2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(Blues)
HANSARD BLUES DRAFT TRANSCRIPT
THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008
The House met at 10:03 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Prayers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. Hayer: Last night in my constituency, the Surrey Board of Trade, one of the largest boards of trade in B.C., held its 12th annual Police Officer of the Year Awards ceremonies. These awards were started by my team when I was the president of the Surrey Board of Trade in '96-97. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Last night there were 64 nominees and 25 finalists. The winners were: for the Police Officer of the Year Awards named by the community, Const. Anthony Muench; for the Police Officer of the Year named by their peers, Const. Stephanie Rogers; for the auxiliary constable, Kimberly Enns; for the Arnold Silzer Award, the child abuse and sexual offences unit; for the Police and Business Partnership Award, Erin Barber of Options; top municipal employee, Colleen Kerr; and volunteer of the year, Bill Brand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I ask all the members of the House to join me in saluting and congratulating all of these outstanding nominees, finalists and winners for their outstanding contribution to make Surrey a safer and better place to live. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M208, Right to Know Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Vancouver-Fairview. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1005]
The bill would be requiring expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and is therefore out of order in the hands of a private member and will not proceed to second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, hon. Members, I've had the opportunity to review Bill M209, Toxics Reduction Act, 2008, which was introduced in the House by the member for Vancouver-Fairview. The bill would require an expenditure of public funds, contrary to Standing Order 67, and therefore is out of order in the hands of a private member and will not be proceeding to second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Cantelon: I move that Bill Pr402 be now read a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is a bill to reinstate the worthy organization, the Lutheran Concordia Society Corporation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Cantelon: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered forthwith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; S. Hammell in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 10:08 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Preamble approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Cantelon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 10:09 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill Pr402, Lutheran Camp Concordia (1992) Society (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill Pr403, intituled The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. MacKay: I move that the bill be now read a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. MacKay: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1010]
Leave granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr403; S. Hammell in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee met at 10:10 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Preamble approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Title approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
D. MacKay: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee rose at 10:11 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill Pr403, The Grassy Plains Community Hall Association (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. J. van Dongen: I call second reading of Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008. And in Committee A, I call estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2008, now be read a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. Speaker, Bill 43 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act will support Canadian Forces reservists by ensuring their jobs are protected when they are deployed for overseas duty or domestic emergencies. Reservists will be entitled to leave without pay from their civilian jobs while they are deployed with the Canadian Forces. This amendment will apply to all employers covered by the Employment Standards Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[S. Hammell in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Final Agreement Consequential Amendments Act, 2007, are in addition to the treaty settlement legislation introduced last fall and are necessary to give effect to the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final agreements. Included are amendments to the land title provisions that relate to treaty first nations to facilitate the transfer of lands on a treaty's effective date and provisions that clarify how treaty lands are to be registered in the land titles office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As well, amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act will provide a taxpayer with the right to appeal a decision of disentitlement directly to the minister. Currently such appeals are heard by the homeowner grant administrator. The amendment will enhance the fairness of the review process for taxpayers and will bring the homeowner grant appeal process more in line with other taxation statutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Local Government Act will modernize and clarify how the province can implement local government restructures, as some of the provisions in the legislation are nearly 100 years old. The amendments do not change the basic principles for local government restructures, including the incorporation of new municipalities, boundary extensions or changes to regional districts or improvement districts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1015]
Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will enhance the drivers' licences available to Canadian citizens who live in B.C., allowing them to enhance drivers' licences as identification and proof of their citizenship at land and water border crossings to the United States. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow B.C. to join the Canadian driver licence agreement, strengthening the overall security of B.C. drivers' licences by requiring applicants to provide proof of their legal presence in Canada and B.C. residency. It will also help to improve road safety by holding drivers accountable for their driving offences in other Canadian jurisdictions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will address issues raised by two key court decisions, which held that the use of a compelled statement against a driver in subsequent criminal proceedings would violate the driver's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The amendment will ensure that drivers must report accidents but to an agency to be identified through regulations, rather than to the police. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3) will support the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region. Also, amendments will allow the creation of one municipality for the town of Fort Nelson and the regional district of Northern Rockies. Consultations with local area first nations, a referendum of area electors and addressing effects for industry will be concluded before considering changing the local governance structures. The two entities already operate under an integrated and unique governance arrangement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will support the B.C. energy plan policy commitments by increasing the responsiveness of the tenure process. These amendments add flexibility to the tenure process to support B.C.'s commitment to environmentally and socially responsible development. The amendments reflect commitments to increase engagement with communities and first nations, increased consideration of environmental values, increased exploration of new basins and increased flexibility in tenuring systems. The amendments will also support the B.C. energy plan commitment that companies will not be allowed to surface-discharge water produced by coalbed gas operations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. Speaker, changes to the Private Career Training Institutions Act will enable the Private Career Training Institution Agency to set basic education standards for all registered private career training schools. The agency will be given authority to investigate if students complain that they have been misled by their institution. If a complaint is substantiated, the student will be able to receive tuition refunds from the student training completion fund. The amendments to the act also ensure accountability of the agency board by increasing the public representation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Judicial Compensation Act will fully implement the outcome of the 2007 judicial compensation process for Provincial Court judges and judicial justices of the peace. The Provincial Court Act amendments will also provide for the appointment of judicial justices for a non-renewable ten-year term on a part-time or full-time basis and will ensure that these appointments are consistent with the principles of judicial independence. Amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Supreme Court Act will increase the retirement age for all provincially appointed judicial officers to 75 and enable the reappointment of retired judges to handle backlogs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Representative for Children and Youth Act will allow the representative to publicly confirm, if asked, that a matter is before her office. The representative will have the ability to disclose the information only after determining that the public interest outweighs the privacy concerns of the individual whose personal information is being disclosed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1020]
Further, consistent with the representative's role as recommended by the Hughes review and other officers of the Legislature, the representative will not be compelled to give evidence in court on matters commenced under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Amendments to the Transportation Investment Act will address Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements respecting the collection, use and disclosure of personal information arising from the toll collection and enforcement function related to the province's Port Mann/Highway 1 project and will establish the legislative authority needed to enable the collection of outstanding tolls from out-of-province commercial vehicles at weigh scale stations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Treaty First Nation Taxation Act is amended to support the implementation of the Tsawwassen and Maa-nulth final agreements. With these amendments, a treaty first nation will be required to adjust taxes in response to supplementary assessments and will be authorized to take into account for taxation purposes the subdivision of land occurring partway through a taxation year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Finally, the bill makes amendments to the Vancouver Charter to allow a member
of the
Now, I would defer to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands to speak specifically to section 32 of the bill, which deals with the amendment to the Law and Equity Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J.
