, in fact, guarantee that there is success for all women, not just the elite who have been successful in business up to this point.

The member mentioned the issue of women in trades. Absolutely, that is something that this side of the House encourages very strongly. The reality is, though, that we have consistently seen cuts in trades training dollars, again, disproportionately affecting women in trades and their ability to participate in trades.

The member talked about the number of dollars being invested this year in women in trades. That's $1 million less than previously. That's a significant drop in dollars being invested in women in the trades.

Certainly, in my community, where we build ships, I'd be very happy to see more money put into ensuring that women can take their place in the trades training. You see very few women taking those jobs. They are family-supporting jobs. They are definitely a key element in helping women get out of poverty.

I think it would be remiss for me to not talk about one of the other key elements missing from any jobs plan or any discussion on women being successful in the workplace, and that is the lack of a comprehensive child care plan here in this province.

Women can't go to work if they can't find child care. If they can't find affordable, accessible child care, then, how are they supposed to take their place in the workforce? If you are paying every dollar you earn to keep your children in child care, then, that is wrong. Too many families face that right now. Again, there's another barrier, as part of the story of what the government is or is not doing for women is the lack of continuing and real investment in an accessible, affordable child care plan.

I also think that if we're going to talk about celebrating women, successful women, and opportunities for women here for this International Women's Day, it's important that we talk about those sisters and mothers and daughters who have gone missing and been murdered and the lack of action taken in their honour.

You can't talk about international women without talking about the awful experiences that women have in places like on the Highway of Tears, Highway 16, where the government has consistently avoided putting in the resources that are needed to try and keep women safe there. We've seen that the 63 recommendations coming out of the horrendous Missing Women Inquiry have yet to be fully implemented.

[1030]

We can't talk about success for women without talking about keeping them safe. As long as our mothers, our sisters and our daughters are in any way jeopardized on the street, jeopardized in their communities, then we are not going far enough. I know that the member talked about free from domestic violence, but there's a bigger story here.

The government has failed on that front. I will believe that the government really, truly honours successful women when I see them put resources in place that allow women to get back into the workforce, take their place in training and have adequate dollars and, more importantly, when women are safe, when we take the measures that are required to keep women safe everywhere in this province.

L. Reimer: I want to thank the member opposite for her views and suggestions. Of course, as we know, the official opposition has a very important role to play in our democracy. I agree with many of her statements.

Skills training. We are making significant investments in that to ensure British Columbians are first in line for the jobs of tomorrow. That includes $2.3 billion for capital spending towards skills training facilities in post-secondary and $1.3 billion in capital towards our world-class K-to-12 system over the next three years.

I just want to touch, as well, on affordable child care. The government child care subsidy program has an annual budget of $135 million to support care for more than 50,000 children, including a supplement for children with special needs. Yes, demand for this subsidy program has fallen, but that is because many families are embracing full-day kindergarten.

When we consider how we can help women in the workplace, we need to think beyond the individual. Their families matter too. With respect to implementing universal child care in B.C. at an estimated cost of approximately $1.5 billion per year, it's simply not feasible in our current economic climate.

However, we recognize the challenges faced by parents struggling to balance raising a family with pursuing work and training opportunities. Our B.C. early-years strategy is designed to provide choice and support for parents of young children by making quality early-years programs and services more accessible and affordable.

We've recently introduced an early childhood tax credit in an effort to assist families raising young children.

I just want to touch upon the comments made by the member opposite with respect to the missing women. As you know, this government is very committed to ensuring that we implement the recommendations in the Missing Women Task Force. While we all wish that we could do more, we are going to be implementing all those recommendations.

Expecting another balanced budget will ensure that we have sustainability to fund all of these wonderful programs that will increase opportunity and reduce barriers for women.

IMPROVING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

M. Mungall: I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak to the importance of improving employment opportunities here in British Columbia. As everyone
[ Page 1726 ]
knows, B.C. experienced, with the rest of the world, an economic downturn in 2008, causing many people to be laid off from their work. Many others who were searching for work were unable to find a job.

Since that time, things have rebounded somewhat but not nearly as much as they should so that we can be getting people back into the good-paying jobs that they need to have a good life.

Some of the economic shifts that are happening in our world today go right back to before you can get a job — to the educational side of things, to the skills, the training that's needed to get the job. We know now that 80 percent of jobs in the near future are going to require some level of post-secondary education.

That's part of this larger picture around helping British Columbians get the jobs they need to have a good life. But there's another part of this picture.

The days of finishing your post-secondary education and going out and finding work right away on the heels of your degree, your diploma or your certificate just don't exist the way that they used to. In fact, getting a job despite having good credentials is still quite difficult. My generation knows that very keenly, unfortunately.

[1035]

That's why we have employment programs that help people get the jobs. In this province they're noted as Work B.C. centres. We have amazing Work B.C. centres all across this province doing fantastic work and wonderful employment programs doing amazing work, helping people do things like create a resumé, practise their interview skills, look at career selection and what kind of job best suits them.

Basic literacy. We know that literacy is an issue in this province, that it's not just a matter of a post-secondary education, but many people can't even get into post-secondary education because they don't have the literacy requirements. Many of our employment centres help them get those literacy requirements.

Computer literacy. We all like to think that everybody has all the computer skills that they need, especially from my generation. Weren't we the ones who programmed the VCR for our parents and so, naturally, fell into place with iPhones and all the new technology? But of course, with new technology comes a vast array of skills required for contemporary jobs, and employment centres help people get those computer literacy skills.

Of course, there are life skills. I can't think of anyone better, off the top of my head, than PEERS, who has been helping women leaving the sex trade develop life skills to go into mainstream employment. This organization has done tremendous work for women, improving safety, security and financial stability in their lives. I'm going to come back to what has happened to PEERS as a result of what we're going to be talking about today.

In my area Kootenay Employment Services and Kootenay Career Development Society provide all of the services I've already talked about. They do it for everyone, whether they're what's considered a specialized population — whether somebody has a disability; somebody has been marginalized, like a youth at risk — or someone who is leaving post-secondary education, leaving Selkirk College and needing some help for the first time in getting that first career job. They do amazing work, as I said.

I recall, when I worked with youth at the Nelson and District Youth Centre, young people coming in. They hadn't yet even identified what kind of career they wanted. I would sit down with them, and we would talk about what they wanted to pursue in life and the options available to them to do that — whether it was post-secondary education, or maybe there was a posting on the job board already that they could apply for — and then set them up with the skills they needed so that they could compete in the job market successfully.

You would think with these employment programs and all the work they do that any jobs plan would see these services as integral to helping British Columbians get the jobs that they need, that these services would increase, especially in light of the economic times.

But this is what we see with the budget. We see a 46 percent cut to these services this year. That's not going to do British Columbians any good when it comes to getting a job. When services are cut — the very basic services that people need so that they can get a job — we are doing a disservice to British Columbians. There's 46 percent less this year coming from the province into our Work B.C. centres.

How is that going to impact people's ability to create a resumé? How is it going to impact people's ability to develop their interview skills? How is it going to impact organizations helping people develop life skills? Well, for PEERS, they had to shut their doors. They had to shut their doors because this cut comes on the heels of a major funding reorganization that is hurting smaller employment services like PEERS. Now we see another action by this government that's going to hurt our valuable and integral employment services to make this province an economically stable and economically viable place so that people can get the jobs they need to have a good life.

[1040]

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the member for Nelson-Creston for her comments on employment opportunities. With respect to Work B.C. offices throughout the province, they do fantastic job. I've been fortunate enough to actually visit three of the Work B.C. offices within my riding — in Sicamous, in Salmon Arm and in Enderby. They do a fantastic job of helping those young workers that are having trouble maybe finding that new employment in finding work throughout the province.

You see, I'm an entrepreneur at heart. I'm positive, I'm forward-looking, and I'm solutions-focused. I've spent the past 26 years creating and building businesses in B.C.,
[ Page 1727 ]
creating job opportunities and growing the Shuswap's and B.C.'s economy. Maintaining a positive attitude and remaining focused on cost-effective solutions and the opportunities ahead are paramount to success. And cost-effective, I think, is the most important strategy that this government, our government, is actually entertaining.

While the member opposite can speak to employment opportunities, I have truly lived it. Many of my colleagues also comes from the private sector and have owned and operated businesses in most all sectors of the economy, in all regions of the province. Members on this side of the House believe in free enterprise and have more than their fair share of understanding and experience of what it takes to grow the economy and create employment in British Columbia.

Now, this may be a surprise to the member opposite, but the topic we are speaking to this morning is one of the highest priorities of our government. That is why we created the B.C. jobs plan, a long-term strategy to enable job creation and to build a strong economy and a secure tomorrow for all British Columbians.

However, we are not creating jobs through massive increases in government spending. We are focusing on growing our economy by encouraging businesses to expand and continue to invest in our great province, thus creating employment opportunities for all British Columbians.

We are growing our economy by solidifying the economic confidence of our province through balancing our budget, maintaining our triple-A credit rating and having the most competitive tax rates for businesses in North America.

In a global economy, businesses have a choice as to what jurisdiction they choose to conduct business. It is absolutely crucial that B.C. remain competitive. We're also attracting new international investment, expanding the market for B.C. products through trade agreements, investing in skills training and saying yes to developing our natural resources in a sustainable manner.

These are, of course, only a few of the steps our government is undertaking towards building a better, healthier B.C. As we all know, a healthy community is a working community.

In my role as Parliamentary Secretary for the B.C. Jobs Plan to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, I've been fortunate to have met with many business owners throughout the province in efforts to better understand how our government can continue to help increase investment and facilitate further employment creation. I must say that I'm impressed with the diversity of B.C.'s business community and their valiant efforts to weather the global storm of 2008.

Resoundingly, I'm hearing from business owners that they are supportive of government's continued focus on economic stability and government's efforts to deliver a balanced budget. Businesses also express their desire for government's continued efforts to reduce regulations to lower the costs of doing business, making it easier to facilitate investment and keeping taxes competitive with other jurisdictions.

I am happy to share with the members opposite that business confidence is high, with a large majority of businesses predicting to hire more employees in the coming year, some by as much as 20 percent. With this renewed confidence, business owners are more willing to make the long-term investment decisions to expand operations, invest in new equipment and technologies and diversify into new markets.

As the owner of a number of businesses that include the manufacturing service and tourism sectors, I could not agree more. Our manufacturing plant is currently sitting on the largest backlog of orders we've seen in five years, and our houseboat vacation business is taking an unprecedented number of reservations for the coming season.

I feel this is worth mentioning because many businesses were very lucky to have survived the 1990s, when the economic climate and government agenda was completely different than it is today. At a time when the rest of Canada was experiencing record growth, B.C. was floundering with high taxation, unprecedented and constrictive regulations and double-digit unemployment. So when the members opposite talk about employment opportunities, I look to their historic and disappointing record of the 1990s.

I must profess that I could not be more proud to be a member of the current government, nor could I be happier for my business, my community, the Shuswap region or the province of B.C. that our government has its hand firmly on the rudder and is adeptly steering our province on a course of fiscal responsibility and into a future with unlimited growth potential.

[1045]

M. Mungall: Well, I would commend the member opposite, as I would commend any business owner, for expanding and creating jobs in this province, right? Of course. We all value the private sector for their ability to create jobs. The public sector is also a very large job creator, as we know.

In my community in Nelson, the public sector is a very important employer. As well, here in Victoria the public sector is a very important employer. The public sector, through shipbuilding, has created some of the most stable lifetime jobs that are going to exist here in the capital region. Of course job creation is very integral. I'm very glad that the member opposite has been a part of that.

No one disagrees with a cost-effective approach to managing and developing government programs and government services. I think any government of the day always endeavours to be as cost-effective as possible, to
[ Page 1728 ]
be thinking creatively in how to deliver services to the best of their ability.

But the point is that the member opposite misses the point that if jobs and helping people get jobs so that they can have a good life was a priority for this government, they would put their money where their mouth is. The fact of the matter is that they don't. They just have not.

They have been cutting from employment programs not just in this year's budget but for years. I think it's important to note that in 2011-2012, the year before the reorganization of the funding model, the employment programs budget line was $82.8 million. If we compare that to the cut that exists today, what we see is a drop of $52.9 million — a 64 percent cut.

If this government truly believed in helping British Columbians get jobs that are being created, they would put their money where their mouth is and ensure that employment programs at Work B.C. centres would be funded. They would not be shutting their doors and making it more difficult for people to get the jobs they need for the sole purpose of having a good life, to be able to pay their bills, to take their family on a vacation, to afford good food and to have a good roof over their head. These are the things that we're talking about.

It all starts often with somebody walking into an employment program and sitting down with a caseworker — 83 percent of people who access employment programs in this province start with a caseworker — and working it out so that they can get the job they need.

SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD

S. Hamilton: I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on a topic that I brought up in this House on a few occasions this session. It's important to me as a resident of Delta and to all British Columbians who want economic prosperity and a secure tomorrow for our province.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road is one of the key elements of the province's Pacific gateway transportation strategy. It's part of our government's B.C. jobs plan, and it shows the plan is working. The South Fraser Perimeter Road is a four-lane highway and is a vital and key piece of British Columbia's transportation network.

More than 4,000 jobs were created during its construction, and the completion of this road is already helping to strengthen the province's economy. It has made travelling through the Lower Mainland easier, and it's cut down on the time people spend commuting to and from work. Since opening in December 2013, the South Fraser Perimeter Road has saved some motorists as much as an hour on their commute.

The new road helps ease congestion on other routes as well, and it takes commercial trucks off of River Road in North Delta. It makes travel easier for people who use those roads to go to and from work and get home, especially the lives of the people who live along that River Road corridor. They've gotten their lives back.

Removing the bulk of the commercial traffic from residential areas makes our neighbourhoods safer and improves the quality of life for families. This is one benefit that has already made life better for many, many people.

[1050]

Less time stuck in traffic means more time at home with your family. It makes it less stressful for moms and dads rushing to pick up their kids after school. Getting home earlier allows more people to make important commitments to their community, whether that's helping out as a coach on your kid's soccer team or being in less of a rush to get to a PAC meeting or a city council meeting, whatever it might be. These are very real benefits that our communities are experiencing now.

Of course, opening the South Fraser Perimeter Road has also had other tangible benefits. When the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure did an environmental assessment, part of the report included an economic impact assessment. That assessment predicted the project would result in more than 7,000 long-term jobs in Delta and Surrey by the year 2021, improved access for individual industrial properties, increased access to regional transportation, increased land values and additional property tax revenue.

Many of these predictions will be proven over time. Some of them are already bearing fruit. Ocean Trailer — this is a company with locations across western Canada. They saw the value of improved access to what formerly had been contaminated land in the Tilbury industrial area of Delta. This land was cleaned up as part of the work done to mitigate some of the concerns people had about the project. It's an example of how our government works with municipalities and community groups to enhance the value of development.

Ocean Trailer recognized the strategic importance to the land and how the new road would improve access to the region's largest port. Today the company has developed the land and has built a 75,000-square-foot facility that also serves as the company headquarters.

Another major company that sees benefits from the new road is FedEx Canada. The company is developing a new $20 million hub for its freight trucks on 16 acres in the South Westminster area of Surrey. The site is logistically ideal for moving parcels around the Lower Mainland.

Wesgroup corporation. Here's another company that's had the foresight to see the value of buying land that now has access to the South Fraser Perimeter Road. PacificLink is an 83-acre urban industrial park built by Wesgroup on what had been brownfield land near Scott Road and 116 Avenue. The company enticed Frito Lay Canada to purchase more than 11 acres on that site for its new distribution facility. A key factor in Frito Lay's decision was the saving in travel time. Another factor was the environmental benefits that come from having the distribution facility so close to a new highway.
[ Page 1729 ]

The South Fraser Perimeter Road means that big trucks are spending less time driving on secondary roads before getting on the highway. This road allows goods to move more freely around the region, and it helps to lower vehicle emissions by limiting the number of stops trucks have to make travelling between ports, ferries, businesses and borders.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road will help open new markets for British Columbia. As I mentioned, the new highway is a key part of the province's Pacific Gateway transportation strategy. One of the goals of the B.C. jobs plan is to expand markets of B.C. products. The way we can do that as a government is by strengthening the infrastructure needed to get goods to market. Doing so ensures that B.C. keeps its place as North America's gateway for Asia-Pacific trade.

The South Fraser Perimeter Road provides greater access to the Tilbury and Annacis industrial districts. These areas are home to more than 700 jobs and are providing well-paying jobs for my constituents and others from around the Lower Mainland. Nearly 20,000 people go to work each day in these areas, and many of them are benefiting from this new road.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Annacis Island and Tilbury are great examples of how creating an attractive climate for business leads to opportunities for growth and prosperity.

I'd also like to point out the partnerships. The federal government helped with some of the funding. As the gateway to the Pacific, British Columbia really is a vital part of Canada's economic prosperity.

On a local level we were also able to work with municipalities to mitigate many of their concerns. Our government has also worked with local farmers to make sure that the benefits were there for them. During construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road more than $100 million was spent on environmental and agricultural improvements.

An important agricultural irrigation system was updated, allowing it to now bring fresh water from the Fraser River to more than 15,000 acres of Delta farmland. This allows farmers to grow more diverse and higher-yield crops. Other mitigations included the construction of more than 40 environmental areas, including 80 fish habitats and 25 wildlife crossings.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I look forward to hearing from the members opposite.

H. Bains: It is a pleasure to stand here and speak about the project that the member has talked about. I was hoping that the member would stand up and tell us something new.

[1055]

When I saw this subject, I thought it would be something that we, perhaps, on this side or the public is missing — that the member would bring it to our attention that these are some of the things that we should be looking at when we talk about the South Fraser Perimeter Road. All of the benefits that the member has listed, you would think…. When the business plan was built, when the business case was discussed in 2005 and 2006, all of that was included. Member after member, since 2005-2006, spoke about those benefits, and on this side and that side recognized those benefits.

I don't know what the purpose was of standing up here, talking about and repeating the same speech and spin, the same speech over and over again, rather than talking about something constructive. I thought the member would stand up here and talk about some of the mismanagement that went on during this project, the cost overrun to the tune of $464 million. From the original budget of $800 million, it ended up costing us $1.264 billion, a $464 million cost overrun.

I thought the member would talk about some of the ways we could actually do better in the future when we take on projects like this. How do we avoid these cost overruns?

No. Surprised again. I think he's fitting right into the culture of Victoria, where you come in and start to represent Victoria to your constituents rather than the promise you made to your constituents that you would represent them here in Victoria. That hasn't happened. Why am I surprised? That's the way, I think, that side works. Member after member that I've seen standing up, singing the praises of this government, never see anything wrong that the government is doing.

When you look at all of the other projects — whether it was the Port Mann Bridge, whether it was the B.C. Place roof, whether it was the Vancouver Convention Centre — if you add all the cost overruns, it's billions of dollars. It's about over $4 billion. I haven't even touched on many of the other cost overruns that the government has wasted, such as integrated case management — $182 million; private power; B.C. Hydro deferral accounts; the Telus–B.C. Place deal screwup; Boss Power; Maximus health care IT med….

I mean, the list goes on and on. If you added all of that up, you would never have to go back to the public ever again for additional dollars to have the extension built for public transportation into Surrey, and build the Broadway corridor. You'd never have to go, if this was managed right. I was hoping that the member would have stood up and said: "Look, how do we manage these projects better in the future?" But, no, he hasn't.

This is after they had to actually cut back two of the overpasses. The member will very clearly know. The Sunbury and Tilbury — two they had to cut because costs were going way over. You know what? This is what the Delta Chamber of Commerce said. The Delta Chamber
[ Page 1730 ]
of Commerce said that using traffic lights would restrict the flow of vehicles through the area and hurt business. This is the business people saying it to this government.

I was hoping that the member would repeat that line on behalf of the Delta Chamber of Commerce. I was hoping that the member would stand up. How the constituents' proposals and suggestions were ignored of rerouting this South Fraser Perimeter Road to minimize the damage to Burns Bog and to minimize the impact on the environment and on agriculture….

Again — surprise — the member just stood up, and he sang from the same song sheet that he is given and handed out like other members and started to represent Victoria very well to his constituents.

I like the member, actually. I was hoping that he would stand up and he would change. You know what? I was hoping that he would live up to our expectations and live up to the expectations of his constituents. Surprised again.

When will somebody, anybody from that side, stand up and start to represent their constituents? Look at some of the facts. You don't have to actually make things up, as you're asked to read from this sheet. Just look at some of the facts. We have to cut back on the projects so that…. They still went over.

Deputy Speaker: It's great to see the spirit of non-partisan debate on Monday mornings.

[1100]

S. Hamilton: First I have to start by getting it on the record: I like the member for Surrey-Newton too. I like all the members opposite, in fact. I don't hold grudges. I don't take things personally.

I stood up here and I spoke about the South Fraser Perimeter Road. It could very well be, as the member said, that a lot of this information was put forward to this House back in 2005-2006. I'm sorry I wasn't a member of this House in 2005-2006, but this is a very important strategic highway link in my community, so I thought it was something important for me to speak about.

Issues around mismanagement. I guess we could address that. I mean, this project was scoped at the beginning at a certain amount of money, and then, of course, everybody knows in business that contracts are let. They're received, they're evaluated, and then we go forward. If we want to take the initial scoped amount and put it forward, we could do that with just about every project we take on in this province. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be the amount of money we're going to see, the bill we're going to have to pay at the end of the day.

I was interested in some of the earlier comments by the member for Nelson-Creston about job creation. I mean, you don't create jobs without first investing strategically in an environment and creating an environment that attracts jobs to a community. This highway has done that. I said it earlier in my speech that thousands of jobs are going to be created in this province as a result of this highway. They're going to continue to be supported as a result of this highway.

The member for Surrey-Newton also talked about issues around Burns Bog and the impact to the environment. I was sitting on Delta council at the time when we were negotiating the alignments and all of the impacts that were going to be created. We acknowledged back then that there would be environmental impacts associated with this, but we had to mitigate them as best we could.

From Highway 10 to River Road northbound it was the sage decision of the people that were making the decisions at the time to divert an entire highway in one direction to avoid sections of Burns Bog. I mean, if that's not a commitment to the environment, I'm not quite sure what is.

In terms of prudence when it comes to management, on another note, it was mentioned that there are two intersections instead of interchanges. That decision was made at the eleventh hour, and although it may not have been that favourable and may not have been received favourably by the Delta Chamber of Commerce, in my opinion, it shows prudent management. We were concerned about the way the project was inflating in terms of price, so we decided we'd do that at a later time.

And I still like the member for Surrey-Newton.

Hon. M. Polak: I call Motion 5.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 5 without disturbing the priorities of motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Motions

MOTION 5 — CLINIC FOR LATE EFFECTS
OF CHILDHOOD CANCER TREATMENT

J. Darcy: I rise today to speak on a motion that I have submitted in this House.

[Be it resolved that this House supports the creation of a specialized clinic to address the late effects of childhood cancer treatment.]

I hope all members of this House will support it.

In the gallery today are 20 childhood cancer survivors and their families from across British Columbia. I want to begin today by saluting them. They are all courageous advocates, both the survivors of childhood cancer as well as their incredible families, who faced the news that no parent ever wants to hear and made sure that everything humanly and medically possible was done to save their
[ Page 1731 ]
children's lives.

Each of these young people received aggressive cancer treatment as children — surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, often all of the above. But what they and their parents and most of their family doctors and many specialists did not know then is that, as a direct result of the treatment that saved their lives, they would experience devastating late effects of the treatment itself — secondary cancers, heart disease, physical and cognitive disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorder, fertility issues, early menopause. The list goes on.

[1105]

Today these young people, these families who together battled cancer as children, are having to fight again. They should not have to fight alone. They need a specialized clinic to deal with the late effects of childhood cancer treatment. I'm calling on the B.C. government today to put such a clinic in place and to fully fund it.

The majority of B.C.'s estimated 3,000 childhood cancer survivors do not know and have never been told of the potentially life-threatening conditions that they experience.

We screen women for breast cancer, and we screen women at greater risk more frequently. We screen for colon cancer, and we screen people at greater risk more often. Yet we don't even have a registry, much less a program, for systematic treatment and care of childhood cancer survivors, despite what medical science now knows about the late effects of their treatment.

Not only that, when these young people turn 19, they age out of Children's Hospital. They and their families are most often left to navigate a very complicated health care system on their own, going from one health professional to another without anyone understanding that what they are experiencing now are late effects of that early treatment. That's simply wrong, and it is morally unacceptable to allow this situation to continue.

Today I'm calling on the B.C. government to establish the specialized multidisciplinary clinic that childhood cancer survivors and their families have been asking for and desperately need. This issue has been studied for many years. Such clinics exist in other jurisdictions like Ontario and many American states. The time for action in British Columbia is now.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in supporting this motion, on a non-partisan basis, for the sake of these survivors and their families and for the sake of the next generation of childhood cancer survivors in the province of British Columbia.

N. Letnick: I'd also like to thank the member for New Westminster for bringing up the motion. My conversations with the member over the past few months have definitely brought me to the conclusion that the member is here for the same reason that many of us are here: to see improvements all across British Columbia — in particular, in the issues of health care. My hat goes off to her for bringing the motion forward.

I'd also like to thank all those that are present here. I understand that it's very difficult to have a child who has cancer. I've never experienced that, thank God. But I have experienced my wife going through cancer and cancer therapy — and I can maybe feel just a little bit of what they felt — as I was helping my wife through that process. Fortunately, my wife is cancer-free and doesn't have to worry about late effects, having cancer late in her life.

This motion has also allowed, I would say, many members of the House to understand what late effects are and how it can happen that someone who's been treated with chemotherapy or other therapies — while they might be deemed cancer-free at one moment — would end up later on in life, because of the therapies, with symptoms that they might not have had if they hadn't had cancer early on in life.

Late effects in childhood cancer survivors can affect things like your organs, tissues, bodily function, growth and development, mood, feelings, actions, thinking, learning, memory, social and psychological adjustments. Of course, there's a big risk for secondary cancers to appear maybe somewhere else in the body that it didn't happen before.

I fully appreciate the challenge that the member has brought forward to the House and the ability for our health care professionals to look at what we can do to reduce the stress that's on the parents and, of course, the children who have grown out into their adult years.

[1110]

We have in British Columbia some actions that are currently happening with transitioning youth. Our government and the B.C. Cancer Agency know that patients need help beyond the initial cancer treatment, so they're taking and have taken action. They recognize that care does not stop when people, survivors, turn 18.

And thank God we have survivors, because many, many years ago, a cancer sentence was a death sentence. Now, of course, many children are surviving and moving on to long lives ahead of them, and some of them are subject to those late effects.

The B.C. Cancer Agency has developed a survivorship program that is dedicated to improving the well-being of those who are living with and beyond cancer. The medical system offers a range of long-term care for patients who have had childhood cancer. Family doctors are and will continue to be at the centre of these supports.

For example, we have the A GP for Me program. It provides $18½ million to support doctors who develop long-term cancer plans for patients and complex conditions. As part of that program, we pay doctors a fee to provide additional care for patients who have complex needs, many of whom are cancer survivors.

Government is also working through B.C. Children's Hospital on making sure that we support cancer in dif-
[ Page 1732 ]
ferent ways. There are approximately 3,500 survivors of childhood cancer in British Columbia. The hospital sees 120 to 140 new oncology patients per year from all over British Columbia. Those patients are followed into their late teens and early 20s, because they are still at risk for late effects.

After transition from Children's Hospital the patients who are at the highest risk for late effects, usually ones who've had the radiation therapy, are transferred back to B.C. Cancer Agency for ongoing surveillance. Patients who did not have radiation are transitioned back to their GPs, with recommendations for ongoing surveillance management.

I'm sure my colleagues on both sides of the House will continue to discuss the ways that British Columbia is addressing the issue of late effects.

I want to re-emphasize that we on this side of the House sympathize and empathize with the families that are going through this horrible consequence of a treatment that's there to save their lives and also, of course, support the continued work of our medical fraternity to ensure that we have good outcomes for our children not only through their cancer years but also past those cancer years so that we can reduce the impacts of potentially late effects.

C. James: Thank you to my colleague for New Westminster for bringing forward this motion that I will speak in support of. I was pleased to hear the member opposite talking about how important this issue is. There is an opportunity for all of us to join together in a non-partisan way and support this motion today to recognize and support the families.

I also want to express my appreciation to the families and to the survivors who are here today. I think it's important for us to recognize in this Legislature that if the treatment was in place — if people, families, survivors felt that they were getting the kind of support they need — they wouldn't be here on this lobby effort.

The individuals who are struggling with side effects and with other things, as the member has said, that occur because of cancer treatment have a lot to deal with in their lives already. For the families and the survivors to come forward and push for this kind of specialized support shows how important it is to them in their lives. I think it's important that we all acknowledge and recognize that.

Cancer doesn't end when the treatment ends. The side effects continue for many, many individuals and particularly for children, who are receiving cancer treatment at the optimum time of growth, when side effects are much more likely. Often medications continue for a lifetime from cancer treatment.

Again, it doesn't end when the treatment ends. That continues on. We see secondary challenges. We see heart issues. Certainly, immune challenges are huge for people who had childhood cancer.

We need to look at education for families and for survivors. As treatment changes, it's important that we also look at the education that's needed around the kinds of side effects that could be experienced by individuals.

[1115]

I think the other reason that I want to support this motion…. Imagine yourself as a survivor without a family doctor. We know the rate and the challenges of finding a family physician in British Columbia, but imagine if you add onto that complexity the challenges that you're facing as a survivor of cancer not able to have a family doctor who perhaps knows your history. Imagine going to walk-in clinics for the kinds of challenges that you're facing as an individual.

The member talked about the programs around transition, helping people transition from childhood to adult when they're facing health issues. Well, I think that's a very good program. I think it's very good support, but it's not specific to childhood cancers, and it doesn't continue on. It helps someone transition, but it doesn't help them continue on. If they move communities, if they move to a different area in British Columbia, they're then facing the challenges again.

We experienced in my family a small window into these challenges when my nephew was diagnosed with leukemia when he was a young boy. He's 34 years old now. The success rates for childhood leukemia are extraordinary. I think we're all grateful in this House for the kind of progress that has been made. I'm also grateful for the treatment my nephew received, but we saw the challenges that continue on into adulthood that he has continued to have. We're grateful that he has a regular family physician, but a specialized clinic like this to provide that kind of support would make a huge difference.

Having had cancer myself, I know the difference having a cancer clinic makes. I know the support that provided to me and to my family. I know the difference it made to know that someone has expertise in the area. When you talk to them, they've experienced it before, they've seen the kinds of challenges, and they'll be able to provide that kind of support.

Well, what could be more important than providing that support to children who have gone through cancer treatment, have survived and are now facing secondary challenges? They deserve that same kind of support.

This is a very modest proposal. I think it's important to state that as well. We're not talking about huge dollars here. These are dollars that are manageable to provide that kind of specialized support to ensure that children survivors and their families get the kind of support they need.

I would urge all members in this House to support this. This motion and this issue are supported by the Pediatric Cancer Survivorship Society. I think it's something, as I've said, where we have the opportunity to come togeth-
[ Page 1733 ]
er across this House to show that we recognize the challenges that these families are facing, to show that we can provide the kind of support that the individuals deserve.

It's estimated that there are 3,000 survivors with complex needs in British Columbia. Those numbers, again, show the challenge of not having that kind of specialized support in place.

I would urge support of this motion.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much to the member for New Westminster and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill for your passionate discussions on this issue. Also, thank you for educating me. I do have a health care background, and I was not familiar with the issue until I researched it for this motion. And thank you to the people that came into the House to support the motion and made the effort to take time out of their busy days to come to the Legislature today.

I'd like to mention briefly about how the treatment of childhood cancers has advanced so much in the last decades. One of my colleagues mentioned that maybe 30, 40 years ago pediatric cancers would have been fatal. Since then trials, treatment, have helped decrease fatalities and have definitely improved the outcomes. Now we're beginning to understand the repercussions of some of those drugs and some of that radiation — hence, the reason why the motion has come to light.

There are services available throughout British Columbia through the various cancer agencies to help with transitioning, B.C. Children's Hospital being one of the key drivers of this. I read about the ON TRAC transition initiative for B.C., which facilitates transition to adult services for youth with chronic health conditions as well as disabilities.

[1120]

It's a provincewide, multifaceted transition initiative developed to help youth 12 to 24 years of age as they plan, prepare and transfer their transition to adult.

The B.C. Cancer Agency has developed a survivorship program that is dedicated to improving the well-being of those who are living with and beyond cancer.

I also was quite interested to learn about the GP for Me program. If you have GPs working in groups who can use these additional fees that are being provided to them to pay additional health care professionals — including dietitians, of which I was one; nurse practitioners; physiotherapists and other health professionals — to provide additional care and spend more time treating and educating their patients, particularly those with chronic illnesses…. By using the time and skills of other health care professionals, doctors can attach more patients to them and care more thoroughly for their patients with higher needs.

I was also interested to learn about the integrated Inspire Health cancer centres in Victoria, Vancouver and Kelowna. They are non-profit, providing clinical services by a team of physicians, nurse practitioners, nutritionists, clinical counsellors and exercise therapists. They, again, provide integrated care.

There was another one that I was interested in — TRAC it! with B.C. Children's Hospital, a pilot project underway which I thought was quite good for the students and young youth because it is an innovative way to use their phones to track their health information.

We do have good outcomes in cancer therapy. This is indicated by our high results with regards to outcomes. We have the lowest overall mortality rate for all cancers in Canada, lowest overall incidence rate of cancer in the country and lowest incidence rate for lung cancer in men. We have the lowest incidence rate for colorectal cancers, and we have the best survival rates for breast cancer in Canada. Our efforts are being recognized, both in the health care field as well as in the outcomes, worldwide.

But one of the items that I'd just like to mention before I'm done is the budget item that occurred over the last week. There's one-time grant funding to a number of agencies that has been provided in regards to cancer research and prevention awareness.

Included in these are the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the B.C. Lung Association, the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Michael Cuccione Foundation — and we know that these foundations and these groups are doing excellent work for cancer patients — Vancouver Prostate Centre, the Centre for Drug Research and Development, Ovarian Cancer Canada, Genome B.C. and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research.

I appreciate both members opposite as well as the folks in the gallery for bringing this issue to light, and I appreciate them spending the time to educate me. I'm wishing everybody well in their health outcomes continuing on, as we move forward.

B. Routley: What is being proposed today is really a win-win all the way around. It would be a win for these cancer survivors and their treatment. It would be a win, we believe, for the province of British Columbia. There's no question to anyone who looks at what happens when you bring people together and focus on an issue that it can be providing best practices here in the province of British Columbia.

When you think about where the roots of this proposal came from, it did come from the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society. Obviously, they know what they need. This group is made up of cancer survivors and their families who, along with other caring British Columbians, are advocating for this multidisciplinary adult pediatric cancer clinic. The clinic could also provide long-term health observation, counselling and a registry of childhood cancer survivors.

In order to better understand the need for such a specialized unit and the potential benefits and cost savings
[ Page 1734 ]
such a focused facility could achieve, I would like to share one of the cancer survivor's stories briefly.

[1125]

Dax is now 34 years old. He lives on Vancouver Island and is a cancer survivor of 21 years. At 13 years of age he was first taken to Children's Hospital. An MRI determined there was a tumour. Surgery was performed where 80 percent of the tumour was removed. After further testing was done, cancer cells were detected in the remaining tumour. He had six weeks of intense radiation therapy. The surgery had caused double vision, requiring him to wear glasses and, for a long time, an eye patch as well.

Through the years, he graduated. In high school he met a great girl from out of town, got married, and now they have two wonderful children. However, in 2010 a scan located another tumour that was most likely from the previous radiation treatments. In 2011 he went to the ER in Nanaimo. After tests they did an operation and found adhesions that had wrapped themselves around his bowels. The doctor broke up the adhesions that would have been caused by the radiation and checked the drain for the shunt from the original brain surgery. This ended up resulting in a four-hour surgery. He was in the hospital for nine days recovering.

While recovering in early 2012, he was put in contact with a neurosurgeon. The tumour that shouldn't have grown had grown quite a bit more. This tumour was removed in March 2012. He continued to have bowel issues resulting in more than 20 ER visits and a total of seven separate hospital stays.

A gastroenterologist ordered an MRI and located a 10.8 centimetre cyst at the base of the shunt. After several more trips to the ER, the frustration was definitely settling in. His wife was pregnant at the time. He had missed more work than he had actually attended. Financially, he was crumbling.

Finally, on November 9, 2012, exactly a year from the date of the first bowel surgery, he ended up in the ER again. Dr. Carr went in, and as with the previous surgery, it wasn't just a scope. He spent several hours removing three sections of bowel. The recovery from this surgery was really difficult. Dax says that his doctor deserves a medal for all he did for him.

Dax tries to make the best of most situations. He is glad that his wife goes with him to all of his appointments because he now has trouble remembering everything. Dax says:

"I certainly couldn't do all of this without her. I am now seeing five specialists, our family doctor. I have regular MRIs, ultrasounds, thyroid work, blood work. While I have survived, there is a cost. I didn't know that the radiation would have all of the side effects that it's had. I would have still had the radiation, and I know my parents saved my life by doing everything they could to get me better. At this point, however, my neutrons are sluggish, according to the neurologist, and that's why I get tired easily. My train of thought derails, and I lack concentration."

In closing, Dax is one of the many cancer survivors that could really benefit from a multidisciplinary adult pediatric cancer clinic. We, together, have hoped that one day this will become a reality.

S. Gibson: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford-Mission riding to speak to the following motion that has been moved by the hon. member for New Westminster: "Be it resolved that this House supports the creation of a specialized clinic to address the late effects of childhood cancer treatment."

This is one of those issues that really hits everybody, and you can't deny that. I have a friend who had a child that had leukemia, so this is something that has a highly emotive quality, and the presentation we heard a moment ago speaks to that. It's an insidious disease for everybody but especially traumatizing, as we know, for families and the child.

Late effects, sometimes known as long-term side effects, can occur at any time, and they manifest many years after the initial diagnosis. Many cancer treatments can cause late effects, including chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

[1130]

When we think of side effects, we also mostly think of physical. But of course, we don't realize sometimes that it can be emotional. Some of us around this room probably have had that experience with maybe other kinds of surgery, where you've experienced an emotional trauma and that malaise after having the surgery. Anxiety, depression and, of course, the fear of reoccurrence can be almost as harmful, sometimes, as the physical effects. But these can be harder to recognize and harder to diagnose.

Late effects on the body can be far-ranging and often depend on the kind of treatment that the patient receives. Childhood survivors are particularly at risk, because some time ago there were treatments used that are not used as much today because of the research, such as radiation treatment.

Here in B.C. we are fortunate to have one of the most sophisticated cancer treatment systems in the world. We're very proud of it. People come from other lands to visit our system and are very envious of what we have here. It's part of the big picture of the good health care we have in this province.

Just recently I toured our own B.C. Cancer Agency in Abbotsford and went with the Minister of Health and was very impressed with the facility. Visiting the patients and talking to some of them — it was very moving for the minister and I to do that. For residents of the Fraser Valley, the Abbotsford centre offers a full spectrum of world-class cancer care, and it's one of five systems in our province.

Our government has located these regional centres throughout the province to allow people to get there more conveniently. That's often the challenge. If you're having to go back and forth, it makes it more convenient. Our centre began treating patients in August of 2008. A
[ Page 1735 ]
tremendous response for the entire Fraser Valley. The interesting thing about the centre in Abbotsford is it was designed from the ground up, right from the beginning, with the hospital and the cancer treatment agency. This particular facility is located in the riding, represented by the member for Abbotsford South, and we all work together to support that.

We recognize that care doesn't stop there. It goes on. With youngsters, they've got long lives ahead of them, with some of the challenges that face that.

We understand. We know, as a government, that the transition from pediatric to adult care can be very complex for both the families and for the young patient. That's why the medical system offers a range of long-term care for patients who have had childhood cancer.

As part of the work, the B.C. Children's Hospital supports the ON TRAC transition initiative. It's a provincewide and multifaceted one. It was developed to help youth with chronic health care conditions that they have, to transfer from pediatric to adult health care services. ON TRAC recently embarked on a series of new research projects to improve patient health and manage costs — always an important implication, as we know. ON TRAC is responsible for identifying transition and transferring patients from specialists to pediatric care.

Programs like ON TRAC and other health initiatives are the reason why British Columbia has the best overall cancer survival rates in Canada — by far the best. In fact, according to the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, B.C. is a leader in cancer care in Canada and the first in the country to offer complementary and integrated care through the Inspire Health and healthy families in B.C.

Understanding how patients view their experience in B.C. hospitals is important to this government. That's why the Ministry of Health completed a provincewide patient experience in out-patient cancer care survey. The results are very important. The out-patient cancer care survey 2012-13 asked for feedback on B.C. health care out-patient cancer services from patients on their satisfaction and their experience.

Here are the results. The results of the survey found that 97.5 percent of patients who received cancer care rated the care they received as good, very good or excellent. That's very reassuring. So the results were very important. I think it deserves some acknowledgment.

I just want to close by personally thanking all those who work in oncology in our province, whether it's the nurses, the doctors or the volunteers.

Deputy Speaker: As it has been difficult for some members, I will point out that there's a new set of lights up on the desk which actually show the white, green and red. I think it's much easier for the members to see. I hope it's much easier for members to see. So I draw their attention to it as they're speaking.

[1135]

S. Robinson: I'm grateful that the members opposite are now up to speed on this issue, and I'm grateful that everyone recognizes the progress we've made as a province. I'm grateful that everyone here is sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of these adult survivors of childhood cancers. But none of this changes anything. These people deserve more. They deserve an opportunity to have their health records in one place and have the specialized care they need for their unique challenges.

I asked to speak to this motion because I am living with cancer. I take a daily chemotherapy drug that works to keep my body cancer-free — free from tumours that ten years ago would have resulted in death within a couple of years. Timing is everything. I have been on this daily regimen for eight years. I'm thankful that we have the capacity and knowledge to treat cancers, such that we can continue to live and contribute to our families and our communities.

I asked to speak to this motion because last year my family lost a good friend who had cancer as an adolescent, a good friend who underwent aggressive chemotherapy and radiation when she was young and who survived, a good friend who at the age of 38 developed another form of cancer. Although her desire to live for her children and her husband was beyond measure, cancer took her life last year. The doctors believe that her earlier treatments for Hodgkin's lymphoma contributed to her adult cancer and ultimately her death.

I asked to speak to this motion because it can save lives. If Debra Karby had been referred to a specialized clinic as an adult, she would have known the protocols she underwent when she was younger were no longer being used. You see, over the nearly two decades when Debra was cancer-free, the oncologists were noticing that the heavy-duty radiation she received years earlier was resulting in adult cancers years later. This radiation treatment was no longer part of the protocol of Hodgkin's because of an increased risk.

To add insult to injury, when Debra became ill as an adult, she was unable to access her previous records, making it extremely difficult for present-day oncologists to fully understand the implications of her current condition. If Debra had been warned of the risks and had been closely monitored, if she had been pre-screened and anomalies identified, if she had known that she was at risk to develop cancers later in life, and if there had been a specialized clinic to monitor the survivors, then perhaps she would be here among us — those who are surviving cancer.

I asked to speak to this motion because it makes good financial sense. When Debra fell ill as an adult, the numerous tests, chemotherapy and radiation treatments and hospital stays were costly, and we the taxpayers picked that up. When treatments were failing, her family, desperate for a cure, flew her to the Mayo Clinic for a consultation to Toronto. The family picked up that tab.
[ Page 1736 ]

Imagine, hon. Speaker, how things might have been different for this family had there been a specialized health clinic for survivors of childhood cancer. Imagine how Debra and her family might have celebrated her cancer-free status, much like I do every time I see my oncologist, rather than mourn the loss of her life.

I asked to speak to this motion because cancer is taking too many lives. Here we have an opportunity to invest in the coordination of ongoing care for so many who need not have to die from the same disease that threatened their lives at a young age. We have an opportunity here to do the right thing by these families and create a program that will make a difference in so many lives and save the taxpayer from expensive surgeries, treatments and hospital stays.

I asked to speak to this motion because this government saw fit to increase the tax on cigarettes and to support the efforts of our cancer research agencies. If this government cares, as it says it does, about cancer prevention like it did in the budget speech; if it cares about saving money, then I just can't imagine what could possibly get in the way of creating a specialized health clinic for survivors of childhood cancer.

M. Morris: I don't think there's anybody in this House that hasn't been affected by cancer or some other debilitating disease within your family. I've got nine siblings. All of my siblings have had children, and their children have had children. We've had some tragic situations occur in our family as well. So my sympathy goes out to all the families that endure these kinds of things.

[1140]

But British Columbia has stepped up to the plate. It does have an aggressive health care plan in dealing with all diseases in British Columbia but particularly with respect to cancer treatment as well. We now have six cancer facilities across the province that are providing some superb care to cancer patients throughout British Columbia, and from Canada and other places. British Columbia leads Canada in a lot of the health care outcomes when we look at cancer treatment across the country here.

British Columbia is a broad, diverse province that has a lot of challenges ahead of it — and behind it — when it comes to providing superb health care to all the citizens of British Columbia. One of those challenges is our geography. We have a broad expanse of coastline. We have a rural area where a lot of our resource development takes place and where a lot of our residents and citizens live that need access to these facilities as well.

We're lucky to have the Children's Hospital in Vancouver. I know there are a lot of people that access this from upcountry and throughout the province. It provides outstanding care in pediatrics for children that suffer from cancer and some other debilitating diseases.

One of the things that I'm particularly proud of in British Columbia, which I've seen in the system working throughout B.C., is the telehealth program that we have that was started by this province back in 2008. That provides citizens right across British Columbia access to specialists, to all kinds of various resources within the medical communities, equally across the province.

There are over 200 telehealth centres in British Columbia that provide these services, and I think there are something in excess of 500 end-point areas for video conferencing in the province. These telehealth facilities provide, in addition to access, one-on-one access with a patient and with a specialist, from wherever they might be located in the province.

We also have access to image transferring technology. So they have access to pathology reports, they have access to radiology reports, and they have access to dermatology and others that are important in the treatment of cancers throughout the province here.

When we talk about British Columbians having access to specialists and we talk about specialist clinics, we already have that in place with the teleconferencing facilities that we have across the province here, where they can sit down one-on-one with their doctor, and the doctor can help them in the diagnosis and treatment regime that they're going to be faced with, as they continually fight in the transition from pediatrics to extended care or to other treatments throughout the province here. We've got a great facility for that.

We also have video conferencing facilities in place at the University of Northern British Columbia connected to UBC and connected to Victoria, with our medical program that also enhances this whole medical program that we have in British Columbia.

We have a great system in place. We're very cognizant of that. We are putting more money into our health care programs to enhance these programs so that everybody has equal access to cancer care and other therapies throughout the province here. I think we've still got a long ways to go, but we are working very diligently to enhance that.

R. Austin: I also am delighted to get up and speak to this motion, an excellent motion, I believe, and one that can help the lives of those who have suffered cancer as young people.

I'm going to spend my time by bringing this debate back to an individual. I'm going to speak about a man who is now in his 40s, Tim Wiens, who lives in Kelowna. But I'm going to go back to his early years. When he was a teenager…. In fact, when he was 12, he started to have some problems. But I'm going to really start at 15, when they really became very, very difficult.

Tim, at 15, is in constant pain and constantly ending up going to the hospital, to his GP and to the emergency ward. Finally, after seven months where his family hasn't had any satisfaction in getting a proper diagnosis, his mother takes him to hospital and says: "I'm not tak-
[ Page 1737 ]
ing this kid away until we find out what's wrong." And it turns out, after having a chest X-ray, that young Tim has indeed got cancer.

[1145]

At that point it was deemed to be stage 4a cancer, and the young man is given three months to live, at the Abbotsford Hospital. You can imagine how devastating this was. But that was just the beginning of this man's struggles. He then is able to find an oncologist who's willing to deal with him, even with this diagnosis. Naturally, in those days, he was put on radiation and on chemotherapy. The cancer reacts well to that. It goes away for a short time but then returns very, very quickly.

He's now put onto a second round of chemotherapy and radiation. Remember, he's still a teenager. After that he then goes onto some other very aggressive treatments, for a child. A portion of his bone marrow is removed and put back into his system. This results in all kinds of complications, and he then ends up back in hospital, in severe pain. They do some more diagnosis and discover that his spleen is now twice the size of what it should be for a young person. So at this point his spleen is removed.

He then goes on to have serious problems with pain — again, as a young man. They have to use whatever is at their disposal to try and deal with this pain. As a young man, he ends up having to be put onto various forms of opiates. In the end, he ends up actually on methadone. And in those days putting a child onto methadone, not recognizing how complicated it was to bring a young person off methadone, created its own problems.

I'm moving forward through this man's life story here. He ends up in psychiatric care as a result of being unable to deal with the pain. He in fact ends up on antidepressants and eventually ends up in a mental hospital and is subjected to electroconvulsive shock therapy. Just think of all of these very, very severe treatments that are put onto a young body, one that's still developing.

Let me fast-forward to where Tim is now. He's in his 40s. At age 39 he was deemed unable to work, with serious cardiac issues and a high resting pulse rate. He's still not able to sleep. For over 20 years he's been unable to have a normal sleep pattern. As a result of all of these things, his marriage has broken down. He's been put into a mental health ward.

These are the kinds of things…. If we had a specialized clinic, he would not have been accessing so many different doctors and so many different emergency ward units. He would have been able to go to one place, just as we have for the B.C. Cancer Agency.

You know, we've heard a lot in this debate about the success of the B.C. Cancer Agency. I think it's something that both sides of the House celebrate. We do have the best cancer survival rates.

But what we're talking about here in this motion is a specific group of individuals: people who were given these extreme diagnoses and extreme treatments when they were young. We didn't know what the end result was going to be when we did this to people who were young. But we now know some of the results that we've spoken about in this House.

Actually, we've had this debate back and forth around the budget, and the health care budget is the largest portion of our budget. This motion specifically speaks to us being able to help to reduce our health care costs. If we are going to find ways to take our cost curve down and reduce our health care budget, this motion speaks to the specifics of it.

Here you have in one place all the expertise, so that all of those people — all of those kids and those families from all over British Columbia — can know they are going to get the best treatment, from people who understand the very specific issues that result from having had cancer as a child.

I think this is good for the population that we're speaking about and good for our citizens in terms of health care budgets — good for all of us. I hope that we can both agree to that on this side of the House.

J. Yap: I am honoured to take my place in the debate on this motion put forward by the member for New Westminster. I, too, want to add my thanks to her for bringing this motion forward. From the thoughtful comments of members on both sides of the House, clearly, this is an issue that has engaged us. We've heard some compelling stories. I appreciate the member for Skeena sharing one case.

[1150]

As has been recognized by members on both sides of the House, we do have in British Columbia a great health care system. You know, it was mentioned by one of my colleagues that it's a system that can provide great outcomes for any ailments or diseases or illnesses and, in particular, with respect to cancer.

In British Columbia, I think it has been recognized for a number of years that we have in B.C. a great health care system when it comes to the outcomes with regard to the scourge that is cancer.

There are very few British Columbians — in fact, maybe there are no British Columbians — who have not been touched by cancer. There are members in this House who have been directly touched by the disease.

All of us know…. We have friends or family members that have been touched by cancer. I lost my sister to cancer a few years ago and a number of other relatives and good friends. Just three weeks ago I heard that one of my best friends…. His wife was just diagnosed with breast cancer.

So it's a scourge of a disease. It's one for which we are investing heavily in resources, in expertise, in funds to continue to get the great outcomes that we have here in British Columbia.

In regards to the motion, it does speak to a particu-
[ Page 1738 ]
lar aspect of this disease, the fact that we have people who, when they were young, were afflicted with this. I also know of people, of friends, whose children were afflicted with cancer and had to go through the treatment. You know, we're grateful for the advancement of science and the research that has led to great outcomes. But is there more that we can do? Yes. There's always more that we can do.

We are doing a lot, as we heard. I'll just summarize a couple of the initiatives underway. B.C. Children's Hospital, one of the great health care institutions in British Columbia, if not the whole country, supports the ON TRAC transition initiative.

The B.C. Cancer Agency has the survivorship program that includes a very innovative approach. It includes, as another option, the use of nurse practitioners to provide that entry-level support to patients, including those who have survived cancer.

We've heard about the A GP for Me program, which is meant to ensure that we maximize the opportunity for British Columbians to have a GP, a family doctor, which is, we know, a challenge. But with that program, we are making it more possible, more feasible, for British Columbians to access GPs as their primary entry point to health care.

To summarize, we have, in British Columbia, made significant investments, and we'll continue to. We're still in budget debate. We know and all acknowledge that health care is the biggest single area of government, and deservedly so. In the area of cancer, we are making and will continue to make significant investments to ensure that here in B.C. we will have the best possible outcomes — we already do — and to ensure that this continues to be the case moving forward.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Again, I want to thank the member for New Westminster for sparking a debate in this House which has added to our understanding of this issue. I hope that all of us come away from this with the opportunity to discuss ways that we can help our health care system, as great as it is, continue to be the best in the country.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Kensington, noting the hour. You have two moments.

M. Elmore: Thank you very much, Madame Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise and speak in support of the motion to establish a specialized, multi-disciplinary clinic for the survivors of childhood cancer.

[1155]

I had the privilege to meet with Wilfred Vacheresse and hear the story with his wife, Carolyn, raising their daughter Danielle. I just want to note that I appreciate the comments from the other side in terms of looking at the impact. The outcomes, on the one hand, for children afflicted with cancer — very successful now in terms of survival rates.

I think the main message that I want to convey, and on behalf of the message coming forward from the Pediatric Cancers Survivorship Society of British Columbia, is the need to really keep pace and at least, as a minimum, number one, inform these childhood survivors.

The point that was made to me that seemed quite devastating is that often these children survive cancer at a very young age, with their families, but they're unaware of the long-term impacts. There's an initiative out of the B.C. Children's Hospital for physicians to at least have the ability to inform the over 3,500 childhood survivors. I think this is a very concrete step that can be taken and also a real need in terms of looking at the gap in the provision of services to inform these survivors.

Also to inform…. Part of the other equation is that physicians are also not familiar with these long-term impacts, so we have the need to coordinate these activities. We see a positive program being implemented in Ontario, leading the way in terms of the Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario, as well as a number in the United States at the state level, recognizing the importance of providing services.

I think that it's a good investment. It provides important services and will improve treatment for these children of childhood cancer.

I'm in favour of the motion.

M. Elmore moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada