2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

World Press Freedom Day

Hon. P. Bell

Tributes

Jim Marker

J. Horgan

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 46 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

Bill 45 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Fundraising walk by Janine Annett and child poverty awareness

C. Trevena

Serpentine Enhancement Society

D. Hayer

Fundraising for health care facility on Gabriola Island

D. Routley

Blood donation

C. Hansen

Dancing with the Octopus media project on women in government

S. Hammell

Innovations for sustainable health care system

M. Stilwell

Oral Questions

Community and government support to individual requiring medical supplements

M. Karagianis

Hon. S. Cadieux

C. James

J. Horgan

Government response to fuel leaks in coastal waters near Hartley Bay

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

Government position on Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

R. Austin

Hon. T. Lake

Changes to federal legislation on fish habitat protection

M. Sather

Hon. T. Lake

Buy B.C. program

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

B.C. Rail purchase of farmland in Delta

G. Gentner

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, Review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act

J. McIntyre

C. Trevena

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 40 — Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

B. Bennett

Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

B. Routley

C. Trevena

Tabling Documents

Labour Relations Board, annual report, 2011

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 41 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012 (continued)

K. Corrigan

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

R. Austin

Hon. G. Abbott

[ Page 11491 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: I am pleased to introduce in the House today some special guests of mine from the Langley Chamber of Commerce. They've come to Victoria to meet with a number of my ministerial colleagues. Joining us in the gallery today: President Denni Bonetti, First Vice-President Angie Quaale, Secretary-Treasurer Kristine Simpson, Community Director Michelle Chandra, Director Linda Harkinson, Director Sharon Newbery, Director Mary Reeves and Director Scott Waddle. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Mungall: Well, it was a surprise for me. I was just outside getting off a motorbike and had a really great time touring around with the driver, Bill. As I got off the bike, a young man that I know — his name is Ryan Clayton — said: "Hey, Michelle. Fancy meeting you here." Of course, he is a self-described political junkie and wanted to come and watch question period, so he is in the gallery doing just that. May the House please make him welcome.

[1335]

M. Dalton: Visiting us in the gallery today are members of the Armenian National Committee of Canada, Western Region. A constituent of mine, Vahe Vic Andonian from Maple Ridge, and there are also Vahi Steve Agopian, Jack Deragopian and the permanent representative of Nagorno-Karabakh to the United States and Canada, Mr. Robert Avetisyan.

They've been having a number of meetings with members on both sides of the House. I know that the Armenian community has been very pleased with the bipartisan position that we've taken in the Legislature in recognition of the Armenian genocide nearly a hundred years ago. Will the House please make them feel welcome.

N. Simons: It's a pleasure to welcome a constituent, a master's student from the Sunshine Coast who's attending Royal Roads in communication. Will the House please make Austin Vanderzee welcome.

L. Reid: It's a pleasure to welcome, and I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming to British Columbia a brand-new citizen. He is the son of my former ministerial assistant Jennifer Lawrence and her husband, Devon. His name is Markus Allan Lawrence, weighing in at 8 pounds 11 ounces. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will make welcome a number of guests in the gallery. One of them has just walked from Port Hardy down to Victoria. It took a month but Janine Annett — who is 15 years old, lives on Quadra Island and goes to school in Campbell River — is in the gallery along with her parents, Rory and Joanna, and family supporters and friends — who are Ann Cooper, Lorraine Annett, Tony Clayton, Katrina Annett, Dick Annett, Jacqueline Clayton, Hugh Fraser, Sue Fraser, John and Mary Marlow, Jordan Alger, Alysha Wall, Savannah Perry, Arissa Partridge and Leah Windrim. I hope that the House will make them all very welcome.

P. Pimm: It gives me great pleasure to introduce some very important people to not only northeast B.C. but in fact all of British Columbia today. I'm very pleased to introduce Doug Bloom, the Canadian president of Spectra Energy; Don Camera, vice-president of environmental health, safety and risk management with Spectra Energy; Dwayne Ray, vice-president, field services; Gary Weilinger, vice-president, external affairs and business development; Al Ritchie, vice-president, operations; and Sarah McCullough, director of government relations. Would the House please help me welcome these great folks from Spectra Energy.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to welcome Adele Tompkins, the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists, who I will be meeting with after this. We've got all sorts of issues to talk about, and I want to thank her for raising the concerns of motorcyclists. I look forward to sharing some issues around noisy pipes in my community of Vancouver–West End and talking about how we can work together on that issue amongst others. Please make her welcome.

Hon. M. McNeil: I'd also like to join my colleague, on the opposite side, from North Island in recognizing Janine Annett's great accomplishment. Her one million steps to raise awareness about child poverty are an inspiration to all British Columbians. On behalf of my government colleagues, I would like to also congratulate Janine Annett on her successful completion of A Walk for a Wish.

G. Gentner: I'd like to welcome to the precinct today Mr. Steve Ashton. Steve is the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation — interesting there, that they use I before T — the minister responsible for emergency measures and the minister charged with administration of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.

He has survived nine election victories. He was elected way back in 1981. Can you imagine — compare that to the turmoil and the whirlwind in this province — having

[ Page 11492 ]

served since 1981? In fact, that doubles the time members such as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers and the member for Port Coquitlam have served in this House.

Could the members please make Steve Ashton welcome.

[1340]

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure again today to introduce 21 grade 7 students and 23 grade 5 students visiting from one of the best schools in Canada, the Ellendale Elementary School in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They're here to learn about how our government works.

Joining them are their teachers Mr. Michael Ewen and Mrs. Melody McGillivray, as well as 30 volunteer parents who have taken time out of their busy schedules to join them.

Would the House please make them very welcome.

Statements

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY

Hon. P. Bell: Today is perhaps one of the most important days on the calendar, at least for many of us in this room, because today is World Press Freedom Day. On this absolutely critical day, I would encourage all of our press gallery to feel absolutely free to write something nice about all of us. Would the members please make them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has to respond.

Tributes

JIM MARKER

J. Horgan: Regrettably, I'm going to pass on that one and instead invite members to acknowledge the passing of Jim Marker, the creator of Cheezies — the Hawkins Cheezies, which is an iconic Canadian snack food. Mr. Marker passed away at age 90 in Belleville, Ontario. I think we should all rip a bag of Hawkins later on today in honour of Mr. Marker's passing.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Abbott: It is truly very difficult to follow an impassioned and tragic moment like that with a straightforward welcome. I have a friend and constituent in the gallery today, Councillor Chad Eliason of the city of Salmon Arm. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd just like to extend a welcome to a surprise visitor I had today in my office, my younger brother Colin and his wife, Sarah, and their three boys, Olin, Evan and Gavin. I'm not sure they made it into question period because the three boys are under three years old and they were starting to act up a little bit. So I don't think they got into question period, but they….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Thomson: Exactly. They would have been right at home.

Anyway, I'd just like to acknowledge their presence in the precincts today and have everybody make them welcome. It was a very nice visit.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 46 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012. In September 2010, with the support of this House, we introduced new sanctions for impaired driving. We set a goal to reduce impaired driving fatalities by 35 percent by the end of 2013, in part to honour the memory of Alexa Middelaer, a victim of an impaired driver.

After just one year we saw a 40 percent drop in alcohol-related deaths on British Columbia's highways, and 45 people are alive today because this House was bold in the attempt to change the way we tackle drinking and driving. As we expected, there were legal challenges, and in November 2011 the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of these administrative sanctions. The decision upheld the constitutionality of the warn range sanctions and sanctions for drivers who refuse or fail to provide a sample.

However, for drivers in the fail range, the court held that there must be an ability to directly challenge the accuracy and reliability of the results provided by the roadside screening device to make the grounds of an appeal more meaningful. The court gave us until the end of June to amend our process.

We have reviewed that decision very carefully and now respond with these amendments. Our goal is to protect this important law that has shown great success in deterring

[ Page 11493 ]

drinking and driving and in saving lives in our province. The amendments in this bill meet and exceed concerns expressed by the court in the Sivia case. They provide greater protection for drivers, making it mandatory for police to advise a driver of their right to have a second test, on a different screening device, should they blow in the warn or fail range.

[1345]

The amendments also require that the results of the lower of the two tests will be used for the purposes of assessing possible impairment. We want drivers, police and the public at large to have the utmost confidence in the reliability of roadside procedures and the fairness of reviews for those who dispute the results.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 46, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 45 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012. The act amends the Income Tax Act to implement two personal income tax measures for individuals and families. These include a new B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit and the B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus.

The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit is a refundable income tax credit of up to $1,000 per year to assist with the cost of permanent home renovations that provide individuals aged 65 and over with increased independence, allowing them the flexibility to stay in their homes longer.

The B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus is a refundable income tax credit of up to $10,000 for families and individuals who are first-time buyers and who are purchasing a newly built home. The measure will also assist the residential construction industry by encouraging purchases of newly constructed homes.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 45, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FUNDRAISING WALK BY JANINE ANNETT

AND CHILD POVERTY AWARENESS

C. Trevena: From May 1 through May 7 communities across B.C. are celebrating young people. It's B.C. Youth Week, and for the last 15 years it has provided the opportunity to recognize their contributions.

It's perhaps appropriate that it's during this week that a remarkable young person completed her more-than-500-kilometre trek down Vancouver Island. At the start of her walk a month ago, I told the House about Janine Annett's plans to walk the lengthy Island to raise awareness about child poverty at home and abroad and to encourage other young people to get involved themselves.

She set off from Port Hardy Secondary School and spoke at schools along the way. The grade 9 Ecole Phoenix Middle School student engaged and challenged her peers to take on the problem of poverty, and they did so.

While the sun shone on her as she completed her walk at Mile Zero, the last day was one of her hardest. Yesterday she found, as she was walking, a traffic accident happening just metres in front of her. Earlier in the walk she faced many mountains and foul weather and kept a solid step, approximately 20 kilometres every day. Today she made the lap back to come to the Legislature.

Janine has not long turned 15 but has never lost sight of the importance of her Walk for a Wish — not just the fundraising aspect but the message she gave, both in presentations and in the walk itself, that people can do something to end the disgrace that is child poverty.

She set out with three pairs of shoes and a smile on her face. She has completed it with an even bigger smile, worn shoes and a wish almost fulfilled. Janine knows she has done something very concrete in the ongoing and unrelenting fight against child poverty. It's something of which she has every right to be proud and something which should earn our deep respect. With her example, perhaps we will act to combat child poverty.

SERPENTINE ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak of the wonderful work a community-minded society is doing in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to educate, to improve our environment and to develop lifelong appreciation of the value of salmon by Surrey children. This group of dedicated volunteers, called the Serpentine Enhancement Society, operates at Tynehead Hatchery, raising salmon to release

[ Page 11494 ]

into the Serpentine River, which winds its way from the headwaters of Fraser Heights all the way through Surrey to meet the ocean just north of White Rock.

[1350]

In addition to raising salmon, society members also engage elementary students from schools throughout Surrey to participate by teaching them all about salmon and to actually have them raise this iconic indigenous species.

Through this educational program, Surrey children are also taught the value of protecting and enhancing their environment. Next week — on Saturday, May 12, from 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. — please join the Serpentine Enhancement Society when they open up the doors of the Tynehead Hatchery to the entire community. People will be able to learn about fish, learn how to fish and even release some salmon into the river.

The society is under the guidance of the society president, Glenn Wright, and the directors: Ebb and Julie Budgell, Laura Hagar-Gaube, Carol Wright, Bruce Easton, Chris Hamming, Dave Woods, Frank Marshalok and Carol Kyle — along with many volunteers, more than 48.

I also want to recognize, among those volunteers, Al Nyberg, Don Trakaol, Frank Wilkie, Gordon Kendrick, Esther Johnson and Richard Gaube.

Please join me in thanking everyone for the exceptional work to preserve and protect our environment and the valuable species that live within it.

FUNDRAISING FOR HEALTH CARE

FACILITY ON GABRIOLA ISLAND

D. Routley: Roll up your sleeves, and get it done. That is clearly the spirit of Gabriola Islanders. Gabriola, like every Gulf Island, lives with serene and peaceful beauty but also separation and seclusion. For Gabriolians requiring medical services, emergency transport was dependent upon the nighttime activation of the ferry. Someone suffering a stroke or another critical emergency faced a prolonged trip for help.

In 2002 the island lost the nighttime ferry option, resulting in some patients being evacuated by open Zodiac boat. Gabriolians responded to the challenge. When no money was forthcoming from the province for the building of a needed clinic, residents founded the Gabriola Health Care Society.

The proposed Gabriola health care facility will house up to three physicians as well as other health care workers. The facility will also provide space that is equipped for acute emergencies, a small lab and, potentially, emergency X-ray facilities linked to the hospital in Nanaimo. There could also be one or more nurses and/or nurse practitioners, depending on VIHA and other funding. The proposed facility will have space for visiting public health nurses and mental health workers, and a baby immunization clinic.

Land for the health care facility was donated by retired veterinarian Bob Rooks. Local residents have donated over $1 million, and with other grants and fundraisers, the society has collected donations of over $1.4 million. Every year they host the Tour de Gabriola, a fundraising cycling event around the whole island.

My partner, Leanne Finlayson, and I have participated in the ride for the past two years. One couple, Barbara Williamson and Mike Kew, donated $500 each to my ride. That is just one measure of the depth of generosity and commitment by Gabriolians to their health care facility.

Well, the wait is over. This summer the facility will celebrate its grand opening. Congratulations, Gabriola Health Care Society. Well done, Gabriola.

BLOOD DONATION

C. Hansen: Tomorrow at four o'clock I have an appointment. It's an appointment I made 56 days ago, and while I am there tomorrow, I'm going to make another appointment for 56 days later to come back to the same place. Tomorrow at four o'clock I'm going to be donating the 85th unit of blood to the Canadian health care system.

That is not remarkable, because there are many, many Canadians who go far beyond that and literally donate into the hundreds of times. But 52 percent of Canadians either have had to receive blood in their lifetime or a member of their family had to receive blood. It is essential for surgeries, for treating people in car accidents, for cancer treatments. The whole range of care that we provide in our health care system is often dependent on the availability of blood in the blood banks.

Yet what is sad is that only 3.5 percent of Canadians who are eligible to give blood actually take the time to do that. In British Columbia that percentage is even lower. Canada is actually a net importer of blood products. I would like to urge all members of this assembly that if they are able to give blood, to take the time to do it.

[1355]

When we say we haven't got time, it's not a good enough excuse. It should be something that we do as a matter of civic obligation, just as we have a civic obligation to get out and vote on election days in British Columbia and in Canada.

I urge all members of this chamber to take the time to do it and to urge their constituents to do it as well. We need blood for the blood system in Canada and for our health care system. Remember, it's in you to give.

Dancing with the Octopus MEDIA

PROJECT ON WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT

S. Hammell: Recent research shows that one out of every two human beings is a woman. So in a perfect world one out of every two politicians would be a woman. Unfortunately, most nations fall deplorably short of perfection.

[ Page 11495 ]

Here in Canada we're 1 woman in 4; 75 percent of the House of Commons seats are held by men and 25 percent by women. This ties us with Australia at 39th in the world, just behind Mexico, Iraq and Sudan.

Dancing with the Octopus is an eight-tentacled media project that takes a non-partisan look at the hows and whys of getting more women into politics, asking what needs to change and how we change it. Dancing with the Octopus held an international video contest and asked people to imagine how the world would be different if 75 percent of the seats were held by women and 25 percent by men.

The winner was 13-year-old Rebecca Hansen from Victoria. With 75 percent of the politicians women, her imagination saw a world with longer maternity leaves, universal daycare, more sex education programs, funding for women's outreach programs, tougher advertising regulations, better gender ratio laws, more style, more culture, more hugs. Politics would be more engaging, more uniting and, as she puts it, "more me." She concludes: "We will do everything." Wow. I say bring it on.

I believe our future will be closer to perfection with young people like Rebecca in it. To see this award-winning video, complete with musical and visuals, go to www.dancingwiththeoctopus.com.

INNOVATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

M. Stilwell: One of the toughest challenges we face today is ensuring the sustainability of our health care system. As our population grows and ages, resources will be needed to provide the care that citizens know and expect.

How do we find a balance between providing the services patients need and the ability of taxpayers to fund them? Of course, the answer is innovation. Innovative programs such as healthy families B.C. focus on enhancing patient care and preventing chronic illness. Patient-focused funding has led to improved wait times and access to care while finding efficiencies in everyday hospital processes.

Healthy families B.C. also aims to help families make healthier choices. In its first three months more than 63,000 smokers sought help through the program's smoking cessation services. The program provides families with help in designing healthy, nutritious meal plans. By helping families lead active, healthy lifestyles we can prevent chronic illnesses like diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers.

Innovative technologies like telehealth are changing the way health care providers deliver services to patients. Telehealth uses video conferencing and other technology for clinical consultation, health care management and continuing professional education when participants are in separate locations. Tele–home care allows patients to better manage their chronic diseases while at home by transmitting vital signs and health information to a hospital where the patient's condition is monitored. This technology helps patients receive care in the comfort of their home and frees up hospital space for other patients.

The key to health care sustainability ultimately rests in our ability to adapt. By combining prevention with a change in the way we deliver services, we can ensure a healthy future for our citizens and our health care system.

Oral Questions

COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT

SUPPORT TO INDIVIDUAL

REQUIRING MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTS

M. Karagianis: Yesterday here in the House I was proud to talk about how my community had stepped up to help a woman who had been denied supplements by this government.

[1400]

The Esquimalt Legion poppy fund stepped forward to buy the supplements that Jolayne Gammon needs in order to get healthy enough to have a double mastectomy, but today the ministry contacted Jolayne and wanted to inform her that she cannot take outside financial help without it being clawed back from her disability benefits. They've asked her to apply once more for assistance, for the seventh time. Further, the ministry is contacting the Legion because the ministry wants to take control of the assistance that they want to provide.

I think the government has a lot of gall to step into this situation. First they would not supply the supplements that Jolayne Gammon needs in order to have her surgery, and now they want to step in and interfere in the community's efforts to come forward and assist her.

I would ask the minister: if the government is not prepared to help her, can they just get out of the way and leave her alone so the community can help her?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, although the member opposite doesn't seem to understand this, I cannot comment on an individual's situation in the House. I am, as I said yesterday, looking into this to make sure that the individual is receiving the supports she can from the ministry.

Staff rely on information provided by an individual and their doctor to make decisions regarding the additional supplements that may be able to be provided. I encourage anyone who is unsatisfied with the decision made by the ministry to apply for a reconsideration or, if their health status has changed, to reapply with their new status.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I think that the minister's response

[ Page 11496 ]

here, and the government's behaviour, is absolutely appalling. I have written to the minister. I have talked about this in the House. This individual has applied six times for supplements.

The government said her blood condition that was destroying her spleen was not enough of a motivation to supply supplements. Her spleen was not considered a vital organ. They said she could lose it without dying, so it wasn't enough of a motivation. She needs a double mastectomy for breast cancer, and still the government says this is not enough motivation for them to give her supplements.

Now the community has stepped forward, in the form of the Esquimalt Legion, yet the government continues to want to interfere and disrupt this woman's life while she is very ill. I think this is the most callous and cruel position that this government is demonstrating.

Once again to the minister: if she is not prepared to step in and help this woman, then please stay away and let the community come in and help her. Really, what she needs in the end is help, not hindrance by this government.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The ministry takes all cases presented to us very seriously. The health supplement program is by no means difficult. Actually, more than 23,000 people received supports with our diet supplements last year, and over 8,000 receive a monthly nutritional supplement. This was an increase from last year.

All cases that come before us are very difficult, and staff know that the decisions they make affect people's lives. Therefore, they take those decisions very, very seriously, and we will continue to do that.

C. James: The minister says she needs information, that it will take time. Well, the ministry, when they found out that the community was going to give support to Jolayne, moved instantly. I would say that the minister has enough information to provide support today to Jolayne.

This is someone who is seriously ill, who has applied already six times. The minister now says…. One more time: why won't the minister act today to support Jolayne to get healthy once again?

[1405]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Quite honestly, I'm not sure what the other side of the House does not understand about the fact that I am indeed looking into this case but that I cannot comment in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I find it extraordinary that the B.C. Liberals would think saying to an individual that losing their spleen isn't enough to be able to get support was good government policy.

Since the minister won't speak about a specific case, I would like to ask the minister: when her ministry refuses support and the community steps up to the plate, does the minister believe it's right for her to interfere with that community support?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I said, we understand that individuals who are approaching the ministry for assistance because of chronic health conditions are doing so in a very difficult time. I can appreciate that the language that may be used in some of the responses from the ministry may leave something to be desired. In fact, I've asked my staff to look into this issue to ensure that all correspondence has the appropriate tone, content and information required for the individual receiving the information to have a full understanding of the situation.

I will say, in response, that we applaud community groups for their support of community members.

J. Horgan: The case that was brought before the minister earlier this week is a tragic case, and the enthusiasm with which our community and the capital regional district responded was overwhelming and brought tears to the eyes of many people on our side of the House.

My question to the minister is: if you won't agree to help, would you at least agree to get out of the way so the community can help Jolayne get through her health difficulties and live an effective and full life in this community with the help of her neighbours and all those around her? Would you just get out of the way?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I've stated before, I cannot comment on the individual cases. The members opposite know that, and the member opposite who has brought this to my attention has received a response from my office.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, the response from the minister's office was that if the Royal Canadian Legion in Esquimalt wanted to help, they had to do so through her ministry. Now, the individual in question has been to the minister's office six times and been rejected six times. Now that the community has stepped forward, let's not go through the indignation of No. 7. Let's just agree to disagree. The Liberals don't want to help, and the community does. Stay out of the way, and let the community do its job. Close the file, Minister. We beg you.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, I applaud community groups that are willing to step in to support other members of the community. In fact, I myself have belonged to many of those types of community groups in the past.

As the members opposite know, I cannot comment on individual cases in this House, and I will not.

[ Page 11497 ]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FUEL LEAKS

IN COASTAL WATERS NEAR HARTLEY BAY

R. Fleming: Two days ago the Gitga'at First Nations reported finding a bunker fuel slick over a wide area inside Grenville Channel near Hartley Bay. The slick emerged from the long-identified sunken wreck of the Zalinski , which has been leaking oil for over ten years. This isn't the only shipwreck leaking oil near the community of Hartley Bay. The sunken B.C. Ferries vessel Queen of the North continues to leak fuel, leaving the local community at risk of having their shellfish beds contaminated.

Ten years ago the federal government promised to clean up the Zalinski , just like the Liberal government has promised to clean up the Queen of the North , and neither has delivered on these promises.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Does he understand why the people of Hartley Bay reject the idea of oil supertankers from the Enbridge northern gateway plying these very same waters when it's clear they can't even depend on their government or the federal government to properly respond to existing oil spills?

[1410]

Hon. T. Lake: Once again the member opposite bases all of his conclusions on speculation rather than information. This is a vessel that went down in 1946. A plane flying over the area detected a sheen. The Canadian Coast Guard did a flyover and estimated that the amount of fuel on the surface of the water, despite the fact that it was very wide, was also very thin — a bit like the NDP fiscal policy, by the way.

The estimated total of that fuel is under one litre. No one knows at this point if it is coming from that sunken vessel or was a small spill by a passing vessel. We are following up with the Canadian Coast Guard. We will base our response on information, not speculation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Once again, the Minister of Environment is caught off guard, unaware, when the federal government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: When the federal government cancels the oil spill response centre on the Pacific coast, he doesn't even know about it. When the Coast Guard sends divers to the site today and issues a warning, a risk that the amount of fuel leaking right now is increasing, he has no idea that that's happening either.

Referring to the Enbridge project, Arnold Clifton, who is the Gitga'at's chief councillor, says: "They have got to clean up this mess before anyone thinks of sending anything else through our traditional territory." The federal government and the Coast Guard…. The entire oil spill preparedness and response program has been independently audited and found to be in complete disarray, under-resourced and lacking capacity and coordination. Recent federal budget cuts are making the situation worse.

When is the Minister of Environment and this government going to stop cheerleading the Enbridge northern gateway project and start cleaning up existing oil spills like the ones that are affecting Hartley Bay?

Hon. T. Lake: I will again remind the member opposite that we base our positions on evidence. We have not taken a position on the Enbridge gateway pipeline simply because the process is in the very early stages. But what we have said is that we will protect the interests of British Columbia. We will ensure that any proposal that comes to our shores comes with the world-class protection of our marine environment that people in British Columbia expect.

While I'm standing up, I would like to point out that the member yesterday misquoted the Premier when he was talking about support for the Northern gateway pipeline. The member has yet to stand up and correct the record — that the Premier was talking about the northern gateway transportation strategy. But again, let's not let the facts get in the way of an NDP story. That's the way that they make their decisions — based on speculation, not information.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

R. Austin: Sport fishing is a huge economic driver in the northwest. People come from all over the world to fish the Skeena and its tributaries. Jeremy Crosby, chairman of the Skeena Angling Guides Association and owner of Pioneer Fishing Lodge, said this about the Enbridge northern gateway: "The northern gateway project involves huge environmental risks with minimal economic benefit."

[1415]

Mr. Crosby's business depends on a clean environment and living fish. He knows that even a single spill would devastate his industry. Will the Liberals listen to concerned northwest businesses, drop their support of the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline and join with the official opposition in standing up for the interests of British Columbians?

Hon. T. Lake: The question is: will we listen to the fishermen, the sport fishers in the northwest? Absolutely. We intend to listen to all British Columbians. We intend

[ Page 11498 ]

to follow and participate in this process in a thorough, knowledgable and robust fashion.

But that's not the way that the members opposite would like to do things. The Leader of the Opposition in Kamloops today, when commenting on a mine application, said: "I think the problem is, you know, they applied about two years ago, and the government hasn't taken a position on this."

In other words, the government is supposed to go out and take a position on every application before it goes through a robust, comprehensive, top-quality environmental assessment process. On the other side they just decide ahead of time what should go forward and what should not go forward.

Over here we base our decisions on evidence, and that's the way that we will continue to do it on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I represent a region which has long played host to industrial development. As Kitsumkalum Chief Councillor Don Roberts told the joint review panel assessing the Enbridge northern gateway: "We are not saying no to industry; we are saying no to Enbridge crude oil."

We all know that B.C. will be carrying most of the risk from the Enbridge northern gateway with thousands of jobs in the sport-fishing, commercial-fishing and tourism industries being put on the line. Why are the B.C. Liberals supporting the Enbridge northern gateway when B.C. businesses, First Nations and communities are asking them to speak out to protect their interests?

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to quote the Leader of the Opposition in Kamloops again today when he said: "I think people expect you to look at the evidence."

Now, I know that on the other side of the House, represented by the NDP, or the No Development Party, they make up their minds about any kind of proposal ahead of time.

Well, on this side of the House we look at the evidence. We wait for the process to be finished. We take

part in the process in an informed, thorough way, and then we come to a position that will represent the true interests of all British Columbians. We'll continue to do that.

CHANGES TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION

ON FISH HABITAT PROTECTION

M. Sather: The Minister of Environment hasn't even bothered to visit a mine that's right on the outskirts of Kamloops. What's this talk about science-based and actually doing their homework? They're not.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The federal government has made it abundantly clear that in their view, the Fisheries Act is a regulatory irritant rather than the key part of conserving our fisheries resources and protecting our environment.

New fisheries legislation introduced in Ottawa is such a threat that Justice Cohen has called on participants to report to him the concerns they have about what effect that legislation will have on our ability to manage salmon in this province. Will this government and this minister acknowledge the danger of this legislation, and will they oppose this legislation vigorously?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite asks if we will oppose this legislation when it comes out. Well, we'd actually like to see the legislation before we make up a position on it.

Changes to the Fisheries Act….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second.

[1420]

Continue, Minister.

Hon. T. Lake: You know, many local governments and many people in the agriculture sector have expressed concern with the Fisheries Act. They have made those concerns known, I'm sure, to many members opposite and to the member for Saanich South, where irrigation ditches are considered habitat for fish.

The changes, we understand, are meant to be commonsense changes to ensure that habitat is still protected, as it always will be here in British Columbia. But some changes need to be made to make sure that we're protecting vital waterways, not drainage ditches and man-made ponds.

Those kinds of changes make sense. We look forward to seeing the legislation. But one thing we know: we will protect critical habitat for fish in this province into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: The legislation is called the Budget Implementation Act. The minister can look it up on the federal government's website if he wishes to.

But let's be clear. This government has done nothing except collude with the federal government to cover up and deny the issues that we have and the risks to our salmon. Instead of being a bystander, will this minister finally stand up and say something, do something — anything — to protect our salmon? Will he tell the federal government that gutting protections for our salmon is not on?

Hon. T. Lake: The member opposite apparently considers drainage ditches and irrigation channels as critical habitat for salmon. This is legislation that hasn't been

[ Page 11499 ]

modernized in 140 years. Now, we know that the members opposite don't like change, but it probably is about due for some commonsense changes to the Fisheries Act.

I have spoken to my counterpart, the Minister of the Environment federally. We have made it clear that any changes must not have a negative impact on critical salmon or other fisheries habitat here in the province of British Columbia.

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

L. Popham: The Buy B.C. program was launched in 1993, and it's widely recognized as the most successful food and beverage advertising program ever jointly undertaken by the provincial government and private industry. When speaking with stakeholders across the province, the message is clear. They want to see this program brought back.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Liberals listen to B.C. farmers and food producers and return government support to the Buy B.C. program?

Hon. D. McRae: The Buy B.C. program was fine in the 1990s. I'm fine with that. The reality is that if it was such a good program, how come as soon as government subsidies for this amazingly successful program…? As soon as they went away, so did the whole program. It failed. Private business wasn't there to support it.

The reality is that we continue to support British Columbia agriculture. We support it through ways that, I think, are phenomenal: through farmers markets, through fairs and expositions, through basic supports for agriculture.

Let me tell the members opposite: I do agree that we need to support agriculture, and buying local is absolutely essential. That's why my ministry staff is engaged with B.C. Agriculture Council, a great organization that represents 14,000 farmers across this province, and we're working on a program that will be coming out in the near future and that will benefit all of British Columbia agriculture.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Well, the minister thinks he's moving forward in a modern way, and there's a huge concern by the B.C. agriculture industry that this so-called modern vision is ineffective. Awareness of Buy B.C. reached an astonishing 76 percent of B.C. consumers in just seven years under the NDP.

[1425]

The Buy B.C. program was effective. It was effective because it reached out to consumers wanting to support local agriculture and offered them a clear choice. Meanwhile, the Liberal program hasn't got much beyond the staff in the Agriculture Minister's office.

Hon. D. McRae: Well, I must say I hope we don't get a charge for the free plug for the Facebook page that we haven't really started promoting yet, but thank you for bringing it up. Every time you complain about it, it just gets us a couple more hits to it. I'll see if I can get my daughter on it tomorrow.

Like I said or alluded to earlier, we're working with BCAC, because we actually have a plan that's going to be coming out in the near future. But it also gives me an opportunity to jump on board some other opportunities that we have actually done in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: I must say thank you to my colleague the Minister of Health as well. I joined him out in Abbotsford the other day, and we actually made an announcement. We added $1 million more to the school fruit and veggie program.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: You know what? I hate to say this, but I just heard the Minister of Finance ask: "What is the program?" Thank you.

The reality is that 450,000 students will receive B.C. product, fruit and vegetables, every second week. We have legions of elementary, junior high and secondary students who are actually getting B.C. product, whether it is fruit from the Okanagan or vegetables from the Fraser Valley. They actually are getting not only the health benefit, but like the recycling program, they'll help share the story of B.C. agriculture.

But there's more.

Mr. Speaker: Not now.

Hon. D. McRae: I'll wait, Mr. Speaker. I will come back, I hope.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 11500 ]

B.C. RAIL PURCHASE OF

FARMLAND IN DELTA

B.C. Rail has bought up parcels of land in Delta that are in the agricultural land reserve. Last week in budget estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure I asked the minister about a specific property in Delta, B.C. Rail's purchase on 28 Avenue, and the minister said: "I think it's prudent business to have land and acquire it, whether you use it immediately or in the future. That would include the piece of property you've asked about."

We know B.C. Rail is underway in selling off 150 parcels of land, and yet this government is still steadfast in acquiring land for B.C. Rail in Delta. The minister of land banking, which I think is what he's going to be called now, has admitted that B.C. Rail has purchased agricultural land for future route uses.

The specific property I asked about in estimates sticks out like a sore thumb. It's not on the railway corridor, but conveniently, it fits quite nicely with the development strategy of Deltaport and the work of speculators such as Mr. Emerson and others, who are assembling, by optioning, huge tracts of agricultural land adjacent to B.C. Rail lands.

Knowing the sordid history of the Liberal government's affair with B.C. Rail…

Mr. Speaker: Pose the question, Member.

G. Gentner: …and its lacklustre history of protecting farmland, the people of this province…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

[1430]

G. Gentner: …want to know what's happening to the land.

Can the minister come clean? What are the B.C. Liberals planning to do with this agricultural land? And don't tell me it's all about producing food, because we know…. What is the minister doing with agricultural land in Delta?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's interesting. You're correct. We did address this last week, and it's interesting that you're asking the same question again, but you will get the same answer.

B.C. Rail does have land, and they utilize it, whether it is for future developments that the rail may need…. It is extremely prudent to maintain the land bank that they have if they think, in the future, they may need it. Also, they will dispose of land if they don't need it, Member.

It's the same answer today as it was last week, and that's what I'm leaving you with again.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. McIntyre: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, Review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. McIntyre: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I wish to make some brief comments.

This report summarizes the committee's review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, which began last September. This was the first time that the act had been reviewed since it was passed in 2006, when the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth was first created.

During the course of our review the committee held a public consultation and met with key stakeholders, including the representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond; and the Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development, Stephen Brown. We also heard from the hon. Ted Hughes, whose 2006 review of the child welfare system laid the foundation for both the establishment of the representative's office and this committee.

Our report today contains seven recommendations for enhancing the legislation — all of which, I am pleased to say, were unanimously agreed to by all committee members.

Our recommendations include expanding the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth to include advocacy services for vulnerable young adults in transition to adulthood, reviewing the need for continued external oversight of the Ministry of Children and Family Development in three years, facilitating information-sharing between the representative's office and public bodies, strengthening the provisions for appointing an acting representative and providing for future periodic reviews of the legislation.

In conclusion, as Chair, I would like to thank everyone involved in the review, including the Deputy Chair, the member for North Island, along with all of the committee members from both sides of the House. I'm pleased to report that we worked very well together.

I'd also like to specifically thank Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Stephen Brown and their staff as well as Ted Hughes for providing their valuable input and advice during our review.

[ Page 11501 ]

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge everyone who made a written submission to the committee as well as staff from the Office of the Clerk of Committees, in particular Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Byron Plant, who were key in this process.

Thank you. It's a privilege to serve as the Chair of this select standing committee.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to support the Chair in the remarks about the report. She has covered most things, I think, very, very succinctly. I think it's a symbol of how well this committee works. It has been a pleasure to work on it. It has been very hard work.

I'd like to add our thanks, as the Chair said, to Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Clerk of Committees; Byron Plant, researcher for the committee, who actually pulled together a lot of different submissions and made it very coherent for all members; and our thanks to the representative's office, to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to the hon. Ted Hughes and to all the many individuals and organizations who presented some very thoughtful submissions that were examined in our review.

I think that the work of this committee…. As the Chair said, it was unanimous. Each recommendation was unanimous. I think it was really an example of what a legislative committee can achieve when working collaboratively and collegially. I hope that other legislative committees can work in this way, and we can use this as an example.

With that, I move that the report be accepted.

Motion approved.

[1435]

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make another introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

I know I speak for all the caucus when I say we couldn't be more grateful for his exemplary service throughout the years. This very talented young man was born and raised in Victoria to his proud parents Joginder and Surjit Jawl.

Mr. Speaker, I would personally like to think Roop for all the work he has done. His work was very essential. Without his work and his talent, we would not be able to do a good job as MLAs. He worked very hard, and he will greatly be missed by all members of this side of the House. I would like to wish good luck to Roop in his future endeavours.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will start second reading of Bill 40, intituled Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012; followed by Bill 41, intituled the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012. In

Section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Education. On the off chance — very off chance — that that should possibly be completed today, we would be moving to the Ministry of Finance.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 40 — LEGAL PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 40, the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, be read a second time.

This legislation reflects a modernization of the Legal Profession Act, and in fact it responds directly to a request from the Law Society of British Columbia. The purpose of the bill is to modernize and improve the tools that the Law Society has to regulate lawyers in British Columbia in the public interest. The objective of the Legal Profession Act is to ensure that the Law Society can protect the public and ensure that they are provided with high-quality legal services while at the same time ensuring that lawyers are treated in a manner that is fair and just.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are a number of key amendments that will be of benefit to the public. The amendments will expand the ability of the Law Society to suspend or disbar a lawyer convicted of a serious criminal offence. They will also enable the Law Society to make rules authorizing the imposition of a suspension or condition of practice during an investigation, where necessary, to protect the public.

They will increase the maximum fine from $20,000 to $50,000 and permit orders for fines and costs arising from the Law Society disciplinary hearings to be filed and enforced as court orders. They will require lawyers who are subject to an investigation, disciplinary proceeding or practice review to obtain approval to resign from the Law Society. They will enable the Law Society to make rules that ensure the security of private electronic records to ensure that they are protected during an investigation.

They will also ensure that anyone involved in a Law Society proceeding may be represented by counsel. They

[ Page 11502 ]

will clarify the process for compelling witnesses or records in a disciplinary hearing and allow the Law Society to establish a review board made up of lawyers and non-lawyers to replace the panel of benchers, who are elected lawyers, that currently review decisions of disciplinary or credentials hearing panels. They will also clarify the obligation of the Law Society to protect privileged and confidential information received in accordance with current

interpretation of the law.

This act makes a number of amendments to the existing statute, and therefore the benefits I have mentioned are merely some of the important changes made by this legislation. Madam Speaker, I await the comments of other members of the House.

L. Krog: I must say it's always a pleasure to rise and speak in the House, particularly when there's a general sense of agreement in the chamber — not always common. But the truth is, hon. Speaker, in reality much of what goes on here is often by consensus and agreement. Certainly, what the minister, the Attorney General, has presented today, the amendments to the Legal Profession Act, are just exactly in that category.

[1440]

The bill, as the Attorney General has announced, makes a number of changes, all positive, all done in fairly lengthy consultation over a long period of time with the Law Society of British Columbia and with a fair bit of input.

I think the fact that since its introduction I haven't received any criticism, comments or concerns from any members of the public to date tells me that, in fact, those people who are paying attention to what goes on in this chamber and have an interest in this legislation are, by their silence, signifying their consent and agreement with it.

Some of the changes may appear somewhat subtle, but they are in fact important. One of the things that I would mention is the existing legislation, the existing Legal Profession Act, with respect to the object and duty of the society.

In the existing

section 3, it says:

"It is the object and duty of the society

"(

a) to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by (

i) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons, (ii) ensuring the independence, integrity and honour of its members, and (iii) establishing standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership, and

"(

b) subject to paragraph (a), (

i) to regulate the practice of law, and (ii) to uphold and protect the interests of its members."

It is worth reading out the new and proposed

section 3, which I think clarifies, quite appropriately for the Law Society…. This is at their request — at the request of the lawyers of British Columbia — and I want to emphasize that.

Section 3, as proposed, will read:

"It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by

"(

a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons,

"(

b) ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of lawyers,

"(

c) establishing standards and programs for the education, professional responsibility and competence of lawyers and of applicants for call and admission,

"(

d) regulating the practice of law, and

"(

e) supporting and assisting lawyers, articled students and lawyers of other jurisdictions who are permitted to practise law in British Columbia in fulfilling their duties in the practice of law."

I go back to the

section where it starts: "It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice…." That's what this bill does. It emphasizes, very clearly, the responsibility that has been given to the Law Society by legislation and makes it absolutely clear, crystal-clear, to the public that there is not some conflicting duty to protect, to regulate the practice of law and to uphold and protect the interests of its members. There is not some conflict there. The paramount object and duty of the society, the clear object and duty of the society, is to "protect the public interest in the administration of justice."

Lawyers, like doctors, like engineers, are self-governing professions. It is an honour and a privilege to have the right to call yourself a lawyer in this province. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to uphold the high standards of professionalism associated with the profession.

I appreciate that there are some British Columbians who have not been happy with the conduct of their particular counsel in a particular case, and that's the nature of the beast. It has ever been thus. You can't make everyone happy. But when you contrast the high standards of conduct in this province expected of lawyers — which are generally delivered, as indeed with most of the self-governing professions in this province; indeed all, probably — you have to express some gratitude that you live in the province of British Columbia, in Canada, as opposed to many other jurisdictions in the world.

It is a source of great pride for me personally. The Attorney General, when she's feeling kind, refers to me as a member of the bar in a gentle way, and when she's trying to be somewhat sarcastic in question period, refers to me as a member of the bar with a somewhat different tone in her voice. But I'm always honoured to hear the words. It gives me no small thrill.

I say with a certain amount of pride…. A father can take that once in a while. Our second-born, our dear son Parker Krog — I think I'm entitled to use his name in the chamber — is going to be called to the bar at the end of this month and intends to carry on in this interesting profession, notwithstanding that his mother and his father, both lawyers, never encouraged him to take up the bar, appreciating that along with the honour and the privilege come a great deal of demand and pressure. We didn't feel it was appropriate to encourage him.

[1445]

But I am flattered, no less, to say that in this cham-

[ Page 11503 ]

ber, because it is a noble profession. It is a profession that in…. Every society where lawyers have the ability to practise freely is the kind of society in which all of us would want to live.

I have said it before. I can't remember which Shakespearean play it is. It's Henry III or IV . Maybe one of the other members in the chamber will assist me here — those more erudite than me. There's that oft-quoted line: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Of course, what's never quoted is the full line, in which essentially Shakespeare is saying: "Yes, let's kill all the lawyers, because if we get rid of all the lawyers then we can really establish tyranny."

That's really what lawyers do, and it is why it is such a privilege. I think it's important that this act, in

section 3(a), says very clearly — and I think these are words that need to resonate with the public and British Columbians — that in pursuing the object to "uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice," it is by "(

a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons."

The rights and freedoms of all persons — that includes the freedom to discourse, the freedom to speak in this chamber in every corner regardless of how loud it might be and how much it might interfere with those who actually have the floor. It refers to the right to protest in public streets. It refers to the right to petition government. It refers to the right to protest and to criticize and to express, sometimes, on occasion, even the most abhorrent views.

That is what the legislation does, in very clear language — remind us that lawyers have that special duty. It is that special expectation.

It is not by design or accident, but it is a natural phenomenon that many politicians are lawyers. I think the number in the House of Commons ranges between 20 and 25 percent — not as many in the Legislature of British Columbia, but maybe the next election will improve the numbers. Although with great respect, maybe the next election might reduce the numbers. It all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting. I know other members of the House on the opposite side are going to wish to speak to this.

It is because lawyers by nature are drawn to the law. The law is made not just in this chamber. It is made in courtrooms. It is made through protest, though public desire, through aspiration to the great freedoms to which most societies aspire.

We only need to look around the world to recognize societies where the ability of lawyers to practise law is prohibited or restricted, where governments — generally dictatorial; some with the guise of democracy — take steps to ensure that…. Unlike in British Columbia, where we are here in this House going to codify the duty of lawyers to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons, those states do everything they can to restrict the ability of lawyers to pursue those noble goals.

This legislation deals with a number of issues. I think it is important to mention quite specifically a number of those things, because the public needs to understand how important this is.

As I've indicated, it makes the public interest paramount. It makes that absolutely clear. As much as the Law Society, notwithstanding the existing legislation, worked on the premise that the great duty was to protect the public interest, nevertheless, the language itself, I think, presented some difficulty for some people with respect to the duty of the Law Society and its obligation.

It also expands the Law Society's ability to suspend or disbar lawyers guilty of serious criminal offences — including those committed outside of Canada — without, necessarily, a full hearing. It adds investigatory powers and, when required by the public interest, allows benchers to make rules for suspensions during investigation for the medical examination of a lawyer or articled student. It gives the Law Society the ability to require persons to answer questions and produce records in the course of an investigation into a lawyer's conduct.

[1450]

It increases the maximum fines for misconduct from $20,000 to $50,000. Keep in mind that a fine is one thing, but the ultimate sanction of the Law Society is the ability of the society, after a hearing, to withdraw from a member their ability to practise law. As I've said many times, it's an honour and a privilege to be in this chamber. It's an honour and a privilege to practise law. The power to withdraw that still exists. I wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that we're simply upping fines here and that that's the only sanction a lawyer is going to face.

It also clarifies that lawyers have the right to legal counsel for disciplinary hearings. It makes decisions of Law Society hearing panels subject to review by a board which will exclude people who are not lawyers. It extends, importantly, the Law Society's reach into multiple areas: accounting practises, supervision of articling students, provisions respecting the breach of duty to law firms as well as to individual lawyers, and that runs throughout the bill.

This is important. Lawyers quite often practise in partnerships. Now, I think the reality is, and I think the member for Kootenay East may be able to assist me in this, that the vast majority of lawyers in British Columbia are actually solo practitioners. But a number of lawyers actually practise in firms, generally smaller firms, three to four lawyers, some in them in much larger firms. Regulating the practise, if you will, of a lawyer only, as if they are somehow an entirely separate entity from their partners, frankly presents some significant difficulties for the Law Society.

What this bill does is attempt to remedy that and ensures that the Law Society has the authority to deal with firms as well as individual lawyers.

Now, the next one. This may be the place where I have

[ Page 11504 ]

a slight difficulty with the bill. When I say "slight difficulty," it's not that I'm going to vote against it. But it does give the Law Society's elected board of governors — not all the lawyers — the power to set the annual fees to be paid to fund the Law Society. Now, I suspect for some members of the bar, the prospect that they won't be able to vote on their annual fees may present some difficulty. Once you have had the authority to set your own level of taxation, if you will, it's a pretty appealing practice.

I suspect there may be lawyers across the province of British Columbia who will take umbrage at the prospect that elected benchers of the Law Society will now get to set the annual fee without the individual lawyers being able to vote on that.

But it's a practical approach. It's a practical approach. We in this chamber, the 85 of us, subject to the particular position the Speaker occupies in this chamber and only with respect to difficult votes…. The reality is that 84 British Columbians arguably get to make the decision on what taxation is paid by the other four-plus million British Columbians. We expect and acknowledge that that is part of a democratic process. It's a practical approach to things.

The concept that every time you wanted to change taxation in this province you had to literally seek a vote of every British Columbian may have an appeal to those who don't like the concept of government and taxation, but it would present a practical difficulty that is almost difficult to describe or imagine. Indeed, we know in some jurisdictions in the United States, where taxation levels…. Particularly, I'm thinking of California. Property tax and Proposition 13, as I recall, have led to enormous difficulties for the state of California, which means that in some respects — there has been some suggestion, recently — California is coming close to bankruptcy.

Without wishing to be too cheeky about this, I guess as an individual lawyer I'm prepared to believe…. I suppose I should state my conflict here, for purposes of the conflict commissioner. I'm prepared to concede that as a lawyer affected by this legislation, giving up the power to set annual fees from individual lawyers by vote to the Law Society's governors is, in fact, the appropriate thing to do.

[1455]

The legislation also replaces the victim's special compensation fund with trust protection insurance, a professional liability insurance program. Now, it's not exactly a happy occasion. The name of Martin Wirick is well known to legal circles in British Columbia — a lawyer who, as we say in the profession, went bad, resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars, potentially, to a number of institutions and individuals. Unlike some other bodies and some other jurisdictions and some other places, the Law Society, in fulfilment of its mandate…. The lawyers of British Columbia stepped up to the plate, and nobody lost a nickel.

It is something to take a certain amount of pride in as a professional, and it's something that British Columbians should take pride in, in terms of the lawyers of British Columbia, representing the common sense and honesty and decency of British Columbia's citizens, did their duty, met their responsibility and in fact compensated the victims of Mr. Wirick's nefarious behaviour.

The victims' special compensation money is now going to be replaced with trust protection insurance, but that will again guarantee that if ever there is an occasion where a lawyer doesn't meet the high standards of the bar, British Columbians, their clients — whoever — are not going to suffer as a result of that.

It also adds a review board and replaces benchers with review boards for the purpose of reviews on the record of assessments of cost. It allows the Law Society to appeal a decision of a panel review to the Court of Appeal. Finally, it allows the Law Foundation to retain outside lawyers.

I think it was an old Socred saying about legislation being more good news. Well, I think one can say that, in fairness and to drag up an historical expression, Bill 40, the Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, represents more good news, not necessarily from this government but just more good news for British Columbians. It brings the legal profession and the Legal Profession Act, I think, up to date in a way that has been sought for a very long time.

There is no question that this represents a great deal of work.

I want to recognize the contribution of the Law Society of British Columbia, its executive director and others who have, for a number of years, worked with government — and, frankly, worked with the opposition — seeking support, who have consulted broadly to ensure that the legal profession was included and to ensure that the bill that came forward represented progress, brought the profession up to date and gave the ability to the Law Society to function in the effective way that it needs to in order to ensure the objects and duties of the existing legislation, which, as I read out earlier, reflect a number of important things, but also by modernizing it and codifying once again the high standards that are expected of being a lawyer in British Columbia.

I know there are other members of the chamber, apparently, who wish to speak to this today, so I don't wish to belabour the point. But I want to thank the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for bringing this forward.

I want to, again, extend my thanks to members of the Law Society who've worked on this, to extend my congratulations to those who have brought forward another example of how in British Columbia some of what we do in this chamber is actually just good common sense. It asserts the public interest. This legislation puts the public interest first. It makes it absolutely clear that the public interest is the number one priority. Indeed, it is the only priority, and it is the only object and duty of the Law Society of British Columbia.

I would hesitate to contemplate a day when we would

[ Page 11505 ]

want to have self-governing professions like the Law Society abolished and government take over the management of our professions. I think it is an important aspect of freedom, most particularly for lawyers in a democratic society, that they be a self-governing profession. You can think of all of the great social activists, all of the great defenders of democracy around the world, in this province, in this country, who have enjoyed the high calling of the legal profession, who have enjoyed the honour and privilege it is to practise. They are great names, and they have made great progress.

[1500]

As a matter of fact, next week in my community there's going to be a very interesting conference on the Douglas treaties, which are important in British Columbia. The keynote speaker on Thursday night will in fact be a former Supreme Court Justice, Thomas Rodney Berger, QC, I think one of British Columbia's most amazing lawyers and, like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and myself, another good fellow Scandinavian, a person whose fame and repute and honour and integrity are well known.

That's the kind of leaders that come out of the legal profession. They are to be honoured. This bill, certainly for me, represents all that is good about the profession. Again, my thanks to the Attorney General.

I know others wish to speak.

B. Bennett: It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Nanaimo. I'm going to say many of the same things, perhaps, and hopefully in a different way. But I do agree with what he had to say.

It is a pleasure to stand in the House today and say a few words about the positive changes being made to the Legal Profession Act. The act is the legislation that empowers the Law Society of B.C. to regulate the 10,000-plus lawyers that work in the province today. The Law Society was created by statute in 1869.

The Law Society, as the former speaker said, is a self-governing body that ensures that B.C. lawyers act with independence, integrity and honour. As a self-regulating body, it's essential to public confidence in the legal profession that the Law Society of B.C. be viewed by the public as the regulator and not as an advocate for the interests of lawyers.

The organization here in British Columbia that does advance the interests of lawyers, which in my view is a very progressive organization — it focuses heavily on legal education — is the Canadian Bar Association. There is an important distinction between the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C., and I think one of the easiest ways to make the point about the distinction is to compare the College of Physicians with the B.C. Medical Association. The College of Physicians obviously is more the regulator and the B.C. Medical Association, more advocating for the interests of physicians. The same distinction is true of the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society.

I'm dividing my remarks today into five different sections. They're very, very short. I want to make some introductory comments about the act. I want to comment on the mandate of the Law Society, which is changed by these amendments; the Law Society's powers of investigation, their powers of discipline and their use of hearings and appeals.

I'm going to conclude with some positive comments about lawyers, as my friend did — just so that members are forewarned.

The act hasn't been substantially updated since 1988. It really does need to be modernized in order to make sure that the Law Society can regulate in the public interest. I should say, along with what the former speaker said about more good news, that this actually is more good news in terms of the government's record of justice system reform led so ably by the Minister of Justice.

Amendments to the Legal Profession Act add to the initiatives already completed, such as the Family Law Act, which I think everyone supported here and was a big step forward; the new Limitation Act; and also the ongoing reform initiative led by Geoffrey Cowper, QC.

As the minister has so adeptly done in her tenure, she is presiding over these positive changes that go to the quality of the justice system and the accountability of the justice system to the public, without indiscriminately throwing large amounts of public money at it. That's saying something, hon. Speaker. That's not easy to do, and that needs to be said.

The Law Society wants the public to have confidence in lawyers, in the legal profession, and to their credit, the Law Society regularly measures the public's confidence in lawyers. In recent years they've done some work to determine whether the public has confidence in lawyers and in the Law Society.

[1505]

Just recently they did a study and determined that 66 percent of the public, in fact, believe that the Law Society does a pretty good job of handling complaints; 63 percent of the public believe that the Law Society has the ability to and does a good job of disciplining lawyers who are in violation of the standards; and 72 percent of the public are confident or very confident that the Law Society is able to ensure that lawyers operate with ethical standards. So there is already, I think, good confidence in the public about lawyers and the Law Society.

Despite that positive trend, once again, to the credit of the Law Society of B.C. and to the minister, the amendments that we're discussing will improve the legislation in ways that will lead to even more public confidence in lawyers and in the Law Society.

Let me just say a few words about the mandate of the Law Society. If the act is passed, the mandate of the Law Society of B.C. will be changed to more strongly and

[ Page 11506 ]

clearly reflect the Law Society's primary role as the regulator. The object and duty of the Law Society will continue to be to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice. But it will include an objective of supporting and assisting lawyers in fulfilling their duties rather than advancing the interests of lawyers, thereby clarifying the distinction that I talked about between the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of B.C.

It is an important change to the existing language, and it will make clear to the public that the Law Society is focused entirely on the regulation of lawyers and the protection of the public interest.

Investigations. These amendments will expand the powers of investigation. They will allow the Law Society to regulate law firms as opposed to just regulating individual lawyers. My friend from Nanaimo made this point. I think it's an important point to make. I think it's inconvenient and quite cumbersome, currently, for the Law Society to try to regulate law firms by regulating individual lawyers. This will help with that.

I think there are some new rules that will allow the Law Society to require lawyers and others that work for the law firms to answer questions and to produce records. The Law Society will now be, if these amendments are passed, allowed to send an officer or an employee of the Law Society to a lawyer's place of business. That sounds pretty ordinary, but currently they can't do that.

Lawyers will be required to disclose information where the information is subject to confidentiality and privilege. We probably all are aware, I'm sure, and have had occasion to retain a lawyer at one point or another in our lives, and we know about solicitor-client privilege.

In fact, when the Law Society is faced with an investigation, at times that solicitor-client privilege gets in the way of a proper investigation. I don't know this for a fact, but thinking about this, probably that solicitor-client privilege also gets in the way, in some cases, of lawyers defending themselves against complaints. So the Law Society will now be able to obtain that confidential information. But of course, the Law Society will then stand in the shoes of the lawyer, and they will owe a duty to the client so that the information is still kept confidential.

When it is necessary to protect the public interest, under these new amendments the Law Society will have the authority to suspend a lawyer who is under investigation before the investigation is complete and a hearing is held. That's new. The Law Society will be able to place conditions on the lawyer's practice pending outcome of an investigation. You can imagine how that might apply.

The Law Society will be able to require a lawyer to submit to a medical examination before a citation is issued against that lawyer so that medical problems can be dealt with outside of the disciplinary hearing context, which is important both to the Law Society and to the public interest, but also to the lawyer who is subject to the investigation.

Finally, the Law Society will be able to prevent a lawyer from resigning from the Law Society of B.C. when they are under investigation. Again, it's pretty easy to imagine that if you can resign from an organization, you could take the position that it no longer has the authority to investigate you.

Discipline. Maximum fines will be increased from $20,000 to $50,000 for lawyers and from $2,000 to $5,000 for students. The Law Society will be able to collect fines and costs by filing the order in Supreme Court. They'll actually be able to collect these fines in situations that require a court action. They can't do that today.

[1510]

Benchers will be able to suspend or disbar lawyers who are convicted of serious crimes, and that will include lawyers who have been convicted of serious crimes outside of the country.

Hearings and appeals. I wanted to just very briefly mention that there is what I'm calling a new appeal mechanism within the amendments. Decisions of the Law Society's disciplinary panels will be reviewable by a review board, which will include non-lawyers. That always, I think, is an important thing — to make sure it exists in any sort of process like the one we're discussing today. Hearing panels will be able to suspend a lawyer who has committed a discipline violation for an indefinite period to enforce compliance with conditions or other requirements.

In conclusion, these improvements to the Legal Profession Act will improve public confidence in B.C. lawyers and will enable stronger oversight by the Law Society of British Columbia. But it is important for me as a lawyer to say that generally lawyers serve their clients very effectively and with very few complaints from the public, as my friend from Nanaimo said.

Of the 1,200 complaints received by the Law Society each year in British Columbia, 80 percent have no legal merit, 13 percent are referred to a disciplinary panel and only 2 percent actually result in the review of a lawyer's competence. In case anyone thinks that 1,200 complaints in a year is a lot, I would ask you to think about the fact that we have 10,000-plus lawyers practising in the province. Figure out how many files they open in a year, and we're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of files.

So 1,200 complaints — particularly when you end up with only 2 percent that actually result in a review of the lawyer's competence — is a pretty good record for the profession, hon. Speaker.

I practised law for ten years. For the last 11 years I've been an MLA. Prior to being a lawyer, I ran fly-in fishing and hunting lodges in northern Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and one on Hudson Bay. I've done the entrepreneurial thing from start to finish. I had occasion to hire lawyers a lot when I was in business. I know that we don't hear this often, and I was actually pleased to hear the member for Nanaimo say this. My experience

[ Page 11507 ]

with the lawyers that I've worked with on all of my files — and I worked with lawyers from across the country — was very positive. I found that the lawyers I dealt with were, for the most part, of good character. They were reliable, and they were honest.

I know that if I received a legal undertaking…. Members may not be aware of what a legal undertaking is. Perhaps they are; perhaps they aren't. If you receive an undertaking from a lawyer, you can absolutely expect that undertaking to be achieved by the lawyer who's made it. I knew that I could rely on that undertaking without question.

There was a very interesting study done quite a few years ago by the American Bar Association, and I'll never forget it. They asked several thousand people in the United States what they thought of lawyers, and a great many people didn't think very highly of lawyers. I know that's a terrible surprise, hon. Speaker, to you personally, but that was what came back.

But there was an interesting exception. There was one kind of lawyer that, actually, most people really liked. They really thought highly of one kind of lawyer, and that one kind of lawyer was their own lawyer. It was the lawyer that acted for them. They liked that lawyer, but they generally didn't like lawyers.

If there's a message there — and I think there is — I think that the very best test of the profession is whether the clients that a lawyer serves are happy with the service they get and the job that's done by the lawyer. And generally speaking, people are.

Again, congratulations to the minister for bringing the amendments forward. This will strengthen the Law Society's capacity to look out for the public interest and, I think, strengthen the credibility of the profession that I'm a member of in our province.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: I know there's a lot of work to be done in the chamber, so I won't make additional comments — just perhaps a brief reflection. I want to thank the member for Nanaimo and the member for Kootenay East, first of all, for their very generous comments about the work that's been done. Again, I think it's an example of how when the House works well and works together, we can recognize some of the important bills that need to move through the House in order to improve, in this case, the work that the Law Society does.

I want to thank the president of the Law Society, benchers and others who worked very hard to ensure that the bill was prepared and worked very closely with our team. I can assure the members opposite that I appreciate the comments that have been made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I look forward to the opportunity to finalize the bill as we go through committee stage. But again, this is about making sure that we are protecting the public interest, and I think the Law Society has done an excellent job. I appreciate the comments of both the member for Nanaimo and the member for Kootenay East this afternoon.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 40.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 40 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 40, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call second reading of Bill 41, intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

BILL 41 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2012

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2012, now be read a second time.

We have just gone through the second reading of Bill 40, and it was a collaborative sense that we need to address this issue together. I am absolutely positive that we will have a far more vigorous debate this afternoon, as we go through second reading on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Obviously, as the Attorney General I have the pleasure of bringing forward the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. As I noted in introduction, there are a large number of statutes, a long list of them, that will be amended with this particular statutes amendment act. I'm going to work my way through and make some comments on each of those sections, and then I know we're going to have a very interesting response from a number of members in the Legislature.

[ Page 11508 ]

Bill 41 amends a number of statutes, as I've said. Firstly, amendments to the Election Act provisions respecting election advertising spending limits for third parties. I'm sure this will generate, as we would expect and would hope, a fairly lengthy discussion about why this is important from the government's perspective.

These amendments will re-enact spending limits on paid advertising that apply to third parties during the pre-campaign period — that is, the period immediately before the 28-day campaign period — for regularly scheduled provincial general elections under the provincial Constitution Act. For by-elections and for unscheduled general elections, spending limits will continue to apply to the campaign period only.

This bill will create a campaign period that would be a maximum of 40 days. The amendments further provide that the pre-campaign period cannot begin until at least 21 days past any sitting of this House. So the pre-campaign period during which spending limits would apply would begin either 40 days before the start of the campaign period or 21 days following the last sitting of the House, whichever time period is shorter.

The rationale, from our perspective, for having spending limits is simple. They prevent the wealthy from dominating the political discourse by flooding media with paid advertising. In addition, spending limits on third parties help to maintain the integrity of spending limits on political parties, because they prevent political parties from skirting their own limits by engaging in unlimited advertising using proxy groups.

To be clear, these spending limits are limits on paid advertising. Other forms of political speech are not subject to limits, including commentaries such as interviews, editorials, debates, communications with an organization and the expression of views on a non-commercial basis on the Internet or by telephone or text messaging.

[1520]

The previous limits on third-party spending were subject to a court challenge. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal struck down the previous law, primarily because it would have applied to a time period when the Legislature was potentially sitting and before the budget had passed. The court held that there was a public interest in allowing third parties to advertise during this period.

We have carefully reviewed the Court of Appeal ruling. Although it did not uphold the pre-campaign period spending limits as they were passed in 2008, it provided helpful guidance to us on how to balance the right to free speech against the legitimate wish to prevent the wealthy from dominating political discourse. That is why these amendments provide for a shorter pre-campaign period and include a clear 21-day period following the adjournment of the Legislature before spending limits will apply.

To accommodate this time frame, we are making a related amendment to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The act currently requires the main estimates to be presented in this House on the third Tuesday in February. The amendment would change that requirement to "on or before the third Tuesday in February." This change provides a degree of flexibility to the Minister of Finance. It will ensure that the budget can be introduced and that in a scheduled election year, the House can adjourn in time to have a pre-campaign period.

To be clear, under these changes the budget could not be introduced any later than it is now. In practice, because budget preparation is a complex process and it is important to use the most up-to-date economic forecasts, it is not expected that budget day will occur much earlier than it does now.

Madam Speaker, as I said, we have introduced these amendments following the recent ruling from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. I wish to advise the House that should these amendments be passed, government intends to refer them back to the Court of Appeal for a ruling on whether they meet the concerns of the court. In deference to the court, government does not intend to bring amendments into force until the reference is done. I am confident that the reference can conclude in sufficient time for the matter to be settled prior to the next scheduled general election in May 2013.

Amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act will enable the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia to admit qualified professionals trained outside of British Columbia to practise engineering and geoscience in B.C. The amendments also provide additional disciplinary tools, such as practice reviews and conduct reviews, and make minor changes to the association's governance to improve fairness and efficiency.

There are two proposed amendments to the Forest Act. The first enables flexibility in the minister's authority to delegate an authority under the act to officials in the ministry. The amendment was previously approved but contained a minor typographical error that needs to be corrected. The second reinstates the requirement for a deposit to be made at the time of application for forest tenure to prevent speculative bidding.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act — I wonder how many members in the House knew there was one — amendments will enable the Tsawwassen First Nation to become a member of the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district. Membership in the district will enable them to secure long-term and cost-effective waste management services and to proceed with the development of Tsawwassen First Nation land in accordance with the treaty.

Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act will provide new tools that will strengthen B.C.'s leadership in the adoption of renewable and low-carbon fuels and in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The

[ Page 11509 ]

amendments are based on recommendations from consultation with over 39 fuel providers.

One of the main recommendations is to change the way carbon credits are earned. Prior to this amendment, companies with more diesel would earn more low-carbon credits, as it was a lower-carbon fuel. By creating two fuel classes, gasoline and diesel, all fuel suppliers are starting from the same point.

Another amendment will make B.C. the first in North America to allow fuel providers to earn additional low-carbon fuel credits for projects that reduce emissions from transportation fuels, helping accelerate consumer adoption of low-carbon fuel.

The bill also includes minor amendments to the Health Professions Act and the Labour Mobility Act. Nurse practitioners are a critical component of our government's integrated primary and community care strategy, particularly with respect to the delivery of care in specific underserved populations such as rural or aboriginal communities, seniors, and those suffering from mental health and addictions issues.

[1525]

This amendment assures that all nurse practitioners wishing to enter practice in British Columbia in the future have passed the same rigorous clinical practice exam before being permitted to practise autonomously and to the full extent of the nurse practitioner scope of practice under B.C. legislation.

Amendments to the Land Title Act will ensure that party wall agreements transfer with the sale of property. Currently obligations in a party wall agreement, such as the requirement to repair and maintain the shared wall, do not transfer to a new owner. These amendments ensure that they will. This amendment enables property owners to more easily register their interests in party walls and encourages future construction of row housing by removing risks for municipalities.

Changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act will allow caterers to offer inclusive food and beverage service and will also permit existing establishments such as restaurants, hotels and conference centres to be able to cater off site. The change will bring British Columbia in line with other provinces, support job creation and allow the tourism and hospitality sector to compete more effectively as a destination location for conferences, conventions and special events.

Currently in British Columbia, people serving liquor at an event in an unlicensed venue have to get a special occasion licence, take the Serving it Right course, purchase and transport the liquor, and accept the liability for liquor service at the event. Catering companies cannot handle these responsibilities on behalf of their clients.

Amendments to the Local Government Act clarify government's authority to incorporate a mountain resort municipality, whether or not there are residents in the area at the time of the incorporation. The legislation is consistent with existing government policy in the area of mountain resort development, and it will ensure that all forms of governance are available for consideration.

Proposed amendments to the Police Act will help strengthen provincial standards for cooperation and intelligence-sharing among police agencies in complex, multi-jurisdictional cases. The changes will ensure that the provincial director of police services will be able to set these standards, in turn ensuring that police adopt common approaches that help to speed identification and apprehension of dangerous repeat criminals.

As well, after consultation with the new civilian director of B.C.'s independent investigations office — he was appointed in December — that discussion has led to the amendments that will enhance police cooperation with that office's investigations.

Proposed amendments to the Public Sector Pension Plans Act will streamline the act by removing provisions no longer necessary and clarifying language to simplify it and reduce regulatory requirements. It will also create a separate joint trust agreement for the college pension plan that will create consistency with similar public sector pension plans such as the public service pension plan. Orders-in-council will no longer be required for each change made to the plan rules or joint trust arrangements.

The Statute Revision Act. Validation of corrections made to statutes permits certain errors in the statutes, including errors arising from the 1996 Statute Revision Act, to be corrected by regulation. Examples of errors that may be corrected under this power would include typographical errors, cross-referencing errors, formatting errors, punctuation errors, duplicated numbering and minor grammatical errors such as repeated words, missing articles and misplaced conjunctions.

This correction power would not be used to change the intended policy or legal effect of a statute. Corrections are made by regulation. To continue to have legal effect, the corrections made by regulation must be confirmed by the Legislature within the next session of the Legislative Assembly.

Finally, proposed changes to the Wildfire Act will protect government employees, temporary hires and fire specialists from other jurisdictions outside of British Columbia from civil litigation, who act in good faith when exercising powers and duties under the act.

[1530]

As I noted in my beginning comments, there is a long list of amendments on a variety of topics, and I am sure that our House will be engaged in very active discussion about many of the amendments proposed. Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker.

L. Krog: Never truer words were spoken than the concluding remarks of the Attorney General when she said that there was much to consider in this bill. It is a substantial piece of legislation. We have numerous sections,

[ Page 11510 ]

some of them fairly substantive in nature — running to 96 sections, 41 pages. Tabled on May 1, and here we are on May 3 in second reading debate already, with many members not having, I think, the opportunity to actually review the legislation the way it deserves.

I'm hesitant to quote the Vancouver Sun , of course, never wishing to give more importance to the media than they deserve or wish to have. But you can't help but resist when one portion of this bill — the changes around the Election Act — has inspired the Vancouver Sun editorial today to use this language: "Obstinate, ill-advised, hypocritical, pointless, antidemocratic and shortsighted, to name just a few."

That's in reference to the previous paragraph in the editorial that says: "There are so many appropriate words to describe the provincial government's decision to try once again to bring in an election gag law that will stand up in court. It's hard to know where to start, but we'll take a stab at it." Hence, all that wonderful list of adjectives: "Obstinate, ill-advised, hypocritical, pointless, antidemocratic and shortsighted, to name just a few."

Governments have tried this before. The courts were fairly clear many years ago on this issue. When you try to control free speech outside of an election period, you are going to run into trouble. Very clear. I understand, and I am sympathetic to the concept that we want to try and keep our democratic process free of undue influence by big money or organizations with purposes that are entirely selfish, that aren't speaking to the public interest or concerned about the public interest.

I understand and accept all of that, but we live in a democratic society. The provisions of Bill 41, in particular those that relate to changes to the Election Act, are nothing more than a doomed attempt, I suspect, to try and go back and revisit what Wally Oppal couldn't accomplish four years ago.

You may recall, hon. Speaker, as do members of this House, that the government took a stab at this once before. They tried to restrict free speech for a period of 120 days leading up to an election. The hue and cry then was horrendous. It was horrendous.

The government heard in no small way from British Columbians across the province, criticizing the government for doing this, for attempting to do it. The government was warned over and over again that it would face constitutional challenge, and it most certainly did. So the government actually, in fairness, stepped back a little bit — not a lot; a little bit. Brought forward an amendment themselves to change it to 60 days.

Again warned that changing the clothing on the Trojan Horse, so to speak, wasn't going to make any difference to the fact that there was still a Trojan Horse in there somewhere — the Trojan Horse was not a welcome visitor in a democratic society — the inevitable happened.

[1535]

A court challenge. Courts struck it down again, so here we are today, back at it once more with a government that couldn't seem to figure out that the courts, in pretty clear terms, said it wasn't going to work.

Labour groups brought on a court challenge. It was known as Bill 42 then. That included the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I have enormous respect that they chose to put their money where their mouth was on this issue, used their members' money to make the appropriate challenge.

B.C. Supreme Court in 2009 found that the 60-day limit was unconstitutional. Not a surprise, except perhaps to this government, which stubbornly insisted in believing that it could get away with it. Last October the B.C. Court of Appeal, highest court in the province, said: "You know what? The trial judge in this issue was right. Can't do this. Infringes free speech." Here we are, May 2012. The government is giving it another kick.

Now, I don't wish to emphasize that my party, my former government — although I wasn't part of the government — was taken to the woodshed once on the issue of trying to restrict freedom of speech. We got taken to the woodshed. Now we, unlike the B.C. Liberals, are smart. You only had to take us there once before we learned the lesson. Only had to do it once, hon. Speaker. Only once.

The B.C. Liberals, on the other hand, have been taken there once, had the lesson, but nope. There's a stubbornness. There's a certain stubbornness there. I won't say arrogance, but a certain stubbornness perhaps. They just want to take that path down to the woodshed one more time and have the courts whack them again.

Hon. Speaker, you have to ask yourself: why would they want to do that? When you're sinking in the polls, why would you bring forth Bill 41? At the very time that your own friends, Mr. Hochstein and his friends, have been running a vicious, nasty personal attack campaign, why would you want to bring forward a bill that would restrict the opportunity of your friends to attack the NDP?

Well, that's really because the Liberals are more afraid of other groups attacking them for fear that maybe some of their failings and their weaknesses and the mistakes they've made in 11 years in power will actually get pointed out in no uncertain terms by other groups in the province.

I just don't get it. But the Vancouver Sun maybe got it. They understand it. Again, part of the editorial: "Now the government is trying again with amendments that aren't even being given the profile of their own act but are being slipped through as part of a housekeeping bill that deals with half a dozen other issues at the same time."

It's not like we have the courage to say we've got the election act amendment act. No, no, no. We're going to just slide this one in, in a nice, big, fat Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. The Vancouver Sun goes on to say: "In the 2005 election, after which the Liberals decided to act, unions supporting the NDP outspent Liberal

[ Page 11511 ]

allies by a ratio of 3 to 1 in a losing effort. So much for buying the election."

So we've got the historical evidence. Why would you want to restrict free speech? You know, I can rely on no stronger, more respected a source in the B.C. Liberal Party to comment on the gag law than the former Premier of the province of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell himself. In 1995 he said: "We, like many others, believe that the provisions for a gag order on third-party interests are simply wrong. This government, unfortunately, has a record of restricting freedom of speech, and this is simply another example of that record."

[1540]

Now, it wasn't just Gordon Campbell who felt this way about what's being proposed here today. When that legislation was overturned in 2000 by the B.C. Supreme Court, then Liberal MLA Geoff Plant — who went on to have the distinguished position of being the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, and the only one censured by both the Law Society and the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch — said, when he heard the decision: "A great day for democracy and a bad day for the New Democratic Party."

So we get it. We got it. We figured it out. What is it with this government that they can't figure it out? British Columbians — speaking through the courts, speaking through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, upholding the law recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the famous case Harper v. Canada (Attorney General) — have told the B.C. Liberals that they don't want gag laws.

Indeed, Justice Bastarache, in the decision — making reference to the comments of the Chief Justice and Justice Major — when he was talking about the restrictions, based partly on the fact they don't apply outside of the official election period, said:

"The Chief Justice and Major J. assert that short of spending well over $150,000 nationally and $3,000 in a given electoral district, citizens cannot effectively communicate their views on election issues to their fellow citizens. Respectfully, this ignores the fact that third-party advertising is not restricted prior to the commencement of the election period. Outside this time, the limits on third-party intervention in political life do not exist. Any group or individual may freely spend money or advertise to make its views known or to persuade others.

In fact, many of these groups are not formed for the purpose of an election but are already organized and have a continued presence, mandate and political view which they promote."

The court recognized that it's appropriate to restrict spending during election campaigns. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada said. Now, we don't go to the Privy Council anymore. It may come as a surprise to some of those opposite, but we don't go to the Privy Council anymore. That's the Supreme Court of Canada. That's the final voice on law in this country and on interpreting law.

The B.C. Supreme Court, in accordance with the principles laid down in Harper v. Canada, struck down the B.C. law back in 2000, struck down the B.C. Liberals' Bill 42 in 2009, confirmed by the Court of Appeal the other year. Now we're back here again, trying it on for size one more time.

Now, when there is so much to be done in this Legislature, why doesn't the government take the advice of the Vancouver Sun ? It says in the concluding remarks of the editorial in today's paper: "This proposed gag law is pointless and undemocratic. It should be abandoned."

"It should be abandoned." Wise words, hon. Speaker. Believe me, I don't always agree with the Vancouver Sun or the Province or even the Nanaimo Daily News , my hometown paper, or the Nanaimo News Bulletin or the Harbour City Star , but sometimes you have to agree with what the newspaper says, and sometimes what they say in the newspaper is in fact the truth. The truth is pretty clear here. This proposed gag law is pointless and undemocratic.

If Bill 41 had provisions around the Election Act that had to do with banning corporate and union donations — something that would really take money out of politics, arguably — then, perhaps, the opposition might be persuaded that this was a good thing. But that's not in here. Now, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I know, in this very chamber in the past has introduced a private member's bill respecting banning corporate union donations, has proposed other bills to modernize and ensure that conflict-of-interest guidelines were appropriate for people seeking elected office and for ex-officials of government — all sorts of good legislation.

[1545]

Here was an opportunity, in this bill, for the government to say: "We understand that money may be an issue, that people who give money to political parties may expect a louder voice, perhaps, and we're prepared to do something about it."

But that's not what we're doing here. We're saying: "We want the money to come into a political party that can use it the way they want, in order to get their view out, but we don't want the money to be spent by citizens, organizations or groups to say the things that they want." This government, this party, only wants the money to come into their political backrooms and get divvied up and spent the way they think it's appropriate.

They don't want the BCTF or CUPE or other groups or organizations — environmental organizations, citizens advocacy groups, social justice groups, economic justice groups, human rights organizations, small town organizations, community organizations — to have the opportunity to put forward a point of view. That's what this legislation is intending to do. They don't want to hear those voices. They don't want to give the opportunity to citizens of British Columbia to speak.

It's just bad public policy. It is much like attempts around censorship. Generally speaking, they fail. People don't like it. They may hate the words they hear from others. It may upset them to no end, but most British

[ Page 11512 ]

Columbians are prepared to have the right of free speech protected and respected. What this legislation is attempting to do is to restrict that right.

You know, it is abhorrent to me — the things that have been said about my leader in some of the recent advertising. I think it is disgusting. I think it is the worst kind of politics. It demeans politics in general and my leader in particular. But I'm not prepared to stand in this House and support legislation that would stifle the right or, indeed, the ability of the people who've said that to say what they want to say, abhorrent as it may be.

Those of us on this side of the chamber recognize the value of free speech. We honour and respect it. It is this government that consistently chooses to protect its big-money backers by refusing to ban corporate and union donations to political parties. You know, Jean Chrétien is not a person who ever led my party, and I don't want to speak too highly of a federal Liberal. There are a few of them left, rare species as they may be. Maybe they require protection under an endangered species act.

But dear old Jean Chrétien recognized what the power of money meant in politics. One of his parting acts was to put restrictions on donations to political parties — maybe something that 50, 60, 100 years from now people will look back on and say: "You know what? That Jean Chrétien was an okay guy. He did the right thing."

Instead of following the lead of some of their cousins in Ottawa…. Because the B.C. Liberals, as we well know, aren't really the B.C. Liberals. They're a coalition. The free enterprise coalition, I think, is what the Premier refers to it as now, this strange wedding of Conservatives and Liberals that produces the B.C. Liberals, at least in name. Some of their cousins maybe should be listened to. They brought in an election financing law. They brought in restrictions on donations. They passed it.

Even the Tories haven't played with that. Those are the other kissing cousins of the B.C. Liberals. Maybe they should listen to some of their Tory cousins in Ottawa who haven't decided to allow corporate and union donations to flow freely into political parties. But they're not listening, and there's no better evidence that they're not listening than Bill 41.

[1550]

What Bill 41 does is attempt to restrict people from expressing their views on all kinds of issues. Why would you want to stop someone from expressing views on climate change? Why would you want to stop someone expressing views on poverty? Child care? Reforestation? Protection of our natural resources and our wild places? Why would you want to place restrictions on that, hon. Speaker? Because that's what this is all about.

When we come to

part 7 of Bill 41 called "Justice Amendments" — there's a bit of a misnomer if there ever was one…. When we come to that section, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about restricting for 40 days prior to a campaign, less if the Leg. is sitting. We're talking about restricting for 40 days the rights of people to free speech.

Now, this isn't an emergency situation — the 40 days prior to an election. I guess — what was it? — 42 years ago, the War Measures Act brought in to…. I mean it existed, but it was implemented by then Prime Minister Trudeau with the issues in Quebec. I disagreed with that decision of Mr. Trudeau. I thought it was the wrong thing then. When you look back, history now has shown that really although what happened in Quebec was awful — the murder of Pierre Laporte, the kidnapping of James Cross — it didn't warrant the cessation of the liberties and rights of all Canadians or the imprisoning of hundreds of citizens of the province of Quebec on grounds that turned out to be absolutely baseless.

So we're not in an emergency situation for 40 days before an election in this province, and surely the fundamental right to free speech isn't something that should be suspended for 40 days. We're not facing a biblical flood here You know, 40 days and 40 nights when the words of various groups are going to rain down upon us and drown our intelligence somehow or sweep away our common sense or see us disappear beneath the waves forever, never to emerge again to cast a vote. It just doesn't work like that.

What possible reason could there be, what possible justification, what possible basis in good public policy is there for 40 days prior to an election to say to British Columbians: "Not a peep out of you, not a peep. We don't want to hear it"?

Now, if the bill contained a provision that said that government wasn't allowed to advertise to protect its own interests and to promote itself, that is something I think the opposition could support. But that's not what the bill says. It doesn't say: "There shall be no government advertising of any type, shape, form, size or whatever for 40 days prior." No, no, no. We would never think of doing that. But boy, if some friends of the opposition or some people who disagree with government policy wish to express their views, that's a different situation.

We want to restrict that, because gosh knows, the people of British Columbia aren't intelligent enough. If they have 40 days of advertising prior to the campaign, they aren't smart enough to figure out when they're being sold a bill of goods.

Back to the Vancouver Sun . "The latest attempt at a gag law is not only offensive to the principle of free speech — as were all of the others — it is also a classic example of a solution for which there is no problem. There is simply no need for a limit on third-party advertising. No one is harmed by it."

[1555]

I understand the concerns the government may have and some citizens may have: big money and politics, American-style advertising — you know. The last thing I want to see is that kind of vicious campaigning that goes

[ Page 11513 ]

on in U.S. elections. You turn on an American TV station even just during the primaries, for heaven's sake, when they haven't even selected the presidential candidates. It's awful. You turn it on during the actual election campaign. It's repugnant.

But repugnant as it may be, it is not worth sacrificing the right to free speech to attempt to prohibit that stuff. Repugnant as it may be. Here in — again, one of the most oddly named sections — the "Justice Amendments" section,

part 7 of Bill 41, that's really what we're trying to do. We're trying to restrict the ability of legitimate organizations to put forth their viewpoint on issues of the day.

Now, hon. Speaker, this very chamber is designed for debate. Your role in this chamber is to ensure that debate is carried out. We are protected in this chamber. We have the Sergeant-at-Arms. This is the holy place of democracy, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

I can remember, during more difficult times in the '90s, when some individuals who felt their rights were superior to the rights of democracy broke down those very doors that the Speaker looks at day in and day out. That was a very ugly moment in this province's history.

What we do in here is protected: the very right to debate, to exchange views, to argue, to put forth a different vision for British Co