Brar: I'm pleased
to introduce and welcome to this House 50 grade 5 students from one of the best
schools in the city of
Hon. P. Bell: I'm sure the member said the same thing about another school in SurreyPanorama Ridge as being the best school there just a week ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to take this opportunity to expand upon the purpose of the Law and Equity Act amendment. This amendment was intended to allow government to clearly define a consistent approach for compensation for Crown land interests. It does not in any way affect private land holdings or discussions underway regarding compensation for past takings. Existing compensation schemes are also not changed, and nothing in this amendment prevents a member of the public from seeking redress in the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The intention of this amendment was to provide greater certainty for tenure holders around their right to compensation and to protect the public from unpredictable claims of compensation. This amendment ensures that the Legislature is responsible for establishing a clear and fair framework for predicting and managing compensation and thereby increasing investor confidence in B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
However, since Bill 43 was introduced, we've heard numerous concerns from British Columbians about the intent and application of this amendment. In fact, many have expressed that it may have unintended consequences. Therefore, government will not proceed with amending the Law and Equity Act. It is the government's intention not to pass this portion of Bill 43 that is currently before the Legislature. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Government recognizes that a fair and consistent framework for managing compensation that both ensures investor confidence and protects the public purse will require input and experience from all tenure holders. To this end, the government will be consulting tenure holders to ensure that the right balance is struck in establishing a framework that is clear and allows all parties to know their rights and liabilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Government will not be bringing forward further amendments to the Law and Equity Act until this process is complete. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1025]
L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to stand in this House and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It gives an opportunity for almost every member of the Legislature to get a couple of digs in or a couple of compliments, as the case may be, depending on the wide range of the particular bill before us. This particular bill represents, firstly, from the opposition's perspective, an acknowledgment of the good work of the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would be remiss this morning if I didn't mention the member for New Westminster, a member of the opposition, the Labour critic, who introduced a private member's bill to amend the Employment Standards Act to do pretty much exactly what the Attorney General in his wisdom this morning has brought forward in terms of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and that is to make the appropriate provision so that those men and women who make that brave choice to serve as reservists may, in fact, take unpaid leave from their employment while deployed to a Canadian Forces operation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's
surprising that the government simply didn't accept the wisdom of the member
for
It
would have been nice, I think, for the Attorney General this morning to have
acknowledged the good work of the member for
He certainly would provide a fine example to the Minister of Health in his remarks around the anti-smoking legislation preventing the smoking of cigarettes in cars where children are present another piece of legislation first brought forward by the opposition which the government adopted as well. I think the only act we haven't changed this year is the Adoption Act, because the government seems to be adopting everything the opposition is putting forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure that the government is finally coming to its senses and realizing that the opposition, actually, is full of very good ideas, many very good ideas, and that they're finally coming to understand fully that in a properly functioning democracy, the opposition plays a very important role, not just in opposing what the government brings forward and criticizing it but in also proposing ideas and bills that are important, that represent true reform and that should and do, on occasion, receive public support. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The
sad thing is that this government simply can't bring itself to let a private
member's bill pass through this Legislature unless it comes from one of their
own members. It's a bad habit. It's a bad practice. It doesn't reflect well on
the Legislature. It doesn't reflect well on parliamentary democracy in
The fact is that in more mature parliaments and legislatures and I'm thinking particularly of the British parliament the role of opposition members, of backbenchers, is given far more credit. That's certainly true of our federal parliament. I would think that as this government seems to get into the habit of, as I say, adopting more and more of what the opposition proposes, perhaps they should actually step up to the plate and simply let these bills pass when they're proposed by the opposition, and if they're not quite happy, perhaps we can talk about friendly amendments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But let us acknowledge that government, in our system, is not the only source of thoughtful legislation. Let us finally acknowledge in this place, notwithstanding its reputation as being one of the roughest legislatures in the British Commonwealth, that, in fact, good things can come from both sides of the House, that government should step forward and do it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It
was, after all, this government, when it came into office, that promised a
whole new
[1030]
Having said that, this legislation particularly, as I said, around the issue of the changes in the Employment Standards Act is very important. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There
is always controversy associated with military operations throughout history
sometimes less, sometimes more. Even during the Second World War, when it was
clear that fascism had to be defeated, there were still those who opposed the
involvement of
But having said that, there is one thing that all British Columbians can surely agree upon, and that is that those who make that choice to put themselves in harm's way, to take up positions as reservists and then to serve this country, placing their lives at risk . Surely, it is entirely appropriate that they not suffer some further burden and be forced to give up their employment should they make that decision to serve their country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What
is most surprising is that it has taken so long to do it. When one considers
the, some will say, somewhat diminished reputation of
I
think particularly of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin who has so many
servicemen and -women in her constituency and of the support that she's
certainly given to them on many occasions, and other
I think it is far beyond the time for this legislation to have been introduced. So there is no question that the opposition will be supporting those provisions of Bill 43 that in fact provide that if you make that courageous choice, you're not going to suffer some further burden. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other sections of the bill, particularly around judicial compensation, raise a number of issues. The retirement age has now been bumped from 70 to 75 under the terms of this legislation or will be bumped, I should say. One shouldn't anticipate, necessarily, that the government gets its way on every bill. But let us just say that, based on numbers, that seems to be a fair likelihood. That is a fairly significant change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My understanding is that Supreme Court judges now, on average . One of my friends, who is a retired Supreme Court judge, tells me that the average length of time they collect their pension is something in the order of three years. In my own home community we have just recently had a service, which I mentioned in this House, for Justice Ralph Hutchinson a most distinguished jurist, lawyer, community activist and a gentleman of great renown who didn't collect his pension for very long. So one has to ask oneself: does it, in fact, make sense to, if you will, almost encourage people to continue in judicial function until a later and greater age? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is a highly demanding position. It requires great skill. It's an important position. It appears that, frankly, the particular stresses of that job lead to a very early demise for most people. I appreciate, obviously, that there are concerns around the issue of finding appropriate persons to do this, but I think that's something the Attorney General needs to think about very carefully. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1035]
With respect to the amendment of "justice" to include a judicial justice as well as a judge of the provincial court, this represents, if you will, a bit of further government downloading, where government is trying to save a few dollars, have what we used to call JPs in the colloquial language take on responsibilities that were formerly held specifically by provincial court judges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This raises real issues. I need not mention at length in this chamber the great concerns about the recent releases of individuals in the last few months in British Columbia that are now the subject of a coroner's inquest the horrible tragedy in Oak Bay with the Lee murders, or what happened in Merritt, which is, I think, on the minds of many British Columbians. The functions of those who hear the initial applications to decide whether or not an accused person remains in custody or is let out on bail are extremely, extremely important functions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On one hand, you have the importance of the right of every individual to the presumption of innocence. It is the golden thread of our law, if you actually want to phrase it that way: the right of an accused to their liberty, to the presumption of innocence, unless they represent a significant risk to either reoffend or harm the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, with respect to these individual cases, I'm not going to comment on them in particular. But they represent examples where the public has significant concern about what happened whether the information was relayed, how it was relayed, whether the process was appropriate, whether the interests of public safety were paramount, whether they were in fact protected appropriately. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we do know is that certainly a JP, a judicial justice, has the authority to hold someone over until they can appear in front of a provincial court judge, at which time a better and larger hearing may be held. But they are quite rightly, as I said, conscious of their responsibilities and the rights of individuals to their liberty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We certainly don't want to end up in a situation like our friends to the south where such a horrendous portion of their population is incarcerated. Those statistics refer, obviously, to situations where people have been convicted, but I think it fair to say, also, that it represents a number of individuals who are held over pending trials and hearings to consider guilt or innocence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I think it is important that the system by which we appoint these individuals be a careful one, that we ensure and I'm sure the Attorney General will that there be reasonable compensation for them. Certainly, the dollars that provincial court judges receive seem pretty big to most British Columbians. Indeed, they're more substantial than what we pay the Premier of the province and what we pay cabinet ministers. But these individuals on a daily basis deal with the rights of citizens, balancing the enormous power of the state to charge, to prosecute and to hold in custody versus the rights of individuals to their freedom and the presumption of innocence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is no question that public concerns around the release of individuals pending trial is uppermost in many British Columbians' minds as I say, most recently because of the several tragic and horrific cases. One can only imagine how family members of those who have fallen victim to horrendous crimes of violence must feel knowing that these individuals were in fact at liberty pending a determination of guilt or innocence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is important, I think, for the Attorney General while considering this legislation to consider the whole issue of the training, qualifications for, guidelines and process involving the release of individuals pending trial. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1040]
I do note with some interest that the provision allows the reappointment of retired judges to handle case backlogs. That's probably a good thing, notwithstanding that some judges may be elderly by the ordinary standards of the public. Certainly, some of the judges I know have performed brilliantly and ably and well, notwithstanding the attainment of significant age. There is, after all, no mandatory retirement age for politicians, and some politicians have continued to serve well into their 80s, including such historic figures as Winston Churchill and John George Diefenbaker. So one mustn't be too stringent about how we determine who gets to remain practising as a judge. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With respect to the Local Government Act, I notice that we have no less than 35 sections 35 sections that, supposedly, as the government press release said about it, "will modernize and clarify how the province can implement local government restructures, as some of the provisions in the legislation are nearly 100 years old. These amendments do not change the basic principles or approach for local government restructures, including the incorporation of new municipalities or boundary extensions or changes to regional districts or improvement districts." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One would have thought what would have, hopefully, been in here, and there with as much enthusiasm as the government is pursuing Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, would have been some provisions around municipal elections and the funding for them. On one hand, the government has brought in legislation at one level that says that we want to severely limit public debate for 120 days prior to the campaign and the rights of persons or organizations to put forward their views on important issues, either to them or to the public generally. Yet we have nothing in this bill and it would have been an opportune time to do so that says we're going to do anything to control or make more publicly accessible or bring in campaign spending limits or contribution limits to municipal politicians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One could arguably say that in terms of the possibilities of corruption, the incentive at the local government level is highly significant. The mere rezoning of a piece of land can take an asset that might be worth a hundred thousand dollars and quintuple it in terms of its value. One would have thought that if the government was so interested in ensuring the integrity of the provincial elections, it might have brought in legislation around municipal elections. After all, there are far more municipal politicians in this province than there are provincial politicians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act . Before I pass on to that, I should make a few remarks about amendments to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act 2007 and 2000. One section section 72 repeals a transitional section of last year's Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which isn't even in force yet. Now, hon. Speaker, I don't wish to be overly critical of the Attorney General or the ministry that brought this forward, but it's becoming almost too regular an occurrence that we see legislation before this House that amends acts that have been enacted or passed by the Legislature, properly speaking, but not yet proclaimed and are not even in force. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Having been here once before, sitting on the government side of things, I'm conscious of the often tortuous road by which legislation gets to this chamber back and forth, up and down, up to Legs and Regs, through cabinet, back down again for revision, comment, public consultation. We're talking about a process that is almost remarkable in its intensity, the time and effort involved in it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1045]
Apart from issues of principle and politics whether or not it will pass muster in the public, whether or not it in fact remedies a mischief that exists and particularly around amendments like this that amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, one would have thought that by the time it gets to this place, they would have had their act together and we wouldn't be here in the spring of 2008 debating a bill which isn't yet in force but that was passed in the spring of 2007. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's no compliment to the government's ability to manage its affairs that we are back here once again. Indeed, there are further sections that I know the member for Surrey-Whalley wishes to speak to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are further sections in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), Bill 43, before us that, again, are dealing with the same kind of problem. You've passed legislation. The Lieutenant-Governor has come in and given it royal assent. It hasn't been proclaimed, and we're amending it. It's very hard on the persons or corporations in British Columbia affected by this legislation for them to know what's happening if the Legislature keeps passing bills, failing to implement them and then amending them before they are implemented and brought into force. It's really quite striking. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I spoke only a couple of days ago to a constituent, not of mine but of one of the government members, who was very concerned about amendments to the Commercial Tenancy Act and was hoping for change and not knowing where it's at. The act has been passed. The legislation passed but has never been proclaimed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is a very poor practice on the part of government to continuously bring in legislation and then not proclaim it. I appreciate that there are occasions where there hasn't been enough public consultation prior to it getting to this place. That's very obvious today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Just a few moments ago in this chamber, section 32 on page 10 of this bill the provision that amended the Law and Equity Act, or that proposed to amend the Law and Equity Act was pulled by the Minister of Agriculture. Now, that's one thing. You acknowledge that you didn't consult. It's very much another thing to pass the legislation and then discover you want to change it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That represents part of the problem we face in this particular session, where you have a number of bills that have been brought forward and on which the government has already announced closure that won't get public scrutiny, as they deserve. Public scrutiny, in my language, means that we in this chamber, and particularly the members of the opposition, have an opportunity to review and scrutinize and criticize and comment on bills. That's not going to happen with a number of bills this session. The public knows it, the press gallery knows it, and the government knows it. Yet they're still going to jam it through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here today we have an example of where the government has listened to the mining industry in particular very substantial contributors to the Liberal Party, I notice. The minister, in his remarks this morning around withdrawal of this section, kept saying that it's really not that bad and that it's innocuous and that it's nothing. Nevertheless, even though it's innocuous, all it takes is a small protest from the mining corporations, for the major contributors to the Liberal Party to raise a little squeak and a squawk, and suddenly it's gone. It's just pulled. It disappears nada, not going to happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You have to contrast that with the government's concerns about third-party advertising in the elections act, where it appears to intend to bring in closure on a bill like that, which would prohibit the rights of the public to protest legislation, particularly during the 120 days prior to an election when in fact the budget and the throne speech have all been introduced. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1050]
The concept of money buying access to politicians is as old as politics itself. It's a sad commentary, a very sad commentary, that people have come almost to accept that it's just part of the process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my point around the withdrawal of section 32 is that it would appear if I accept the words of the Minister of Agriculture here this morning, and I do that this section is not the horrific section that the mining industry and others believe it is. If I accept the minister's words, then the question arises: why is legislation pulled so easily and quickly before it even gets debated at second reading in this chamber simply because the mining industry raises a protest? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note, hon. Speaker, that the member for SurreyPanorama Ridge, I believe, wishes to make an introduction, so I will cede the floor for a moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Leave granted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Brar: Again, I would like to welcome another wonderful group of 50 grade 5 students from one of the best schools in Surrey. It's the same school, named Hyland Elementary School, and these students are also accompanied by parents and teachers. I would like to ask members from both sides of this House to please make them feel very, very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: Again, my point is this. This is the place to debate legislation. The public should have the right to lobby us around changes that are made, and particularly when you see a substantive bill like Bill 43, where you're running to literally 147 sections, the public needs an opportunity to express its views. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, I appreciate that governments in the legislative calendar pressed for time, overworked, all those things often find themselves in a position where they don't have an opportunity perhaps, in fairness to the government to get it into the legislative hopper as fast as they would like. I accept that. I was on the government side once. I understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But when you introduce substantive legislation close to the end of a session, when you have a fixed sitting schedule, and then refuse, as this government has in the past, to have a fall sitting at which that legislation could be properly debated and considered, that is something the opposition cannot accept. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So if the government wants to run the Legislature that way, it does not enhance the reputation of politics in British Columbia. It means that the kind of cynicism I talked about earlier around the power of money over politics and the influence of money over politics that that kind of cynicism is simply increased. As I say, this morning section 32 gone. Not even a peep from the opposition. Not even a chance to stand up and say: "Oh, we don't like it." We didn't even have to go that far. A letter from Jock Finlayson that's all it talks about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I note that Mr. Finlayson's letter was quite simple, and these are wise words. Jock Finlayson will be shocked that I'm quoting him. "In general, good public policy-making requires that government not seek to implement far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such changes." And Mr. Finlayson goes on to say: "Unfortunately, this kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this bill." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1055]
So if we're going to have consultation around significant changes, I'm going to have to ask the Attorney General what kind of consultation went on around other aspects of this legislation. Does, in fact, the 147 sections represent the end result of a great deal of consultation, or is section 32 a prime example of the government's failure? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That, I think, is a question that deserves asking. If we have time to get to committee stage of this bill, I'll have that opportunity. But of course, it's very clear now that with only eight sitting days left after today, that opportunity may not in fact occur. This government has made a choice to bring in significant pieces of legislation late in a legislative term with no real promise of a fall sitting to debate these bills properly, and with the promise I would almost say the guarantee of closure on particularly contentious legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. Speaker, I am the designated speaker on this noting the red light, much to the relief of the members who I know are anxious to hear a few more words from me this morning, particularly on the government benches. I'm always flattered by the enthusiasm with which they receive my remarks on any particular piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But we're not going to get that time, and that's unfortunate. If we did get that time and I go back to section 72, which repeals the transition of last year's miscellaneous statutes amendment act . Perhaps if the opposition had more time to spend the appropriate amount of time examining these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be in the position that we're now in amending an act that isn't even in force. I mean, the fact is that you compound the problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My friend the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith often talks about the domino effect. Well, hon. Speaker, this is what the domino effect is all about. If you don't allow an appropriate time to debate legislation, you often end up with bad legislation. It means you compound the problem because you're back in some other session repealing, amending or doing something different with that legislation. That is what the result of this government's practice is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, hon. Speaker, a bill like this . It's like Joseph's coat. It's one of many colours. It covers a wide range of items, and one of them in particular is very troubling. It's around the issue of changes to the Motor Vehicle Act allowing for enhanced drivers' licences. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On one hand, you could argue that's a great thing. It will enable British Columbians to go across the border from Canada to the U.S. with a single piece of ID, and that may in fact have some merit. But there are many Canadians who are very concerned about the issue of identity theft, around issues relating to privacy, around the fact that we would even be required when we cross over the longest undefended border in the world to provide some particular identification we who have been best friends of the Americans for literally 140 years since Confederation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other sections that give some pause for concern are also around the changes in the new governance structure in the Comox Valley region. Those were very controversial. The changes made were opposed by many people in the Comox Valley. This, unfortunately, represents the nail in the coffin of strongly held public views around what was imposed, if you will, on that particular part of Vancouver Island. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When you get on to changes to the Private Career Training Institutions Act, I think it's only fair to acknowledge the hard work of the member for Victoria-Hillside, who has raised the issue around private career-training institutions on many occasions in this Legislature. We know that our reputation has been damaged by what's happened with a number of private career-training institutions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[K. Whittred in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These changes the government released promises will enable the Private Career Training Institutions Agency to set basic education standards for all registered private career-training schools and will give authority to investigate if students complain they have been misled by their institutions. If complaints are substantiated, students will be able to receive tuition refunds from the student-training completion fund. These changes will ensure the PCTIA board will have greater public representation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1100]
Hon. Speaker, the sad thing is that it's taken so long to get here. Hundreds and hundreds of innocent people, foreign students in particular, have been victimized by this government's failure to address this issue sooner. It is a sad commentary at a time when we're trying to promote trade with other parts of the world and become less dependent on our neighbours to the south instead of putting all our eggs in one basket, realizing that we have to significantly expand our trade opportunities with our friends and neighbours around the globe. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's particularly sad that it took so long to finally bring about this change. Indeed, one would have hoped that the changes would have been far more comprehensive. I think every British Columbian understands the importance of ensuring that foreign students in particular, who come here to train and that British Columbians who for whatever reason can't get into one of the public colleges or training institutions have an opportunity to pursue their education. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One could argue that in this government's zeal to see so much privatized, we have expanded private career training far too much in British Columbia at the expense of students. The fact that this legislation is before the House, I would submit, is clear evidence that this government acknowledges that in fact it didn't put in place the kinds of controls that should have existed in order to protect students. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What the public may not understand is that the tuition often paid to these institutions is far, far higher than they would pay at a public institution. Of course, the students who do this often end up taking out significant student loans, end up without being able to complete their education and then have the added burden of having to repay a student loan for something they never received. They have been doubly victimized. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There is, of course, another victim, other than the students or their family or their supporters. The other victim is the reputation of British Columbia. Surely, if we are to try and take some place on the world stage in terms of attracting talent and people to British Columbia, we would want to do everything we possibly could to ensure that those who came here would receive a first-class education and be guaranteed that they would receive that first-class education and that they not be victimized by having to pay for something they didn't get. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are other significant changes in the bill to the Representative for Children and Youth Act. As a member who sits on the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, I'm delighted to see the government bringing those in. I say that unreservedly. These were changes requested by the Children and Youth Representative, who if I may say so on the floor of this House has proved to be an outstanding public servant who has, by her ability and drive and energy and commitment and compassion, enhanced the respectability of that office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As we all know, the creation of that office helped pull this government out of the political glue that it found itself in, having engaged in the fiasco of abolishing the office previously, which led to incredible tragedies in British Columbia for those children under care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact is that the Legislature should do everything it can to ensure that Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's office receives not only the funding but of course the legislation needed to ensure that her office can carry out its duties and do it in a way that will benefit and protect the children of British Columbia some of the most vulnerable amongst us. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know the member for Surrey-Whalley is going to speak at some length on the amendments to the Transportation Investment Act, but I can't pass by them. We are amending amendments in Bill 14 of this session. The process of discovering the mistakes of the government is speeded up. We can at least give them a compliment for that. In their zeal to drive things through this Legislature, they're now discovering the mistakes faster. One might argue that that's a sign of competence that they're discovering their incompetence much sooner. That is probably the best thing I can say about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1105]
I look forward to debate on committee stage of this bill with the Attorney General. I know he certainly does as well. I know at that time he's going to acknowledge the work, as I said, of the member for New Westminster, for the changes that he's brought about the member for Victoria-Hillside as well and that he will do the graceful thing in this. I look forward to that opportunity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I rise to address specific sections of this bill, sections 127 to 136, which deal with amendments to the Transportation Investment Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, we've begun this session debating this bill with the rather sorry spectacle of the Minister of Agriculture and Lands jamming on the brakes and pulling one of these sections, section 32, before it even got to this stage. It's a result of, as my colleague from Nanaimo has pointed out, representations from the mining industry and from Mr. Finlayson of the Business Council stating the very obvious process that should be engaged in when introducing legislation consultation with those affected. That was pointed out, and the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has fallen on his sword here this morning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These sections, sections 127 to 136, illustrate even more graphically the way in which this government is jamming legislation through the Legislature. It's leading to all kinds of effects upon the process and all kinds of errors and problems that result. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 14 was introduced on March 13 of this year. I spoke to it on April 17. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin spoke to it then. It received second reading on April 28. It introduced amendments to the Transportation Investment Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It made amendments to the Transportation Investment Act. Principally, it introduced the ability of those people, rather than being granted rights to build tolled highways or tolled bridges, to deal with the government . It created a corporation, the Transportation Investment Corporation, which would be the agent of government, with the opportunity for the Minister of Transportation to appoint another board of directors and put some more bureaucracy and some more secrecy and some more lack of accountability between the government and those who would operate the tolled highways and the tolled bridges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The spectacle that we are witnessing in this bill is the utter incompetence of the minister, because what's being done here is that amendments to Bill 14 are being introduced in this bill. The minister doesn't even have the jam to come to the Legislature and introduce them as amendments to Bill 14. They're bootlegged into this miscellaneous statutes amendment act which will be, I suppose, unceremoniously run through the Legislature like gravel through a sluice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's really rather unbecoming of the government, at the very least, and speaks to the lack of scrutiny and the lack of legislative time that's available to deal with these bills when a bill which is still before the House at second reading, Bill 14, is now being amended by amendments proposed in a separate bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Rather than amend the bill itself, step forward in the Legislature and have the minister introduce those amendments and explain those amendments, sections 127 to 136 introduce amendments to a bill that's sitting at second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1110]
Section 127 amends the Transportation Investment Act, the same act that Bill 14 purports to amend. Section 128 amends an amendment. Section 128 refers to an amendment in Bill 14, and that is amended. Section 129 amends an amendment, amends a part of Bill 14 that's before the Legislature. Utter incompetence by the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One wonders why this bill is being amended in this way. I'd suggest it's that in his haste to make political hay and give the Legislature and the public some fictitious reasons as to why this bill was necessary and purport to stamp it with some other kind of political stamp, it made its way to the top of the pile in the legislative agenda but was done with such haste that these amendments are now required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 131 amends an amendment. Section 132 amends the same act, the Transportation Investment Act. Sections 133, 134 and 135 amend the Transportation Investment Act. Section 136 amends an amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Really, it's undignified, I would suggest. If I were the Attorney General, I would be embarrassed as the government's chief law enforcement officer to be putting forward in this unseemly way these kinds of amendments to a bill that's already before the Legislature. Surely the minister has to be embarrassed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He has, as he knows, an independent jurisdiction. He's more than a political member of the cabinet. He has a separate, independent jurisdiction to give independent legal advice as guardian of the public interest. Why isn't he doing that job? Why isn't he standing up to these ministers and advising them that this legislation is not in order? These kinds of amendments shouldn't be necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I look forward to the Attorney General answering those questions if and when this ever gets to committee stage. Given the state of the legislative agenda, as we are pressed like cattle towards the slaughter here in the remaining days of the legislative session, there will be very little time, if any, to ask the kinds of detailed questions about these amendments to the amendments. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One can only hope. I suppose we're now at a stage where there won't be further amendments to the amendments to the amendments in this session of the Legislature, but one never knows. There is the opportunity to introduce further amendments by tabling them with the Clerk, so that may come about as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 14 was introduced with a lot of political fanfare, but it's evident by these amendments to the amendments that that was a botched job by an incompetent minister. He should be ashamed of himself for the manner in which this bill is proceeding through the Legislature. I look forward at committee stage, which I doubt will come about given the state of the legislative agenda, to debating this more fully why this tortuous process was necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Farnworth: This particular piece of legislation is what is described as a miscellaneous statute. Government usually introduces them as housekeeping measures that really are . When they're introduced, they amend a whole series of different pieces of legislation individually. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Government likes to say to the opposition: "Oh, don't worry about it. It's just housekeeping. Just let's debate this, and then let's get on to other pieces of legislation that we know you're far more concerned about." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, I've served in this chamber since 1991. It doesn't matter whether I'm in government or in opposition, whenever I hear the terms "miscellaneous statutes bill" and "housekeeping," I know it needs to be scrutinized very closely. More often than not, they're anything but housekeeping, and they're anything but miscellaneous. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1115]
In fact, their consequences can be far-reaching and often unintended, because too often they are drafted in haste. Too often they are used as a grab-bag to get things we'd like to do, but we don't necessarily want it to be in a bill that has to face full public scrutiny. Unfortunately, that is the case with this particular bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's unfortunate that governments do this, because what it does is try and circumvent this chamber and this House in doing the job which we are supposed to do from the government perspective, to bring forward good public policy and, from the opposition, to be able to scrutinize it and ensure that what's going ahead is good public policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This bill has too many questions that need to be asked for it to be given any sort of speedy passage. That's why we on this side have made it clear to the government that we are in no hurry to pass this particular piece of legislation, that it was tabled late in the session and that it amends a number of bills, many of them significantly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to touch on a couple of those, because I think they point out exactly what's wrong with this piece of legislation. They also make the case for what the opposition has been saying about this government's attitude towards this Legislature that it's treated more as a plaything as opposed to a place for serious debate and scrutiny of important public policy. It makes the case as to why we need to have a fall session, why that calendar should be followed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My colleague from Surrey-Whalley the learned Finance critic has pointed out a number of sections in this bill that amend a bill that we are currently debating in this chamber a bill that has not passed second reading. So not only is Bill 14 a bill which creates a Crown corporation to build a bridge, which we have said is not necessary . If you want to build a bridge, build a bridge the way they've always been built in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They want to bring in a piece of legislation to create a Crown corporation. The public policy and the thought content that went into that piece of legislation are so flawed that later in the session they have to, by way of a miscellaneous statute, bring in amendments to amend a bill that should have had the work done in the first place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In their desire to try and create political mischief, they bring in a flawed piece of legislation. So their priority clearly isn't good public policy; it's to try some vain attempt to create political mischief. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, I understand how this place works, and political mischief is part of the stuff that happens in this place. It's politics. But first and foremost, our role here is good public policy, and it seems that the government has forgotten that. That's our first duty not quick political cheap points but good public policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That means the work should be done on the bill before it gets here. Clearly, that hasn't happened in Bill 14, because now in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act we're having amendments to try and fix it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are very good questions as to why the government wouldn't just come forward and say, "You know what? We've got to amend that bill," and make that case during the debate. But no, they don't. Why? Because the work wasn't done ahead of time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are some elements of this bill that are good, and we're prepared to support them. But again, what happens with this type of legislation is that government puts in clauses and sections that they know will be popular, that they know there is public support for and that they know the opposition will support. Then it's like: "Okay, if you want the good stuff, you've got to take the bad stuff." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, that's just not on. The fact that this legislation is not going to be passed quickly, the fact that this legislation is going to be scrutinized, because it deserves to be scrutinized, and the government doesn't like the pace of it . [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1120]
The government has only one person or individual group to blame and that is themselves for failing to do the public policy work that should have been done on Bill 14, the failure to do the public policy work that should have been done on other sections of this particular bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, one of the things about the legislative calendar is that it has that break between June and September, and it gives an opportunity to go out and consult. So if the government wanted to, they could have tabled this bill and said: "You know what? This is an exposure bill. We want to get some reaction. We want to get some input. We want to hear from the people, the organizations, the businesses that this bill will impact on. We've got the summer to do that. We'll come back in the fall, and we'll deal with it." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Unfortunately, that's not the case, and the reaction has been predictable. It has been predictable in the utmost. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'd like to quote from a letter that Jock Finlayson sent this government. "In general, good public policy-making requires that government not seek to implement far-reaching policy changes without first consulting with the stakeholders who are likely to be affected by such changes," wrote Jock Finlayson, executive vice-president of the Business Council. Unfortunately, this kind of consultation did not occur in the case of this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The obvious question is: why not? Why not on a piece of legislation that impacts some of the most important industries in this province? At a time when the government is saying, "You know what? We want to see resource developments," and when we have a forest industry that's in crisis in this province, legislation is brought forward that draws outright ire from the forest industry and the mining industry. They lobby and voice their concern, and the minister is in the humiliating position of standing up in this House today and saying that we're not proceeding with this section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the government's desire to not be here, this humiliation of ministers has become an all too common occurrence this session. We have seen the Minister of Children and Families humiliated five minutes before a bill is to be introduced, after they have flown aboriginal elders down to this chamber to watch the introduction of a piece of legislation that has been a work in progress for five years. They pull it at the last minute because it was flawed, because they failed to consult. They don't want to be here. Again today we see a minister have to stand up and say that this section isn't going ahead, because they failed to consult. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1125]
Well, I've got to ask some questions about that. I'm being kind here, I think. I'm in a good mood today. One minister may make a mistake you know, incompetence and whatever, that they failed to consult. But two ministers, hon Speaker? In fact, technically it's three ministers, because besides the minister who stood up and withdrew the section, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands . I mean, the Attorney General tabled this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So I have to ask the question. I find it hard to believe that three ministers of the Crown, including our learned Attorney General, would have failed to want to consult. Or did it come from somewhere else? Did it come from somewhere higher up the food chain that there was no need to consult? "Let's just do this." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When I see this, what I see is the hands of the Premier's office over this. These humiliations of ministers are taking place because of the command and control out of the Premier's office. Ministers are standing up and doing their dutiful business of falling on their swords, taking the blame for the consultation that should have been done by their ministries but wasn't done by their ministries, because of the desire of a Premier's office to get through a legislative agenda as quickly as possible and get out of this chamber as quickly as possible, with as little scrutiny from the opposition as is humanly possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to make it clear that from this side of the House, we will not condone the actions of this government or be complicit in their incompetence by rubber-stamping a piece of legislation that is flawed on so many accounts and could have so easily been prevented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This piece of legislation is going nowhere fast. We will be speaking on it, and we will be scrutinizing it. The government can ram it through by closure if it wants. But if it does, it sends a message that just compounds what has already transpired that they value political expediency over good public policy, that arrogance trumps good public policy, and that expedience and arrogance together trump good public policy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the end of the day, it is not the interests of the public that they are interested in, but it is the interests of the B.C. Liberal Party and their electoral fortunes and not wanting scrutiny that are first and foremost the priority of this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know there are other colleagues of mine who have points they want to raise on this particular piece of legislation. But I think it's pretty clear that what we are seeing is a trend in this government that is unacceptable in this House, that is unacceptable to the public and that is increasingly unacceptable to their friends and supporters. It is good public policy first and foremost, not government arrogance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
H. Bains: I would also like to make a few comments on sections 105 to 112, the amendments to the Private Career Training Institutions Act. I think there are some serious issues, and I will be exploring those. Hopefully, the Attorney General will be looking at those areas, and when we go to the next stage of the debate, he will be able to answer some of those questions that still exist in this amendment act and that went unanswered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to start by saying that there was a report made by Mr. John Watson to cover this area. He made about 13 recommendations. Many of them are being incorporated, or they are trying to go partway in order to incorporate some of those recommendations in this amendment act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1130]
But in my view, they don't go far enough in many areas. Those areas that they're trying to cover are not sufficient. They will not protect the students from corrupt, incompetent and unscrupulous private colleges and institutions, and that is a serious concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many times these are the students who are the most vulnerable in our society. These are new students, new immigrants who come and try to upgrade their skills, and they get lured in by the flashy advertisements in the newspapers and by the use of other electronic media as well. Here are the students who come here to get a better life. They want to upgrade their skills, and they try to go into these colleges. And do you know what? The worst part is when they advertise that this college or institution is government-sanctioned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When those folks come from those Third World countries and when they see government's stamp of approval, they put all of their confidence and trust in that institution. When they go there, there are times and cases where they find that it's not exactly what they were told. They are not exactly getting what they're paying for. So I think that part is left uncovered. That is a very, very serious concern. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would ask the Attorney General to pay special attention to the 200 private institutions that exist out there to deal with ESL education. It is about a $1½ billion industry with 100,000 students in it. This act does not cover that part at all, as far as I could see. I hope that the Attorney General will be looking into this area and will make sure that this area is covered, because we are talking about here, as I said earlier, the most vulnerable students who are new to the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many of them are trying to become productive members of our society. They want to make sure that their skills are used to the maximum of their potential so that we, as a province and as a country, can benefit from those skills as well. They are the ones who become victims of some unscrupulous and corrupt institutions that exist out there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
No one on that side can stand up and say that it doesn't happen. I have some examples. We have an institution in Surrey. Over 100 new students that came to this country were taken for a ride. They were told that they could come in, that they will qualify for government grants and that they will qualify for government loans. The process is such that they will be going into that institution knowing that this is a government-sanctioned institution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They go in there. The first thing they sign on a dotted line is that all of those grants and student loans will go to the college or institution. After deducting their tuition fees, the remainder will be paid back to the student by the institution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is what happened at Barkel College. Over 100 students found out very, very quickly. They went through the process, and they put their trust in the government, because it is a government-sanctioned college. When they went into the college, they didn't see very much of education, according to these students. Many of them left because they felt they were wasting their time. Many of them instructed the college that they would not be coming back. They wanted to withdraw. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Guess what. The ministry, after receiving complaints from the students, did the audit. Good for the ministry. The audit recommended that this file should be handed over to the RCMP. The minister advised this House last year that the RCMP is investigating that college. The college is shut down. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, that's the job of the government. They can do whatever they wish is the right thing to do between the ministry and the college. But my take here is about the students. Now the students are getting letters and phone calls from very aggressive collection agencies. They want those student loans and grants to be paid back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1135]
Here is the situation. They didn't get the education that they were promised, and it was a government-sanctioned college. Now they are left holding the bag, and government is going after them that they should be paying those student loans and student grants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They didn't get the education, and the college ended up getting the fee and the student loan and the grants. The college has folded by the action of the ministry, but the students are asked to pay for those loans and grants the money that they never received, or very little that they received. Students have said: "Look, we will pay back what we received, but go after the college, which has your money." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But I want to say this, that there is goodwill on the ministry side here, and on the minister's side. I must say that. They understand that these students were basically robbed, but they cannot do anything because their hands are tied. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would have hoped that this act would cover that part, and it doesn't cover that part either. I think that is a serious problem. Even if you look at the John Watson report, all this act does is keep the registration mandatory in PCTIA, but the accreditation is still voluntary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How does that protect the students from those corrupt, unscrupulous institutions that I mentioned? There are many out there. I just used one example. I'm not against those private institutions that are trying to do a good job and trying to provide the service, which are honest. They're trying to deliver the education that the act asked them to do. There are many good ones out there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But there are those that the students must be protected from, and this act fails them again. I hope the Attorney General will be paying attention to this and looking at that area. How do we protect the students from these folks? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It does talk about that a portion of the tuition fee can be refunded by PCTIA if they were misled. You know, the example that I use is a lot more than the tuition fee. It's the student loan and the grant that went directly to the college, which the student never saw. So how do you protect those students? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is our duty, as the member before me said, as legislators in this House, that we must protect the people who have elected us and put us in these chairs make sure we are governing for everyone, not just a few of our friends who would be helping us during the election and who are in a position to pay hundreds and thousands of dollars into the campaigns of the Liberal Party. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's not what the purpose of this legislation is. Our job is to protect everyone, especially those who are the most vulnerable in our society. In this case we are talking about those students who are new to the country and who are trying to upgrade their skills so that they can help us move our economy in a new millennium. That's where the problem is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The other part I want to talk about is under 6a of John Watson's report. The recommendation is that the government must consider student and aboriginal student representation on that board. There's nothing of that sort here either. The students and aboriginal representation is again ignored, as was recommended by John Watson's report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are many, many flaws that I see in this amendment act. This was an opportunity for the government to fix that. It's not that they didn't know what was going on in that industry. It's not that it wasn't brought to their attention. It's not that the students never complained about the problems that they were facing. It's that the students have been basically taken for a ride and robbed of their livelihood. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Many of them wasted their time and ended up paying money out of their own pocket and didn't get the education that they were promised. That's the responsibility of the minister. That's the responsibility of all of us to make sure that we deliver what we promise, that they get what they pay for. We're not seeing that in this act. Once again I see that the students are being left out. Students are being ignored, and their needs are being ignored again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1140]
Having said that, I hope the Attorney General will be looking at some of the areas that I have identified. I'm not standing here to just throw some rocks at them because they're on that side and I'm on this side. These are some legitimate concerns that were brought to us by our constituents. These are the concerns that were brought to the government side House members as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There are many, many well-published media reports on these areas, and the ministry, to their credit, has shut down many of those colleges. But you know, shutting them down and allowing that process to continue to be in existence, I think, again is abdicating our duty as legislators. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Once again I will humbly request the Attorney General to pay special attention to this area, because it also covers his particular ministry of immigration and multiculturalism. It will affect many of those students who are new, who are immigrants and who are trying to get some help through the process that we have in this place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know that there might be some other speakers speaking after me. I will be watching very, very closely when we come to debate this part of the bill, of the legislation, in the next debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no more speakers, Attorney General, to wrap up debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I move second reading of Bill 43. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. W. Oppal: I move that Bill 43 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Bill 43, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: I call Bill 29 for second reading, Environmental (Species and Public Protection) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner: Putting on a different hat, I move that this bill now be read a second time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I am pleased to speak to this bill, which contains a number of amendments to the Wildlife Act and to the Environmental Management Act that will enhance this government's ability to regulate with respect to public health and safety, environmental protection and the effective management of our wildlife resources. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As with my remarks at first reading, I would like to begin by speaking to the changes proposed for the Wildlife Act. One of the most significant changes being proposed for the act is the introduction of new provisions to enable regulation of the ownership of potentially harmful "alien species" in British Columbia. These amendments build on my commitments and on those given by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands last year to regulate alien species that may be harmful to British Columbians and to our native wildlife. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Traditionally, in Canada there have been very few legal tools that provincial governments have had to regulate the possession of alien species. The amendments in this bill will close this gap for British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It was almost a year ago that we learned of the tragic death of Tanya Dumstrey-Soos in Bridge Lake. This young woman was attacked by a captive Siberian tiger at a privately owned zoo. There have been other troubling incidents involving alien species since Ms. Dumstrey-Soos' death. It was only a few months ago, I think shortly before Christmas, that a young man was bitten by his pet cobra in the Lower Mainland, and only his good luck helped him escape serious injury or worse, although I believe he eventually suffered amputation of several fingers of his hand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These incidents show that some alien species need to be regulated, if they are a threat to public safety. Potentially harmful species that are foreign to British Columbia, such as tigers and exotic venomous snakes, will be listed as "controlled alien species" in regulation under the Wildlife Act. This list will be updated from time to time as needed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These changes to the Wildlife Act will allow the government to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements on the possession, breeding, release, trafficking, shipping and transporting of controlled alien species in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1145]
It is also important to recognize that not all alien species are harmful. We are only concerned with controlling the possession of those species that pose a risk to human health and safety, property, wildlife or wildlife habitat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A limited number of alien species will be designated as "controlled alien species." Not all controlled alien species will be treated the same way but will be managed according to their level of risk. For example, cobras and tigers will be more strictly regulated than less harmful animals. We anticipate that the list of controlled alien species will be divided into three categories: prohibited, referring to the most harmful alien species; restricted, referring to those species where potential risks can be effectively reduced through correct care and handling; and monitored, referring to those alien species where there's simply a reporting requirement. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Conservation officers and police officers will have the authority to seize controlled alien species where possession is prohibited or when permit conditions or regulations are contravened. They also have authority to euthanize a controlled alien animal when there's imminent danger to the health or safety of a person or to native wildlife. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These changes are supported by organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and are in direct response to a resolution passed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities last year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, I'm also pleased to speak to some other amendments in this bill that directly address compliance and enforcement issues under the Wildlife Act as outlined in the 2008 Speech from the Throne. The people of British Columbia support getting tough on offenders who violate the provisions of the act and put our native wildlife at risk. In response, we are introducing stiffer penalties for poachers and other offenders. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments to the act will increase fines and jail times, and in some cases, existing penalties will be more than doubled. These increased penalties will allow the courts to punish the worst offenders more heavily. This means that killing an endangered species, one of the most serious offences under the Wildlife Act, will be subject to a maximum penalty of $250,000, an increase from the current maximum fine of $100,000. The minimum fine and I think that this is also very important, because we know that quite often the courts are reluctant to impose anything near the maximum is also increased from $1,000 to $2,500, and the maximum imprisonment time is increased from one year to two years. These and other new penalties are in line with other jurisdictions across Canada and makes our penalties amongst the highest in the country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This government expects everyone to comply with the Wildlife Act and its regulations, but we also understand that there will always be some bad apples in society. For this reason, we are also introducing changes that expand the scope of park ranger powers. The amendments to both the Park Act and the Wildlife Act will allow park rangers to exercise the powers and perform the duties of wildlife officers. They will have authority to monitor fishing and hunting activities within parks and other protected areas in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These amendments will allow park ranger staff to complement and assist the conservation officer service, particularly at the busiest times of the year, such as the fall hunting season. I note, parenthetically, that this year we've added a further five full-time, year-round positions to the conservation officer service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As noted in my initial remarks at first reading, the amendments to the Wildlife Act will also introduce several measures that will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulation making. Regulatory-making powers concerning limited-entry hunting will be transferred from cabinet to the Minister of Environment so that these technical and detailed regulations can be more easily and efficiently amended, from time to time, in response to wildlife management issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, these amendments will lower the minimum unsupervised hunting age from 19 to 18, ensuring consistency with federal legislation and with other jurisdictions, such as Alberta. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, amendments to the Wildlife Act will also facilitate business efficiencies for the guide-outfitting industry. While many guide-outfitting businesses are still family-owned, the guide-outfitting industry has changed since the act was last significantly amended more than 25 years ago. Guide-outfitters have expressed their desire for more efficient rules so that they can properly respond to changing market pressures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Currently the Wildlife Act says that you have to be a guide-outfitter in order to own a guide territory and that only one guide territory can be owned by one guide-outfitter. These requirements are unnecessarily restrictive. We are introducing changes that will allow a guide to purchase more than one guide-outfitter territory, and we're also introducing changes that will affect investing in and holding guide-outfitter territories. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1150]
The amendments to this act will also remove the requirement that a guide must be physically present in their territory for "substantially all the time" when their assistant guides are guiding for game. We will replace this onerous requirement with the more efficient requirement of having to be present "a majority of the time." This recognizes the fact that advances in technology, such as satellite phones and the Internet, have changed the way that guide-outfitters communicate with their employees and that a guide-outfitter can still closely supervise guiding activity in their territory without being physically present at all times. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are also responding to other business challenges faced by the outfitting industry. The eligibility requirements for both guide-outfitter and assistant guide-outfitter licences will be moved from the Wildlife Act itself to a regulation under the act to make it easier to adjust these requirements to better suit industry requirement needs. The intent is that eligibility will no longer be based on where a person is from but will instead be based on a person's knowledge of British Columbia's natural history, wildlife, hunting and proper game handling. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, local governments have asked the provincial government to develop new rules that manage the feeding and attraction of wildlife and that complement existing local bylaws. This was brought to my attention last fall by the district of Sparwood during the UBCM conference. We are responding positively to this request. These amendments to the Wildlife Act will allow the Minister of Environment to make regulations to control the feeding and attraction of specified wildlife in specified areas. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This bill also makes amendments to the Environmental Management Act on two fronts. The first concerns the authority of government to take action in response to spills of dangerous substances that can be a threat to public health and safety and to wildlife and the environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments to section 80 that are proposed in this bill will make it clear that the Environmental Management Act provides authority to address longer-term spill remediation work relating to habitat and wildlife that the government may need to undertake to deal with ongoing environmental impacts. Existing provisions concerning the authority of a director to recover costs from parties responsible for spills will be applicable in relation to the express new authority concerning wildlife and habitat recovery work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the second front concerning the Environmental Management Act, the amendments proposed in this bill will make improvements to the regulation-making authorities described in the act. These amendments will support the increased use of a regulation-based approach for certain sectors of waste management, including recycling and resource recovery. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The amendments will add authorities so that regulations made by the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cover the full range of waste management issues that can currently be addressed by operator-specific permits. This will ensure a smooth shift to a results-based regulation for various industry sectors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The new authorities also provide explicit regulation-making authority to require the recovery of reusable resources through recycling or by making use of the energy potential of waste. This will align the legislative authority with government and ministry policy concerning energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, waste reduction and the beneficial use of wastes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will now take my seat, because I think my colleague has a few remarks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I hopefully will have an opportunity later to talk about this more fully. Just very shortly on this, before we break, I would say that Bill 29 . The content of this in relation to alien species, I think, is something that everybody would agree with. We need to do a better job of managing and putting appropriate prohibitions in place around questions of alien species. There are also issues related to waste management that make sense in this bill. We'll get a chance to talk about some of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the most shocking thing about this bill, after all the work that's been done, is the absolute silence on any relationship to issues around species at risk the fact that the bill says nothing about that issue. It is the single most compelling issue related to wildlife in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have over 1,300 species that are at some degree of risk. That's out of a little more than 3,600 species in the province. For this legislation not to have dealt with that issue is inexcusable. I look forward to having the opportunity to expand on that as I continue my comments later, when this bill is back. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[ 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 (c) 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada