2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 24, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

MaryAnne Arcand

Hon. S. Bond

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act

Hon. S. Bond

Bill M205 — Electronic Petitions Act, 2014

J. Shin

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Pharmacists

D. Bing

Mary Steinhauser

M. Farnworth

B.C. film industry

J. Thornthwaite

Community response networks for prevention of elder abuse

K. Conroy

Ethel Tibbits Awards

J. Yap

Pharmacists

M. Elmore

Oral Questions

Government response to truck operators labour dispute and concerns of independent truckers

A. Dix

Hon. T. Stone

H. Bains

Portland Hotel Society audits and oversight

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Penalty for overcut of non-beetle trees in Morice timber supply area

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

B. Routley

Preparedness for oil spill response and wildlife recovery

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Polak

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 14, Working Capital Management Since 2010

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

V. Huntington

S. Chandra Herbert

A. Weaver

N. Simons

Hon. S. Anton

Government Motions on Notice

Motion 9 — Government response to Judges Compensation Commission report recommendations

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Motion 10 — Government response to Judicial Justices Compensation Commission report recommendations

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Off-Road Vehicle Act (continued)

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Off-Road Vehicle Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Park Amendment Act, 2014 (continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Polak

A. Weaver

V. Huntington

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Park Amendment Act, 2014

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 3 — Missing Persons Act

Bill 4 — Park Amendment Act, 2014

Bill 6 — Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act

Bill 8 — Budget Measures Implementation Act

Bill 13 — Off-Road Vehicle Act

Bill 16 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2014

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

C. James

Hon. S. Cadieux

M. Karagianis

Estimates: Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

Hon. C. Oakes

S. Robinson

D. Eby

G. Holman

[ Page 2277 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I rise today to introduce the 25 B.C. Pharmacy Association members visiting the Legislature today, led by the B.C. Pharmacy Association's CEO, Geraldine Vance, and their board vice-president, David Pavan. I won't name all of the members who are here, but I hope members of the Legislature had an opportunity to visit with the pharmacy team in the legislative buildings here today. It's important to recognize the team because of the important care that they provide, the health-related services, ensuring we stay as healthy as possible.

Of course, their role in the health care system is very varied, from dispensing medications, which is probably what we know best, to monitoring patient health and progress, research, education of customers and patients on the use of prescriptions; and also working closely with physicians, nurses and other health professionals on drug decisions.

Will the House please help me welcome this important member of our health care team.

R. Austin: It's not often I get to introduce people who come all the way from the riding of Skeena, so it's with great pleasure today that I'm here to introduce Keith and Rosemary Goodwin, longtime friends, who are in the gallery today. Keith has spent his life as what he would call in his old country, the U.K., a chartered surveyor.

He got to a very high place in that profession and, in fact, was the national president of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. Very often these kinds of positions are dealt to people who live in big cities like Vancouver and Montreal and Toronto. But from little old Terrace, B.C., we had somebody who led a national institution.

His wife, on the other hand, has spent her life in another very important sphere of public life, and that is teaching our children as an early childhood educator. Not only has she been a kindergarten teacher for many years, but she's also taught at Northwest Community College to teach future ECE workers.

I'd like the members of the House to join me in welcoming them.

J. Thornthwaite: I have two sets of introductions today. First of all, closer to my heart, my daughter Zoey, her friend Parmis and her friend Megan, who have already been introduced to the House in July when they visited. But we've got an added advantage of Alicia.

Thank you very much for coming and joining us on spring break.

My second introduction is two people from the film industry, from Vancouver Film Studios. Vancouver Film Studios won the B.C. Export Award for digital media and entertainment in 2013. They're currently home to the hit series Arrow and Bates Motel ,and they have spun off four companies since starting in 2000: Blackcomb Aviation, Pacific Backlot Services, Signal Systems and Gun Lake Pictures, all of which now employ 200 people. I would like to have a very, very warm welcome to Mr. Peter Mitchell and Mr. Jason McLean.

Welcome to the Legislature.

V. Huntington: I'd like to introduce three constituents of mine today who are visiting the House and my office — Michaella and Michael O'Connor and their daughter Hannah Miller. Would the House join me in making them very welcome.

Tributes

MARYANNE ARCAND

Hon. S. Bond: On Saturday in Prince George hundreds of people came together to remember and celebrate the life of MaryAnne Arcand. I'm sure there are members on both sides of this House who would be well acquainted with MaryAnne. She's described as someone who brought people together and was always ready to help. She was amazing. She never stopped. When she decided to go after a project, she dug in full force and never wavered until she got results. In fact, one of her favourite sayings — and I heard it often — was: "Let's just get 'er done."

Well, her celebration was indeed just that, as hundreds of people shared their reflections of their relationship with MaryAnne. She was taken far too quickly from us. She was diagnosed with cancer, and it was only a matter of weeks before she lost her battle — one of the ones where she wasn't actually able to bust that barrier.

[1340]

She was an incredible woman. She was 59 years old. I am very privileged to have called her my friend and was very grateful to have had an hour of quality time with her before she died.

One of the things that was most important to her was working on the Small Business Roundtable — many would know her from that — but I think, most importantly, talking about worker safety, particularly in the forest industry.

We will miss her, but no one will miss her more than her husband, George; her loving parents, Bill and Ditty DeWitt; her children, Harald Bartel, Willy Bartel, Tina Neufeld and Melanie Lockington; and the pride of her life, her ten grandchildren. I would ask the House extend

[ Page 2278 ]

the condolences of every member in this Legislature to MaryAnne's husband, George, and her siblings, her parents and, of course, her children and grandchildren.

One thing she had was faith about her future, and she reminded all of us that she was going ahead to get things ready. Her last comments to her family were: "I'll see you on the other side." We ask that condolences be extended to MaryAnne's family.

A. Dix: I want to join with my colleague in supporting sending our best wishes to George and their family. I was in Prince George last week when this happened, and it was on, of course, the front page. What I found remarkable in the time I was there was how many people asked me, "Had you met her?" and "What were your dealings with her?" and "What did you think?" because people in town were very, very proud of her. I know her family is. I know the member is. I know all of us are.

It's a huge loss for our province, and I join the minister in her very, very profound words.

Introductions by Members

H. Bains: In the House — they are already here, or they will be here soon, as they promised that they will be here — are Gavin McGarrigle, area director for Unifor, and Bob Orr, from Unifor — they will be here if they're not already in the vicinity — and Meeka Sanghera and Harmen Shergill from United Truckers Association. They are to bring home to this House the serious concerns their members face as truckers and their customers face. Please help me welcome them to this House.

D. Barnett: Today I have the privilege and the honour of introducing two very gracious ladies. I would call them young, but I might get in trouble. First of all, I'd like to introduce Grace McGregor, who is the director and chair of the regional district of the Kootenay-Boundary region. She is also chair of the Southern Interior Pine Beetle Coalition, and she is a member of the rural B.C. strategy we are working on. She gives her time and her energy continuously.

I'd also like to welcome another lady, Mayor Kerry Cook, from the city of Williams Lake, who is a great advocate of rural British Columbia, of mining, of forestry. Would the House please welcome them.

K. Conroy: I don't get to introduce family very often, so it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this group of family. My daughter Sasha here with her four children. Daira is 13, Ryen is eight, Aydenn is seven, and Kaelin is three months. I think Sasha just had to take him out of the chamber. You might have heard him.

They're also joined by a friend of the family, Rosa Cutler, who also has her six-month-old with her, and I realize she just had to take him out of the chamber too. But the three big ones are still here, so could you please join me in making them very welcome.

S. Sullivan: I'm pleased to introduce a resident of my riding, a graduate of Emily Carr, entrepreneur, graphics and identity consultant, who actually lives in the riding and even lives in my home sometimes, daughter of Lynn: Jenny Shipper.

[1345]

R. Fleming: I'd like to introduce Mr. Ben Hyman, who is the executive director of the B.C. Libraries Cooperative, which is an organization that works across the library sector and provides critical technology and infrastructure services for libraries and the people they serve at 243 public library service points across B.C. I look forward to meeting Mr. Hyman this afternoon, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome here today.

S. Gibson: I'm happy to stand in this House today and introduce a constituent, David Prentice, who is here for meetings in his role with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, also known as CLAC. With David today is Ryan Bruce, a friend to many in this House, who joins us in his capacity in membership development. I trust the House will make them feel very welcome today.

S. Simpson: As one of the members said, I don't often get to introduce family and that here, but I'm really pleased that my sister, Debbie, is here and her partner, Martin, and he who is often known to those of us in the family as Little Trouble, my nephew, Liam. Please make them welcome.

J. Martin: It's a great honour for me today to be able to introduce my father, John Martin Sr., and his wonderful wife, Audrey Martin. My father is a long, longtime resident of Richmond and an even more longtime supporter of the Glasgow Celtic. Please make him feel welcome.

M. Dalton: In the gallery today we have three special guests from Canadian Parents for French, B.C. and Yukon. We have Patti Holm, the president, from Kamloops; Greer Cummings, director and secretary treasurer from Parksville-Qualicum; and Glyn Lewis, the executive director, who lives in Vancouver.

There are 7,100 members of CPF in the province, and I'm one of them. They volunteer in the school about 26,000 hours every year. There are three delivery programs for French in British Columbia: French immersion, which has about 48,000 students; core French with 180,000 students; and intensive French with 640 students. French immersion has seen an increased enrolment for the past 16 consecutive years in a row.

I know when I was a classroom teacher, I found CPF to be a great help in promoting the language. Would the

[ Page 2279 ]

House please make them feel welcome and wish them bienvenue .

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to this House a good friend and constituent from Kamloops. Julie Ford is one of the many board members of the B.C. Pharmacy Association who are in Victoria today. She's got her hands full with two beautiful young daughters. She's actively involved in Kamloops. She comes from a great family in Williams Lake — a thriving irrigation business throughout the Cariboo and Kamloops. I want to ask the House to please make Julie Ford welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — PORT METRO VANCOUVER

CONTAINER TRUCKING SERVICES

CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act.

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

Motion approved.

The province's jurisdiction is limited but important. This act will impose a 90-day cooling-off period for the approximately 250 truckers who are members of the union Unifor. Every day that Port Metro Vancouver, Canada's largest port, is unable to move goods there is a significant impact on British Columbians and, in fact, Canadians.

[1350]

Much work has been done to date to address the issues impacting truckers, including developing a 14-point action plan to deal with their concerns. We are supportive of the federal government's decision to retain the services of mediator Vince Ready and have received assurances that Mr. Ready is available and can resume discussions immediately upon a return to work by the truckers involved in this dispute.

Our preference for resolving collective bargaining disputes is always through a negotiating process. The cooling-off legislation tabled today is the least interventionist of the options available. We believe that a 90-day cooling-off period is a reasonable approach that will require the parties to return to the bargaining table.

Introducing this legislation today is a necessary step in ensuring that future economic impacts are mitigated and comes after multiple attempts over the past weeks to end the dispute and to get Port Metro Vancouver back to full capacity. The disruption at Canada's largest and busiest port is impacting our economy, jobs and, importantly, our trading reputation.

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 25, Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act, 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 M205 — ELECTRONIC

PETITIONS ACT, 2014

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Electronic Petitions Act, 2014.

J. Shin: I move the introduction of the Electronic Petitions Act, 2014, for first reading.

Motion approved.

J. Shin: Petitioning has played a central

part in our parliamentary practice for centuries. Currently only paper petitions are accepted in the B.C. Legislative Assembly. This bill complements this longstanding democratic tradition by allowing and recognizing electronically submitted petitions. We're at a time where voter turnout across Canada has steadily decreased to its all-time low. At such a time it is imperative that our provincial government does its part to promote democratic participation by engaging British Columbians in the political process in every way possible.

Signatories will provide their name, phone number, mailing and e-mail addresses to validate their identities. E-petitions can improve the aspect of legitimacy more than their paper counterpart, with built-in authentication measures against invalid or incomplete entries. Thus, this may reduce clerical work and be cost saving. An e-petition system is already implemented in many other jurisdictions, such as the U.K., the U.S. and Quebec.

[ Page 2280 ]

Federally, Canada has also moved forward with all parties coming together to recently pass MP Kennedy Stewart's motion on e-petitions. We have the chance to demonstrate the same collaboration here to British Columbians, and I hope we will say yes to this bill together.

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

Bill M205, Electronic Petitions Act, 2014, 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)

PHARMACISTS

D. Bing: The province of British Columbia has proclaimed today as Pharmacy Day. Pharmacists play a pivotal role in British Columbia's health care system. I thought the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia laid things out perfectly on their website when they said: "Simply put, pharmacists are there for patients. It's that simple."

Pharmacists are often the public's most accessible health care professionals, and they are medication experts. They work as part of a team with your doctor and other health care professionals to make sure you get the best possible care. It is fitting that today, March 24, 2014, we recognize and support the pharmacists' integral role in health care delivery and to do what we can do to encourage others to enter this profession.

Pharmacy Day offers a unique opportunity for MLAs, government officials and legislative staff to interact with pharmacists and learn directly about the health services and primary care delivered in community pharmacies. Activities planned for this year's Pharmacy Day include immunizations, medication reviews, health screenings, consultations for asthma and diabetes.

Pharmacists have seen their roles in British Columbia grow. Since 2009 they have been able to renew routine medications for patients who run out, without always needing a doctor's appointment first.

[1355]

In the last fiscal year British Columbia community pharmacies dispensed 65.7 million prescriptions. This figure includes products which may not require a physician's prescription but would have been entered into the PharmaNet system by the pharmacist when covered by a patient's drug plan. Examples of this would be over-the-counter medication and insulin. During the same 12-month period 793,000 beneficiaries received coverage for their drugs through at least one PharmaCare plan.

Pharmacists also play a key role these days in providing immunizations to people aged five years and older. In so doing, they are helping to protect more British Columbians from diseases such as influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia, pertussis and human papillomavirus.

MARY STEINHAUSER

M. Farnworth: Mary Steinhauser — nurse, social worker and Canadian peace officer — was a crusader for the rights of prison inmates in the latter part of her professional career. She was particularly interested in aboriginal inmates in B.C.'s penal system, who were overrepresented in the system. In 1970 she graduated from Simon Fraser University with a double major in psychology and sociology. She went on to acquire a master's degree in social work from UBC.

Following her graduation from UBC, she began work as a classification officer for the B.C. penitentiary in New Westminster, where her role was to minister to the needs of the inmates on her caseload and, upon their release, to ease their transition from prison life to life on the outside.

On the ninth of June, 1975, there was a prison breakout attempt by three inmates in which 14 classification officers, including Mary, were held hostage for a period of 41 hours. Because Mary was respected and admired by the inmates and felt she could communicate effectively with them, she offered herself as the principal hostage. In the early hours of June 11, after several of the hostages attempted to subdue their captors, a prison guard riot squad stormed the vault area, firing many shots in the direction of the hostage takers and of Mary, who was being used as a human shield by one of the inmates.

Two of the bullets hit Mary, and she was killed instantly. Mary was the only one to lose her life that day. The story of this event and Mary's role was the subject of the play Walls , written and produced by Christian Bruyere, and of a subsequent movie in 1984 by the same name. In 1976 a coroner's inquest into Mary's death was undertaken by the B.C. chief coroner.

As a fallen peace officer, Mary's name is listed on the provincial monument for the fallen Canadian police and peace officers on the legislative grounds of Victoria, British Columbia, and on the federal monument for the fallen in Ottawa, Ontario. On this 40th anniversary, an evening of stories, song and dance will be held to highlight Mary's life on Saturday, March 29, at the Terry Fox Theatre in Port Coquitlam.

B.C. FILM INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: Another great tweet last week came from North Van district. "Crews are filming in Deep Cove today. They'll be in Panorama Park at the wharf and at Deep Cove Park." According to Friday's North Shore News , they were on the set of The Intruders . Just another day on the North Shore, and what a year it has become.

[ Page 2281 ]

B.C. is now the fourth-largest film production centre on the continent and home to professional crews, state-of-the-art infrastructure, beautiful scenery and great weather. It doesn't hurt that we are close enough to L.A. to provide a comfortable commute in the same time zone.

Fifteen projects are currently in production, and more are coming, thanks in part to the extension of the distant-location tax credit announced in Budget 2014, which is expected to double the film business in months. That means more jobs and investments in B.C.

Last week was the official opening of the Lucasfilm Industrial Light and Magic new Vancouver studio, where it was announced Star Wars is coming to town. ILM's visual effects contribute to award-winning films like The Lone Ranger and Pacific Rim . So 133 employees currently work in the state-of-the-art facility, which is expected to grow to 200 at the end of the summer.

Also, last week fellow MLAs and I took in a tour of Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Digital Film Central and Post Modern Sound to learn more about B.C.'s important post-production facilities. Did you know all of those footsteps, sniffles, barks and horseshoe-trotting are added to the final product after filming by a highly skilled Foley artist in their sound labs? And 240 highly skilled workers helped make robots look better than Matt Damon in Elysium as well.

[1400]

The film and television and digital media industry contributes to the B.C. jobs plan by directly employing more than 25,000 British Columbians and more than double that indirectly in construction, small business, hotel stays, municipalities and school districts, to name a few.

I would like to congratulate B.C.'s film and television industry for putting B.C. on the map and look forward to their continued growth in the future.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE NETWORKS

FOR PREVENTION OF ELDER ABUSE

K. Conroy: Imagine verbally abusing your granny or stealing from your granddad or, even worse, physically or sexually abusing your mom or dad, aunt or uncle. Actions that most people find intolerable are, sadly, a fact of life for some seniors in this province.

One in 12 active seniors in B.C. experiences some form of financial abuse. Five percent of older British Columbians living in private homes experience one or more forms of abuse at the hands of family members. It is estimated that 70 percent of women with disabilities have experienced some form of abuse.

Sadly, approximately 70 percent of abuse is not reported to police. Seniors who are abused can feel ashamed it has happened, afraid to tell someone, especially if it is a family member or caregiver they trusted.

Thankfully there are organizations in B.C. that are working to eradicate this rising phenomenon. The B.C. Association of Community Response Networks provides support to individual community response networks, or CRNs, across the province. The CRNs come together to create a coordinated community response to adult abuse, neglect and self-neglect.

Today there are 107 CRNs across B.C. In Nelson and Cranbrook they are engaged in their community by sitting on advisory committees. In Vancouver they are raising awareness of abuse and neglect by engaging with many service providers. In Sechelt and Chilliwack CRNs have facilitated workshops about financial abuse, with their local financial institutions. All work to promote World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, every year, on June 15.

Sherry Baker is the executive director of the B.C. association, and she provides incredible support to the many coordinators throughout the province. She brings a strong voice to the issue of elder abuse. Her tireless commitment to ensuring community awareness, in combination with her own energy in pursuing seniors issues, is one of the reason CRNs are able to work together so successfully on behalf of seniors.

Much of the work being done is directed at helping communities become safe for vulnerable adults and ensuring that they are ultimately free from abuse and neglect. We, too, can add our voices in eradicating elder abuse in our province.

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

J. Yap: Every year the city of Richmond honours the memory of one of the most incredible women, Mrs. Ethel Tibbits, and the outstanding contributions of incredible, dynamic women in our community through the Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards.

Ethel Tibbits was for nearly 30 years the owner and editor of the Richmond Review . Her articles and commentary, while often controversial, were always well-thought-out and well argued, and more often than not proved accurate. Most notable of these was a series of articles she wrote in 1942 criticizing proposals to intern B.C.'s Japanese-Canadian residents.

This unwavering leadership that Ethel Tibbits displayed made honouring her legacy each year with the Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards a unique Richmond success.

I am pleased to share with this House the 2014 winners of the Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards, which were recently handed out in Richmond with you, Madame Speaker, in attendance. Corisande Percival-Smith is the winner of the Community Volunteer Award. Emma Partridge was given the Youth Award. Anne Gillrie-Carre received the Sports Award. Carol Young won the Professional Award. Shelley Smith received the Business Award. Elena Steele was honoured with the Arts Award.

And a special mention. Mary Gazetas, a tremendous

[ Page 2282 ]

woman in our community, who, unfortunately, passed away in 2012, was posthumously awarded the 2014 Pioneer Award, an award created in 2009 to recognize lifetime achievement.

Lastly, this year's recipient of the Ethel Tibbits Scholarship is Sandra Bodenhamer, a Richmond mother, volunteer and active community volunteer.

I ask all members of the House to please join me in congratulating all of these distinguished women. I know I'm not alone when I say to them all: "Thank you for your dedication and hard work for our community and province."

PHARMACISTS

M. Elmore: The group of professionals that I speak about today is second only to firefighters as the one most Canadians trust, according to a 2013 Reader's Digest trust poll.

Recently I met three of them at my community office. Jag Deol, Juliana Li and Brooke Stenerson are very dynamic, entrepreneurial, highly educated and qualified young pharmacists. Along with being trustworthy, I found them to also be dedicated and committed to their patients' care.

[1405]

March is Pharmacy Awareness Month, and today is Pharmacy Day here at the Legislature. As such, this is an opportune time to thank them and the many other pharmacists who play a key role in helping to improve patient outcomes, increasing access to primary care and decreasing overall health care costs. Pharmacists are often the front line of our health care system. They're usually the first ones that we in the general public come into contact with when we have health concerns.

Five ways they help us. They provide vaccinations, as 85 percent of community pharmacies have at least one authorized pharmacist to administer injections. They help us to understand how to use our medications safely and effectively. They also help to prepare us for upcoming vacations. They renew or adapt prescriptions. And they can take medications that we no longer use for safe disposal.

The B.C. Pharmacy Association represents more than 4,200 community pharmacists in over 1,100 pharmacies in 133 communities. In almost every community across B.C. there's a community pharmacist available to help British Columbians.

I believe that the many skills that pharmacists possess can also be utilized more efficiently to improve primary care and help bring down health care costs, particularly in supporting our preventative approach to manage chronic health conditions such as type 2 diabetes, in terms of helping patients with their monitoring program, and pharmacist-led smoking cessation and asthma management programs.

I'd like to thank again these pharmacists for the great job they do every day. I hope that as we recognize their commitment to health care, we also acknowledge that there are many areas for improvement so that we can maximize their contribution to British Columbia.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO TRUCK

OPERATORS LABOUR DISPUTE AND

CONCERNS OF INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

A. Dix: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Since the fall, representatives of independent owner-operators, who comprise the majority of truck drivers in B.C., have approached Port Metro Vancouver about serious, legitimate issues, such as undercutting of rates and delays at the port.

The port's response in recent weeks has been to threaten owner-operators with the revocation of their licences — perhaps, in terms of what the Minister of Labour just introduced, part of a joint Port Metro Vancouver, federal and provincial strategy.

Does the Minister of Transportation agree with me that such threats are totally inappropriate? Will he support small businesses in B.C. against an unaccountable federal agency and tell them to back down on these threats to owner-operators?

Hon. T. Stone: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Today is day 26 of a disruption at Canada's largest and most important port, Canada's Asia-Pacific gateway.

Here's what's at stake. There are 100,000 direct or indirect jobs, 60,000 of which are here in British Columbia, and $126 million in cargo that moves through this port every single day, on a normal operating day. There is the potential for increased job losses, impacts in every corner of our province, whether they be mills, mines or manufacturing companies. Indeed, B.C.'s reputation across the world is at stake with our trading partners.

Clearly, a continuation of this dispute cannot continue. That is why last week the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and the B.C. government announced strong and coordinated action to get the port back up and running so that normal operations can resume. The B.C. government will take tough action within our jurisdiction. That action will take the form of the cooling-off legislation that was introduced earlier today.

We also want to thank the federal government and Port Metro Vancouver for the decisive action that they are taking. It is this coordinated effort on the part of the federal government, the B.C. government and Port Metro Vancouver which is absolutely necessary to protect jobs, to protect B.C. families, to protect B.C. businesses and, indeed, to protect our reputation across the world.

[ Page 2283 ]

[1410]

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: An arrogant, unaccountable federal agency threatens small business people in British Columbia, 1,100 of them, with a revocation of their licences for bringing forward legitimate issues that were known about not just months ago but years ago and that this government and the federal government did nothing about.

I want to be quite specific to the Minister of Transportation. Does he support this federal government agency threatening small business people in B.C. with the revocation of their licences?

Hon. T. Stone: Beyond every single other consideration, our obligation is to act in the best interests of British Columbia's economy and the jobs here in British Columbia. Again, we're talking about thousands of jobs directly and indirectly related to the port, but we're also talking about the potential for many other job impacts across the province as well as our reputation with international trading partners. This is why we cannot allow this dispute to continue for one more day.

Again, while we understand the concerns of the truckers — we understand their concerns related to rates, to licensing, congestion and wait times — we urge the truckers to come back to work, and we urge them to come back as quickly as possible. Vince Ready, a federally appointed mediator, is available and waiting on a moment's notice to sit back down at the table with the truckers, and with all the other parties, to bring an end to this dispute.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

A. Dix: A federal agency and the provincial government have known for four years that the situation at the port was untenable. Here we have an unaccountable federal agency threatening small business people in B.C. I heard the minister correctly. I'm not taking him out of context. His response was to thank Port Metro Vancouver for threatening B.C.'s small business people.

Let's hear it from the minister. It's pretty clear. Does he agree with threats made by Port Metro Vancouver against 1,100 small business people in B.C. to revoke their licence if they don't get their own way?

Hon. T. Stone: This government supports working with the federal government, the Port of Metro Vancouver and indeed the truckers, along with the support of mediator Vince Ready, to get to the bottom of the issues that are of concern to the truckers. But before that can happen, the truckers need to go back to work. We've been very clear in saying that.

Now, 58,000 British Columbians are directly employed in forestry across British Columbia. I'm sure that the hon. member opposite also is aware that 43 percent of those forestry export volumes go to China, and that number is continuing to increase year over year. Continued success at building markets overseas for our forestry products depends on a stable, reliable port. There are thousands of men and women forest workers in this province, amongst many other sectors who depend…. Their jobs depend on this port being opened.

Again, we urge the truckers to come back to the table with Vince Ready, the mediator, and to work with us and to work with the federal government and the Port of Metro Vancouver, to solve these issues.

H. Bains: The minister talks about 26 days of disruption, of millions of daily losses. He talks about our reputation across the globe. He talks about thousands of job losses. Whose fault is it? It's because of this government, because they were sleeping at the switch for the last months and years.

[1415]

Issues have been brought to the port's and to this minister's and previous ministers' attention for months, and they did nothing. As a result, we have turmoil on our hands now.

In addition to the list that the minister has read here are small businesses. They are being charged higher and higher storage fees right now. According to some reports, the fees have gone from $240 per day to $455 a day, and the port is not required to refund any of that. That's why there are no negotiations. If they were required to make it up to those businesses as a whole, negotiations would be going on now.

My question to the minister is this: will the minister call on the port now to refund to the small businesses these fees right now?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, it certainly is fascinating to hear the member opposite wax eloquent about how important the port is when every single opportunity that the opposition members have had over the years to support the Port of Metro Vancouver, they have not supported it. Where was the hon. member and the opposition with the Ports Property Tax Act, which has resulted in $1 billion of additional activity at our ports?

Let's talk about small business. Some 98 percent of the businesses here in British Columbia are small businesses. The member opposite should know that small businesses across this province depend on a stable, reliable port to import their goods and export their goods. We encourage the truckers to come back to the table, to sit down with mediator Vince Ready and all other parties so that we can work together to, once and for all, resolve these issues.

[ Page 2284 ]

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: This government received reports in July last year that made it very clear that they need to address the concerns of independent owner-operators. This government, this minister, ignored that report and then, this fall, wouldn't put pressure on the port to work with independent owner-operators when they raised problems around undercutting on rates and port delays.

If the Premier and this government had taken the concern of independent owner-operators seriously last year, the small businesses would not be left paying these escalating fees, and thousands of people would not be out of work right now.

These operators are here today — in the gallery, I think. They want to know the answer to this: why the Premier of this government didn't take the action last year that could have avoided this turmoil. Why isn't this government using negotiations, rather than the heavy-handed back-to-work legislation, then?

Hon. T. Stone: This is exactly why we have been consistently saying over the last couple of weeks: the truckers need to come back to the table. They need to go to work. They need to come back to the table and sit down with mediator Vince Ready. I'm sure the hon. member knows full well that mediator Vince Ready has got a tremendously well-respected reputation by truckers as well as all the other parties.

He is waiting. He is available. He is available today to sit down with the truckers, to sit down with all the other parties, to discuss these issues and to seek a long-term resolution. But for that to happen, the truckers need to go back to work.

[1420]

PORTLAND HOTEL SOCIETY

AUDITS AND OVERSIGHT

S. Simpson: My question is to the Minister for Housing. I know the minister would agree with me that the Portland Hotel Society has done some very effective and innovative work supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens. I believe we would also agree that the expense revelations of the audits released last week are not acceptable by any management or accountability measures or standards.

It's vitally important that the front-line services offered by the Portland are protected so that some of our province's most vulnerable are not left behind. Government oversight will be an important aspect of that success. The audit did identify shortcomings around the oversight process.

Can the minister outline what steps he's taking to improve general government oversight, and also at the Portland Hotel Society, so that staff, the people they serve and the broader public can have confidence that those services are being well managed and protected?

Hon. R. Coleman: Indeed, the last number of months, as we tried to work through the issues with the Portland Hotel Society, have been troubling. Our primary concern all the way through this process is, first of all, the 1,000 or so tenants that the Portland Hotel Society were responsible for and the services that were provided to them. The action that we took…. At the end of the day, it had to be dealt with in a way that was respectful of those people and the services and the employees of Portland Hotel Society.

I can tell the member today that there is now a professional board in place at Portland Hotel Society, including a person that was actually in charge of the Vancouver Foundation, a former head of Vancouver Coastal Health, a CEO, as well as a number of other very professional people on that board who have now stepped into place. The management of the society has been taken over by a senior manager from B.C. Housing and another senior management person from the Health Ministry.

In addition to that, as well, a very competent accounting firm is in there working through the issues and making sure that the services are provided and that we moved in such a way that we would protect the people that this society served.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that the new board is eminently qualified and that there are some very respected individuals. I appreciate that the minister and the new board have begun to take some steps here.

What we know about the audit is that it covered a three-year period, but there remain a number of unanswered questions in the public's mind about the oversight at the Portland and about how long these issues that have been identified may have gone on. Can the minister confirm what previous audits or reviews have taken place, and will the government release that information?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, and I know he's asked his questions before in estimates, basically every society in British Columbia that does non-profit work in housing submits an audited financial statement to B.C. Housing on an annual basis. That is actually reviewed by the management team at B.C. Housing per society, and any irregularities or concerns are usually dealt with, with the society, trying to improve their management and outcomes.

There was an audit done on the Portland Hotel Society in 2002. That audit dealt with an issue in and around how the books were being kept. It was done partly because

[ Page 2285 ]

of the passing of their accountant, who had died during the period of time that we had these issues. We went in. We put an organization there to help the society improve their management techniques, and for the next eight to nine years there were no anomalies found with the society on an annual basis.

In about 2011-2012 a small deficit appeared, and as a result of that small deficit, we started to work with the society with regards to its outgoing fiscal management. It led to a couple of financial reviews, then an audit, and then a significant audit, more of a forensic quality. If the member doesn't understand the depth of that, I know — because my father was actually a forensic auditor — how long it takes and in how much detail it has to be done and how it has to be followed up item by item by item as you're trying to work through a group in these issues.

As we've done with every other society, including the unfortunate shutdown of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, we took the time to try and work with the organization with a cooperative arrangement to try and solve these issues for them. That wasn't possible.

As we got more detailed in the troubling nature with regards to some trips and some other things that came out, the decision was made that the society would have to change its management and change its board. Otherwise, they would have been put into a receivership, because government could not tolerate that type of behaviour.

[1425]

PENALTY FOR OVERCUT OF NON-BEETLE

TREES IN MORICE TIMBER SUPPLY AREA

N. Macdonald: In the middle of a growing timber supply crisis, this government allowed two large companies to massively overcut healthy trees and non-pine species for five years. Canfor and West Fraser were supposed to be focusing on cutting beetle-killed pine in the region but instead overcut healthy greenwood by nearly a million cubic metres.

Can the Minister of Forests tell us what penalties were levied against West Fraser and Canfor for overcutting in the Morice TSA between 2008 and 2013?

Hon. S. Thomson: We are working with both of those companies in terms of management of the harvesting in that timber supply area. They have filed management plans with us. Those are being monitored on an ongoing basis, and we continue to work with them to ensure that the continued focus of harvesting activity focuses on the dead pine, on the pine-leading stands that are part of the uplift process through the response to the mountain pine beetle.

We continue to work with both of those companies to make sure that the harvest activities are consistent with the objectives of the uplift and the focus on response to the mountain pine beetle impact.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The non-pine species were supposed to be saved so that there would be a long-term and mid-term timber supply for jobs in the future. The legislation provides for a fine of up to $1 million, plus the cost of stumpage. Instead, a week before the start of the election campaign the minister personally intervened and cancelled the fine.

The penalty that the minister has talked about is an extremely weak, I guess, promise from the company that they are going to do things differently in the future. The question to the minister is this: how can the minister justify allowing two major forest companies to overcut by a million cubic metres, in the middle of a timber supply crisis, with no penalty whatsoever?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated, we have met with both companies. We have required the companies to file a management plan, a harvest plan, that is consistent with the objectives of the response to the mountain pine beetle impact. We are monitoring that regularly. They're required to report against that management plan.

We're working with both those companies to ensure that the focus remains on the pine beetle stands, the impact as a result of that activity. We're making sure and will require them to live…. Harvest activity in response to that management plan is to be filed with the ministry.

B. Routley: A week before the official start of the election two large companies were given a free pass for vastly overcutting in the middle of a timber supply crisis. This has already cost jobs in the region and will only cost more jobs in the long term. The response by the Liberal government is to say: "Please, please, don't do it again."

Can the minister explain why he allowed two companies to get away with overcutting nearly a million cubic metres without paying any kind of penalty at all?

Hon. S. Thomson: The response that this government has undertaken in response to the mountain pine beetle impact is to provide for the uplift and harvest activity to focus on the dead pine stands. That is while there is merchantable value, while there is value in that product.

[1430]

That has been the focus, and that is the work that we continue to do with the companies in responding to this significant impact. That is what has allowed the industry to make sure that we focus on those apportionments in those stands.

We are working with both companies to ensure that over the cut-control period they comply with the apportionment direction. They have filed management plans with us. We monitor those management plans on a regular basis, and we'll ensure that the companies manage

[ Page 2286 ]

their harvest in response to meet the objectives of ensuring that we access those dead stands and the pine stands while they have merchantable value.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: Well if anything sounds like jiggery-pokery, there it is — more jiggery-pokery. This government knows that with a timber supply crisis they should be looking at the long-term timber supply needs of this province for future generations of British Columbians. Instead we have, a week before an election, the minister personally intervening and cancelling a fine.

How does the minister justify allowing two major forest companies to overcut a million cubic metres in the middle of a timber supply crisis with no penalty whatsoever?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've said, companies have filed management plans. They're responding to the harvest in response to those management plans, and they're being monitored.

The most immediate threat to the future of the forest industry and to jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia right now is the situation at the port of Vancouver. We have heard from mills and companies across the province of imminent curtailment of activity.

I'll be very interested, and we'll be very interested on this side of the House, to listen to the response. If the members opposite have that concern for the forest industry, we'll be very interested to hear their response to the actions, because those are the actions that are going to continue to protect jobs and investment in forest companies and mills across this province.

PREPAREDNESS FOR OIL SPILL

RESPONSE AND WILDLIFE RECOVERY

S. Chandra Herbert: Twenty-five years ago the world was stunned by images of sea otters, birds and other wildlife covered in oil dying on the shores of Alaska because of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. At the time governments promised to do better.

Yet according to a report produced as part of the Enbridge review by the BCSPCA, the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Mammal Rescue Centre and other wildlife rehabilitators, "British Columbia lacks all the major resources to conduct a swift and efficient wildlife response, including localized facilities, equipment and trained personnel" in the case of an oil spill. They say that without a plan and dedicated resources, even more wildlife is at risk of being killed by an oil spill on B.C.'s coast.

My question to the Minister of Environment: how can the B.C. Liberals even contemplate supporting increased oil tanker traffic when we don't even have the resources needed to respond to an oil spill today?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, it was this government that stood up and put in place five conditions that have to be met. It was this government that proceeded to hire Nuka Research to do one of the most comprehensive studies of spill response capability on the west coast of Canada that has ever been done. And it was this government that also conducted work on the terrestrial land-based spills and has now been put in a position to work with not only industry but environmental organizations so that we have the best possible information to work with.

[1435]

It's a result of those actions that the province of Alberta signed on to our five conditions and that the federal government is now working with us to develop the kind of spill response capabilities that we need on this coast, regardless of whether or not there's an increase in oil shipments.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, mountains and mountains of paperwork may make the minister feel good. They won't help the bird covered in oil in the harbour today, should there be an oil spill.

There is no designated lead agency to deal with wildlife response in B.C. The minister knows it. There's been no lead designated agency since 2007, and oil transportation continues along the coast of British Columbia.

My question to the minister: if they're dedicated, as they say they are, to making sure that oil spills are dealt with and making sure that we actually have a plan, why has her government refused to have a plan to deal with wildlife covered in oil along our coasts since 2007?

Hon. M. Polak: I am actually astonished to be listening to questions from the opposition that are taking this kind of a frame. It was our government which stood up and said: "Not in British Columbia unless you meet our five conditions." If the opposition wants to continue to put forward the view that rather than evaluate the evidence, rather than evaluate the information but instead they should simply make a snap judgment based on their gut instincts, then nothing much has changed on that side of the House.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report on Working Capital Management Since 2010 .

[ Page 2287 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A it's Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In this chamber it's second reading on Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, now be read a second time.

Bill 17 amends a number of statutes. This bill would amend statutes concerning the Certified General Accountants Association of British Columbia, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia and the Certified Management Accountants Society of British Columbia.

[1440]

In May 2013, as part of a national initiative underway in all Canadian provinces and territories the three associations agreed to unify into a new organization known as the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia.

As a first step toward the merger, the Accountants (Certified General) Act, Accountants (Chartered) Act and Accountants (Management) Act will be amended to allow members of the three associations to use the new chartered professional accountant designation.

The amendments will also allow the associations to make bylaws regulating how their members use the accounting designations that are provided for under the three statutes.

Amendments to the Adoption Act provide a technical correction to the legislation and will clarify the legislative authority of a director under the Child, Family and Community Service Act to request the placement for adoption of children in care and support eligible families through adoption assistance payments.

In addition, the amendments retroactively validate previous adoptions and provide protection from prosecution or lawsuit for having placed or received a child for adoption without proper legal authority. This retroactive provision provides important certainty for adopted children and their families that their adoptions are valid.

The proposed amendments to the B.C. OnLine Act will support government's decision to repatriate B.C. OnLine operations following the expiration of an outsourcing agreement set for April 30, 2014. The amendments will enable government, in its role as operator of B.C. OnLine, to collect and retain the operator fees associated with delivering the service. The changes are an important first step as government looks forward to restabilizing and enhancing B.C. OnLine services in the future for the benefit of its partners and clients.

The proposed validation legislation for the Employment Standards Act confirms the appointment of Brent Mullin as chair of the Employment Standards Tribunal for the period February 13, 2009, to October 5, 2011. This legal-housekeeping legislation will correct an oversight that resulted in Mr. Mullin's appointment to the tribunal technically lapsing during the period of February 13, 2009, to October 5, 2011, although Mr. Mullin continued to act as the chair.

The proposed legislation would apply retroactively and would confirm the validity of all decisions rendered by the Employment Standards Tribunal between February 13, 2009, and October 5, 2011. There are no financial or other direct impacts for government.

The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Belt Tax Act will be repealed. No tax has been assessed under this act for over 40 years, and repealing the act will clarify that there is no intention to assess or collect this tax in the future.

The proposed legislative amendments to the Local Government Act, Community Charter and Vancouver Charter will support economic development in B.C. by changing local government legislation to cut red tape that can delay building projects and add costs for developers and landowners.

The amendments will also help streamline and modernize government regulations. Specifically, these amendments will remove unnecessary ministerial approvals for some local government land use planning and development bylaws, including those that apply to regional district official community plans, zoning and subdivision.

They will terminate all outdated land use contracts within ten years, allowing them to be replaced by modern local government land use policies and practices that provide the same level of regulations, and they will protect developers from increases in development cost charges for 12 months after fee increases are made where a development application is in process.

The amendment to the Mines Act gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to prescribe fees and charges through regulation for services provided and duties performed under the Mines Act. The amendment also ensures that fees are paid prior to the issuance of a permit or a permit revision. The primary purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the introduction of fees for Mines Act permits to maintain timely and efficient service.

Amendments to various statutes allow nurse practitioners to work more fully within their existing scope of practice.

They will also modernize the Vital Statistics Act and change the approach to providing identity-related ser-

[ Page 2288 ]

vices for those who wish to change their record of gender on a birth certificate.

The bill also amends the Real Estate Development Marketing Act to help facilitate real estate development and increased stability and predictability in the industry by bringing clarity and certainty to the scope of purchasers' remedies and the enforceability of purchased contracts.

The amendments would also enable the use of consolidated disclosure statements and phased disclosure statements, helping to enhance consumer protection by providing clearer, simpler disclosure for purchasers.

[1445]

The proposed amendments to

section 9.4 of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act will facilitate the implementation of the B.C. training and education savings program. This program enables B.C. children born on or after January 1, 2007, to receive a one-time payment of $1,200 into a registered education savings plan.

The amendments also authorize the creation of a separate fund or funds to provide for the training and education of former children in care and other vulnerable children who have had significant involvement with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The amendments to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act rationalize how taxation notices are issued for properties in the rural area of the province that have a large number of owners. The amendments will permit a representative owner to be designated to receive the taxation notice for the property. Sending the taxation notice to the representative owner instead of every owner will avoid taxpayer confusion and duplicate payments.

This bill also includes an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act that fulfils government's election commitment to restore heart disease in firefighters to the list of presumptive diseases recognized by WorkSafe B.C.

Under the proposed amendment, if an eligible firefighter suffers from a heart disease or a heart injury, including a heart attack, it will be presumed to be due to their work as a firefighter unless the contrary is proved. This legislation will thus support B.C. firefighters in receiving workers compensation should they suffer from heart disease or heart injury as a result of their work.

Finally, the bill also makes validating provisions and a number of consequential amendments.

L. Krog: We're addressing here in the chamber today what I call the poor cousin of the legislative process. This is a matter that doesn't even merit its own particular piece of legislation. It's not even up there with Bill 14, which is the Justice Statutes Amendment Act that deals with statutes relating to the Ministry of Justice.

This is the potpourri. This is the little tidbits of every piece of legislative change the government might need to consider. It gets tossed into the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This is the first of this session — not that I'm necessarily anticipating any more. But I'm sure we might come across a few.

I am — and I say this only with a little bit of sarcasm — modestly disappointed that the minister didn't offer a briefing on this particular bill. I was offered a briefing on Bill 14.

Of course, we in the opposition take the view that briefings are offered to the opposition on essentially three bases: firstly, just out of courtesy, and the government is often courteous; secondly, because it's a really technical matter and they are going to try and educate the opposition and the opposition critic in such a way that not too much of the House's very valuable time will be wasted; or thirdly, we always think they're trying to put one over on you.

Now, I don't think the third one applies here. I would have been happy to have one on the basis of the second — and certainly, on the basis of the first — of my suggested three reasons for offering a briefing. But who knows? There may be time for a briefing, depending on when this is called on the legislative calendar, and for a more intensive discussion. Certainly, for the people watching at home, and I'm sure there are a few, a miscellaneous statutes amendment act includes a number of provisions that relate to a number of statutes.

Indeed, the minister…. I'm not sure whether she said it in her remarks, but my understanding is…. I believe this amends over 34 pieces of legislation in its 48 pages. That is a remarkable range of change.

In fairness, I think inferentially there's an admission here by the government that it hasn't really moved that quickly on behalf of the chartered professional accountants. The reality is that there was a hope and a belief that in fact there would be a fresh statute — that indeed there would be something new to deal with the amalgamation of the profession.

I think a lot in the general public who haven't been paying close attention haven't realized that they're not talking about CGAs anymore and CAs. Suddenly they're all in the same boat — somewhat, I suppose, like the amalgamation of the nurses, both the licensed practical nurses and the registered nurses. There are consequences to that.

[1450]

One can understand that you need appropriate legislation to deal with that, to protect the public interest — which is always, I think, and should be, paramount in the government's mind when it comes to dealing with professional bodies, particularly those that have the ability to license their own members, whether that be the lawyers in the province under the Law Society of British Columbia or the doctors with the College of Physicians and Surgeons — all the situations where they have the ability to ensure that the public interest is in fact protected.

[ Page 2289 ]

What we really have here, I would suggest politely, notwithstanding the minister's comments, is a bit of a stopgap measure. This is just something to fill in that gap while they figure out what they're really going to have to do. It's kind of like papering over the crack in the plaster or slapping a bit of tarp on the roof when it's leaking before you actually address the real problem.

This government, which is notorious for it, is great at campaigning — and Lord knows I've mentioned often enough how well they did on May 14 last year, so it's a very sincere compliment — but when it comes to actually delivering on legislation, I would suggest politely that in fact what we have here today is an admission that things haven't gone entirely well when it comes to getting prepared for things.

We know that this government has prided itself on the number of contracts it gets out there. So much of government is now delivered by the "private sector." It's supposed to be more efficient, it's in the public interest, it's cheaper, and you avoid having public servants who develop experience and knowledge over years in collective memory and who you might have to pay a pension to if they survive long enough in the public service. No, they have bragged constantly about privatization and how it's the way to go, it's the best thing for British Columbia, and it saves money, etc.

Now, we know the reality is that the province is committed to billions and billions of dollars of long-term contracts for the delivery of government services. What we have again here, I would politely suggest, is admission number two. They haven't been able to get up to speed dealing with the accountants and their issues, and here's admission number two — that B.C. OnLine will enable the government to collect and retain operator fees, etc. They're a first step, they say, as the government tries to enhance B.C. OnLine services.

In fact, I would suggest politely that really what we have here is an admission that this was another aspect of privatization — because, goodness knows, that's supposed to be in the public interest, as I say — that didn't quite work. Again the government, inferentially, is saying: "We tried it, and it didn't work out."

I suppose one of the questions that might be asked during the course of committee stage debate is: what exactly did that little experiment cost the people of British Columbia? How much of the public's resources was wasted in that experiment, which has, obviously, not worked out?

For a government of such a strong ideological bent to bring something back under their control, it tells me that it must have been quite a bit of a boo-boo, to use a term that might be appropriate for my five-year-old grandson. Dear Archer might talk about his boo-boos, but he only requires a band-aid to fix them,

whereas in British Columbia when you're talking about legislation, it might require millions of dollars and the transfer of public resources from various entities to other entities.

Hon. Speaker, with great respect I think there's nothing sneaky in this, as I said, but there is an admission that not all is well over on the other side of the Legislature when it comes to some of the changes that are proposed.

Now, I must say, as a person who was born in Nanaimo, that whenever you hear the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Belt Tax Act mentioned, that piques everyone's interest in Nanaimo. On Vancouver Island, talking about the E&N Railway is much like talking about your sainted mother. You just gotta love the E&N Railway. I couldn't think of a better thing than to guarantee, however, that we apparently won't have to pay any more tax to support the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway.

[1455]

In that context, of course…. I know that the members opposite are quite excited by the prospects of

section 54 of this bill. I do hope that that doesn't mean the government won't be looking forward, notwithstanding the obvious desire of the people of Vancouver Island to support the New Democratic Party and not the B.C. Liberal Party — notwithstanding that incredible desire — and that they will, of course, be generous and kind and thoughtful when it comes to resourcing this incredibly important public asset here on Vancouver Island.

I know that the Attorney General herself grew up in the community of Duncan. I don't know if she was close enough to the tracks to hear the wonderful train whistle blow, but it was part of the childhood of growing up on Vancouver Island. As most of you know, the grant for the railway extended 20 miles on either side of the track.

Indeed, in Nanaimo there was a most interesting lecture the other night presented by the Nanaimo Historical Society, a dedicated group of volunteers working hard to preserve the history of Vancouver Island, talking about the area back in the hills where the great inventor of the modern train whistle, after the steam engines disappeared, used to test the train whistles, a most interesting bit of British Columbia history. Indeed, that individual was responsible for creating the whistles that you hear on major vessels around the world, let alone the trains in North America.

As I say, as a native Nanaimoite, when you hear the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Belt Tax Act mentioned, you do get a little bit excited. But if I'm excited by that, I can tell you that there are a couple of constituents, at least, and particularly the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, who are somewhat upset by what the minister, with great respect, I think glossed over to some extent: a lot of proposed changes around real estate. In particular,

section 62 of the bill, I believe, will have the effect of repealing

section 23.

In fact, the apparent effect of this

section is to allow a purchase agreement to be enforced against a purchaser where a developer has in a disclosure statement included a misrepresentation of a material fact and the developer

[ Page 2290 ]

was not aware of the misrepresentation at the time. This would prevent, it appears, a purchaser from terminating or renegotiating the agreement upon discovery of the misrepresentation.

That, I'm advised, is, in fact, the practical legal effect of that section. That may be good for the development industry, but from the public's perspective — the people who will actually be purchasing condominiums or purchasing property — I don't think that will be seen as good news.

What it really allows is a developer to recklessly include unsubstantiated information in a disclosure statement, and they can later make the claim that they didn't know about the inaccuracies and still expect to, apparently, according to this legislation, enforce the purchase agreement. To use the words of a board member of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, it would appear to enable "an open season on purchasers by irresponsible developers."

That's why one of the wonderful aspects of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts is that the real meat is generally found during committee stage of the bill, and I'm alerting the minister to that one in particular, and I trust she's going to pay close attention to it. That's the belief of thousands of Vancouver Island strata owners. If that's accurate and they've raised this point appropriately, I'm sure the government will wish to reconsider its position with respect to

section 62.

The real estate industry on Vancouver Island is very important, employs a lot of people and works very hard, through the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board and the Victoria Real Estate Board, to ensure a high level of professionalism. I wouldn't like to think that the government, through this legislation, is in fact proposing something that would have the effect, potentially, of detracting from the hard work of the association to professionalize the work they do and to ensure that the public interest is protected.

[1500]

I think that is an important aspect of this bill that the government has to look at very carefully. I'm trusting that the minister is going to listen to my words and review that before this matter gets to committee stage of the bill.

I would suggest that the rest of it is probably not too concerning to the public. I note a number of sections related to adoption that may or may not be, but I suspect they are appropriately in the public interest. The amendments, as I understand it, will provide legal authority to enable the family and child services acting director to request the director of adoption to place a child in care for adoption. It will retroactively validate some pre-existing adoption orders back to 1996.

I could be cheeky, but then again, if it goes back to 1996, it probably has something to do with the previous government as well. So we probably won't drift into that territory too much today. Clearly, it's been an ongoing issue, and I'm surprised it's taken the government this long to in fact deal with those issues.

Overall, it's always a pleasure when one of the misc bills comes up. But there are some issues buried within this that will have to be addressed. I look forward to committee stage. If the minister has some opportunity to potentially provide a briefing, that would always be appreciated.

V. Huntington: I don't have a great deal to say at this stage of the bill, and I do look forward to committee stage, especially those areas under the Local Government Act. I'm going to be very interested in some of the explanations for the policy decisions made here in the amendments to certain sections.

However, I am extremely concerned — as was my colleague — about the amendments to the Real Estate Development Marketing Act. I think that what we see here is a failure to protect the public interest — absolute failure to protect the public interest — and a movement towards specific protection of the developers' interest. I would like to say that by protecting a material change to an agreement by making purchasing enforcement…. When the developer's disclosure statement includes a misrepresentation of material fact….

How the government could move to protect that misrepresentation by allowing the developer to say he was unaware of it at the time the agreement was entered into is beyond me. That itself should be an issue for the civil courts, if anything. But to remove the ability of a purchaser to rely on a contract is, I think, a failure to protect that purchaser and a failure to protect the public from entering into contracts that end up being unenforceable from their point of view or at least not representing what they signed.

In any other area the contract is considered critical and important. It is a major piece of law, and here we are protecting the developer against an enforcement of a contract that has a material change to it. I just wanted to put my concerns on record, and I will be extremely interested in hearing the minister's discussion of this during committee. I believe this is a mistake. I believe that government is not acting in the proper interests of the public, and I would very much like to see the minister reconsider this amendment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to speak in support of some sections of this bill, some sections that I was quite pleased to see introduced, that the government has acknowledged needed a fix. I think there are some challenges with the section. I speak of

part 7. In

part 7 the Vital Statistics Act is amended to change various requirements around naming a child and name changes. It also allows changes to sex designation on birth certificates.

Just imagine if your birth certificate and your principal forms of ID have the wrong sex listed. If you felt to

[ Page 2291 ]

your core of cores that you were a man and yet your ID said you were a female or vice versa, this change will allow greater access to changing those very foundational documents. So transgender or intersex people in British Columbia will be able to have their ID accurately reflect who they are.

[1505]

I'd written to the minister some time ago making a similar request to this, and I'm glad that the minister acted. Of course, human rights changes in Ontario probably also had a push to get legislative drafters to act. Ontario found rules which required undergoing surgery to change one's parts, so to speak, to more accurately confirm and connect to our societal definition of what being female or what being male would entail. The courts in Ontario said that was discriminatory, that if you lived your life as a man or as a woman, regardless of the nether regions, you are that person and you should be respected as such.

That's something that we've talked about many times in this House. Of course, I've moved amendments to human rights legislation to say that transgendered people should be allowed to be who they are, should have explicit protections for gender identity and expression in the human rights code, and I continue to believe this. This is one way to slowly get there.

Many in the community have said: "Well, wait a second." Australia, Nepal, I believe, and a number of other countries and regions have decided to remove the sex identifier all together. Their argument is that gender, for some, is not exactly clear. Certainly, we've seen that, as non-traditional relationships and as strict family roles of the woman in the house and the man at work have shifted and as greater equality has been seen in our society and also our fundamental scientific understanding of gender has changed as well, our understanding is that it is a bit more of a fluid process.

Certainly, for young children who are born and genetically, physically, spiritually or socially do not define with one or another, there should be a change to allow for that variance, that difference, to be reflected on our birth certificates and ID as well. We should certainly value the full person, and one's dangly bits or non-dangly bits, however they may be, do not define the person. It is their heart that defines the person, their brain, their spirit.

I think that while this is a step forward, I would say that there's a lot more to do. I talked recently with a woman who had been in to the doctor. She had been born, at least according to the birth certificate, a male, but she always felt like she was a woman, and that was certainly how she lived her life. That, indeed, is of course what the medical science would later determine: yes, you are a woman, and you should live as a woman. She underwent a number of surgeries and is continuing to live a full life.

She went into the doctor because she still needed a prostate exam. She still needed to do that because of the way her body had been built. She still needed to go for a prostate exam. Now, they said: "But your birth certificate says you're female. You can't have a prostate exam." She had to try to explain to them, "Well no, I still have a prostate, and there are still certain things that I need to do," as somebody whose body may be one way and whose mind may be the other.

What the doctor ended up saying to her was: "Well, why don't we come up with a fake male name for you. You can list yourself as a male, even though you are a female by law, and we'll run you through the test and pretend you're a man." That's how we can get you through the health system because of their coding and the way that they have, I would say, discriminatory practices — practices that have not brought down through the entire law true equality for transgender individuals. There are cases like that all the time, in the health system in particular, in relation to transgender people.

This is one step, but I would urge the government to go further, to decide that human rights are rights that should be celebrated by all and that equality of transgender people should be celebrated by all — that should be taught to all, that should be understood by all, and that should be protected, of course, in the law, but explicitly protected by all. That's what we could do if we put a true lens of equality for transgender individuals on our law and in how we treat people across society.

[1510]

It's been a slow change. I think back to just nine years ago. I was on the park board in Vancouver, and I raised the question: how do we treat transgender individuals in our washrooms? How are staff trained to make sure these individuals are made welcome and not harassed in community facilities, as sometimes occurs?

The staff member at the time — and this was quite a high-paid staff member, somebody who had been working in the parks and recreation system for a long time — asked me: "Well, what does transgender mean?" They didn't even know. How could you, as a system, support transgender individuals if you didn't even know that they existed or what that might mean to a person?

To fast-forward nine years to today, to see our government finally responding to a call for a change like this is very hopeful — if it doesn't still go far enough. So I will be very supportive of that section.

Another

section of

part 8 I'll just spend a few moments on is adding heart disease into presumptions recognized by WorkSafe B.C. for firefighters. I believe that's the right move. The B.C. government had done this years and years ago and then for the intervening 13 years or so withdrew this presumption. I think it is a good step. I know there are certainly requests for breast cancer, as well, to be added to this section, as well as prostate cancer, which both Manitoba and Alberta include. This government has chosen not to do that, and those provinces have.

It's incredibly stressful work. We all talk to and praise

[ Page 2292 ]

and like to discuss how heroic our firefighters are, but it is important that we remember that that kind of work puts them in a place few others of us ever have to go. Some have raised questions — and I hope the minister can confirm this or explain how this will roll out. What about the volunteer firefighters? What about firefighters who've been trained to work not as a firefighter in the traditional sense but, say, a firefighter for B.C. Ferries. In one case, I've had a constituent raise that concern with me. Will they be covered? How do we determine who is covered?

How do we ensure that this kind of legislation is fair to those who may not be, traditionally, firefighters? They may have very similar health impacts and health injuries to them and, of course, then their families, as they may have to take time from work or may not be able to work at all. So I'm very supportive of that section.

I thought I'd raise two points in a large bill of many different points, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I always enjoy discussing these bills because there are little, surprisingly hidden things in them sometimes that often prove newsworthy — if people notice they're there at all — but also prove very important to communities. If you're not watching for them, sometimes they pass by without notice, and sometimes errors are made.

I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I thank the hon. minister for bringing it forward.

A. Weaver: I plan to take a similar stance and approach, as the member for Vancouver–West End, in focusing on specific themes within Bill 17 before us. Obviously, Bill 17 makes amendments to a number of different acts. I've only got questions on some of these amendments and, in particular, as to how they pertain to nurse practitioners.

I'd like to start with a story, a story raised to me by one of my constituents, as I feel that this story is quite enlightening. Last year the doctor of this constituent retired. The constituent was a mother of two, and what she did is what all parents would do: she'd start looking for a new family doctor. She called doctors' offices throughout the area and received the same message: none of them were accepting new patients.

Then what did she do? Well, she came to her MLA's office. When she came to our office, we also started together, searching and phoning to see if we could find a doctor for her. In fact, we phoned all around the capital region, and it wasn't until sometime later that we realized that there was not a single general practitioner accepting new patients south of Mill Bay.

Fortunately for this constituent, we managed to find a doctor who made an exception. But unfortunately for so many others, this problem is all too common. Too many people in B.C. lack easy access to primary care.

[1515]

I commend the government for the steps it's taking to solve this problem through its GP for Me program. The goal of providing everyone in B.C. with a doctor by 2015 is ambitious. The government's determination to maintain fiscal prudence, including in its health budget, raises the bar even higher.

The truth is we likely won't achieve this goal by 2015. Yet this is not a reason to give up or to lessen our resolve. While the goal of providing every British Columbian with a GP is ambitious, it's also necessary, so we are tasked with finding innovative, evidence-based solutions to this difficult challenge. One of those is nurse practitioners.

Nurse practitioners are registered nurses who've undergone an additional two years of training at the graduate level to qualify them to provide additional primary health services. They have been widely used in many parts of the United States and in Ontario and have been used in British Columbia since 2005.

Yet, compared to other jurisdictions, nurse practitioners remain a relatively underdeveloped profession here in British Columbia. To give you a sense, the B.C. Nurses Union represents some 40,000 nurses. In contrast, we have roughly 250 practising nurse practitioners. Part of this is because of limited funding and training positions for nurse practitioners in B.C., and

part is because of the limits placed on the scope of nurse practitioners in our legislation.

Again, I commend the government for taking steps here in the bill to remove some of those barriers to the scope of practice of nurse practitioners. Yet the truth is the steps taken in this bill are relatively small, and there is still much, much more that could be done.

According to the B.C. Nurse Practitioner Association, there are nearly 50 different acts and statutes that need to change to fully expand the scope of nurse practitioners so that we can make the best use of their role. Expanding the role of nurse practitioners can help increase access to primary care through team-based care models while also making our health care system more affordable. It can serve as one of the most innovative solutions we have available to us — to work alongside GPs in a team-based approach.

I know this is an area that the minister is already focused on, and I look forward to the further legislation being brought forward on this in the weeks, months and years ahead.

N. Simons: I want to add a few comments to the discussion about Bill 17. Obviously, it's a fairly substantial bill covering a lot of issues — everything from ensuring we define "parent" appropriately and making sure that nurse practitioners and medical professionals can take blood samples from hunters.

It runs the gamut, really — not to mention amending the Adoption Act to ensure that the adoptions that have taken place since 1996 in British Columbia aren't all going to be suddenly reversed. We're talking about 4,000 adoptions, all of which, apparently, are under a cloud

[ Page 2293 ]

until this legislation can be passed. Perhaps not. Perhaps that's a matter of opinion, and maybe this is just a point of clarification for the Adoption Act.

It's interesting to me, with all the troubles facing child welfare and the Ministry of Children and Families, that this is the one area that required immediate correction, despite the fact that the problem has existed since 1996, apparently. I'm looking forward to getting into some more detail around the changes that are being made to the Adoption Act.

I'd like to join my colleague from the West End in saying that I approve of those changes being made to the Vital Statistics Act to make life a little bit better for people who identify as transgender or people who do not fit into the categories that we so commonly just perpetuate. In that respect, I think that this bill offers a number of things to a number of different sectors in our community.

One particular change, in terms of how it affects mining and miners in this province. I think we've heard in this House concerns about fees for some small-scale or small mining companies and the fact that some of the costs associated with them doing business is going to be borne by the industry more than ever.

[1520]

I think it would be appropriate to make sure that we explore the Adoption Act issue in great detail. Clearly, it wasn't done appropriately in 1996 by the opposition of the time. I'm not going to blame them for that. But it's important that we do have a thorough discussion of all the legislation contained in Bill 17.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you to the members opposite for their comments, which we will have noted.

I move second reading of Bill 17.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 17 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act, 2014, 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. M. de Jong: I call Motion 9 standing on the order paper in the name of the Attorney General.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 9 — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO JUDGES COMPENSATION COMMISSION

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. S. Anton: I move Motion 9 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[That pursuant to

section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on February 18, 2014 as unfair and/or unreasonable for the reasons outlined in Government's Proposed Response to the Report of the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

1. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 of $241,500, an increase of 2.9%, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 is set at $236,950, which is a 1.0% increase.

2. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 of $245,122, an increase of 1.5%, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016 is set at $240,504, which is a 1.5% increase on the substituted salary for fiscal year 2014/15.

3. The recommended salary for puisne judges for April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 of $250,024, an increase of 2.0%, is rejected. The salary for April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 is set at $244,112, which is a 1.5% increase.

4. The recommended increase in the pension accrual rate for judges from 3% to 3.25% effective April 1, 2014 is rejected. The pension accrual rate is set at 3%.

5. Recommendation 5 that, effective April 1, 2014, government take steps to continue judges as active members in the Public Service Pension Plan to age 75 is accepted in part. Recommendation 5(d), to the extent that it applies to any retroactive measures, including return of pension payments, making back-contributions, or making interest payments, is rejected.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

I'd like to take a few minutes to speak to this motion respecting the compensation that is paid to the province's Provincial Court judges. The process that is followed to determine judges' compensation is necessarily different from collective bargaining. The reason for this is the need to ensure that judges are, and are seen to be, independent of government.

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our justice system. It is critical to our democracy, so that anyone who is accused of a crime or challenges government before the courts can be sure that their case will be decided by an impartial judge.

Instead of negotiating over judges' compensation, there's a process governed by the Judicial Compensation Act under which government and representatives of the judiciary make submissions to independent commissions every three years. These commissions, in turn, make recommendations to government setting out what the commissions believe would be the appropriate salaries and benefits for judges.

[ Page 2294 ]

[1525]

The government and this assembly are not bound to accept the commission's recommendations, but if we wish to depart from them, we must do so supported by reasons that satisfy a constitutional test that has been developed in case law over the years. Rejection of a commission recommendation must be based upon a rational reason that rests upon a factual foundation. In B.C. we have additional language in the Judicial Compensation Act that the Legislative Assembly must find a recommendation to be unfair or unreasonable before it can be rejected.

The courts have also affirmed, including in the most recent decision on judicial compensation by the B.C. Supreme Court, that the role of the Legislature is unique and paramount in determining the allocation of resources between competing priorities. These are decisions for which the executive and the Legislature are publicly accountable.

Before I address the response government is proposing, let me first say a few words about the judges of the Provincial Court. Although I have been Attorney General and Minister of Justice for only a short time, I can say that it is a privilege to serve in this office and to have the opportunity to engage with the Provincial Court judiciary. The vast majority of criminal cases are heard in the Provincial Court, as are a majority of family law matters as well as small claims. I am impressed with the dedication and commitment that our Provincial Court bench devotes to their work and to the British Columbians who appear before them.

Over the past few years great strides have been made in addressing some of the difficult challenges faced by the justice system. Government has done its part to meet those challenges by engaging in a systemic review of the system, including implementing the Justice Reform and Transparency Act and the Justice and Public Safety Council. The judiciary is an important participant in these justice reform efforts.

Turning now to the government's proposed response to the 2013 Judges Compensation Commission, I can say that responding to reports of this kind often involves making difficult decisions. We are guided by the need to respect the independent commission process in order to ensure that judicial independence is preserved. We are also required to formulate a response that pays heed to the fiscal imperatives within which government must operate.

It is government's task to balance the competing interests and demands on public resources and to present our spending proposals to the Legislative Assembly for approval. We are the ones who are accountable for the expenditure of public funds.

The commission's report makes eight recommendations respecting judges' remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion, we propose that the commission's salary recommendations be rejected, that one pension recommendation be rejected and that one pension recommendation be accepted in part.

In making this proposal, I can assure all members of the House that we looked carefully at what the commission recommended. Detailed reasons are contained in the response document appended to the notice accompanying this motion. I'd like to highlight some general principles that underlie these reasons.

In light of the current fiscal situation facing the province, government agrees with the commission that a modest increase in the salary of judges for the period covered by the commission's report is justified. However, we differ on the appropriate amount of that increase.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has achieved a balanced budget. This has not come easily. Above all, it has happened because government has been extremely disciplined when it comes to spending.

In particular, as part of the restraint measures government has implemented over the past few years, we have been very careful in limiting compensation increases paid by public funds. We continue to freeze the salaries of management employees and have implemented other restraint measures, such as severely restricting public service hiring and slowing the growth of health spending, in order to meet our fiscal targets.

If all of the 2013 commission's recommendations were to be accepted, the total cost to government for judges' compensation over the three years covered by the report would be approximately $7.9 million. Government's proposed response, if accepted, would reduce that total fiscal impact to around $3.5 million.

The commission's recommendations respecting salaries, if accepted, would result in a cumulative fiscal impact of about $5.3 million for judges' salaries over the three years covered by the commission's report. The salary increase for each judge would be more than $15,000.

Government's proposed increase will result in a fiscal impact of approximately $3 million for judges' salaries, a difference of $2.3 million from what the commission recommended. Our proposed response would still provide an increase of 4 percent, or approximately $9,500 per judge over the three years.

[1530]

The proposed increase, in our view, strikes the appropriate balance between making a fiscally responsible decision while recognizing the work of the provincial judiciary.

We believe that our proposal largely meets the commission's stated goals respecting modest increases for judicial salaries, albeit with greater weight placed on the need for ongoing restraint in order to ensure the continued financial health of the province. Within the justice system, which continues to face cost pressures, the difference of $2.3 million I noted earlier is a meaningful amount of money.

[ Page 2295 ]

Government also recommends that the assembly accept the commission's recommendations to make some adjustments to judges' pensions. These adjustments include taking steps to seek an exemption from the federal Minister of National Revenue so that judges who continue to sit full-time to age 75 would continue to remain members of the pension plan.

As members in the House may know, normally age 71 is the cutoff for pension plan membership, and after that age, a person must begin collecting their pension. However, judges, uniquely, are appointed with tenure to age 75, so the commission has recommended that they be permitted to remain in the pension plan until they retire.

We do not believe, however, that retroactive steps should be taken in respect of a few judges over age 71 who have already begun receiving their pensions. This would require reclaiming pension benefits received and calculating retroactive pension contributions that would need to be made by both government and the affected judges. It would require changes to pension legislation, specifically for the affected judges, and it would also officially change the individual incomes of those judges for past taxation years, which we do not understand to be permitted under the federal Income Tax Act.

Special consideration for a few judges risks personalizing compensation decisions, which, as a matter of policy, should normally be avoided. However, we propose to accept the part of the recommendation that would permit the affected judges to re-enrol in the pension plan on a prospective basis only. Again, that is dependent on the federal approval which I have referred to earlier.

Finally, we again propose to reject a recommendation that there should be an increase in the rate at which judicial pensions accrue. The current accrual rate of 3 percent already takes into account the fact that most judges are appointed relatively late in their working lives. Judicial pensions, as they stand, are more than fair and reasonable, and we do not believe that the public purse should bear a greater expense in order to enhance those pensions.

I would like to conclude by thanking all of the participants in the 2013 compensation process, particularly the commissioners, who I know undertook their responsibilities faithfully — Mr. Simon Margolis, QC, chair; Robin McFee, QC; Randy Kaardal; Kirsten Tisdale; and Roy Stuart.

L. Krog: There was a time when it was regarded in certain classes of society that it was quite distasteful to discuss the topic of money, whether it be value or income or an asset base. Unfortunately, in our system, the only way to deal with judges' compensation is to discuss it very openly. They are subject to public scrutiny, not in the same way politicians are, I suppose, but certainly their salaries are made public and are the subject of public debate around this motion today.

Let me say at the outset that the opposition will be supporting the government motion.

It is very hard to say to the public, generally at any time, that public servants — whether they be high or low on the scale, whether it be an independent office of the Legislature, members of the Legislature themselves, the judiciary or anyone — receive increases when many in the public are, in fact, worried about whether or not they'll retain their employment, let alone see any increase in what they're paid or what the basis of their remuneration might be, particularly those on commission, with a declining economy, who see their incomes drop. Notwithstanding, they're still there. They're still working.

They're still trying to sell things.

Having said that, I would suggest that what is proposed here is, in fact, reasonable, that it passes that commonsense test of reasonableness.

I suspect that if you said to many of these judges — and I am pulling this out of the air to some extent — "Guarantee me that I'll see 10 percent less SRLs, self-represented litigants, in my courtroom," they would happily forgo an increase in salary.

[1535]

As the Attorney General very wisely and ably pointed out, it is the Provincial Court where the people rub up against the justice system in a very real and meaningful way. Certainly, in the Court of Appeal and the B.C. Supreme Court you do see self-represented litigants. It's a fairly substantive figure but nothing in the way that you see it in Provincial Court, day in, day out, whether it be in the small claims division, family court or the criminal courts.

There judges are confronted with the often very difficult circumstance of facing two litigating parties, one of whom may have representation, the benefit of legal counsel, and the other who may not. Trying to navigate that particular fact pattern and achieve justice — and leave both litigants feeling, as they should after any hearing, that justice was done, even though they may not like the decision — is no small task.

As much as we give great honour and respect to those who sit on the Provincial Court bench, they also do expect to be paid for what they do. Certainly compared to some senior partners in major law firms in Vancouver, compensation may seem rather modest, but as the judges grow older, they will come to appreciate that having a pension at the end of their days might not seem such a bad concept.

Moreover, I'm not advised by any of the Attorneys General that I've been acquainted with over the last few years that there's a shortage of applicants for the Provincial Court bench either. Indeed, the possibility of sitting on the bench is still regarded as the general pinnacle of a legal career, and the mere honour of the appointment is not to be discounted. But what we're dealing with here today is the compensation for what, as I said earlier, is an extremely difficult task. The Provincial Court judges

[ Page 2296 ]

have to work hard. They hear numerous cases in a given day, day after day trying to do justice between parties.

On the criminal side, I would argue that there's a semblance of a legal aid system left, so they don't see as many unrepresented people charged with criminal offences. Nevertheless, they do see people charged with criminal offences who don't know the law, who are there defending themselves and for whom, again, the judges in a sense have to bend over backwards trying to ensure that justice is done.

You can't sit on the bench and pretend you're ignorant of what the law is or what possible defences may exist. When you're hearing the difficult matters that arise when a family unit or a relationship breaks down or the care and parenting of children or the access to those children is involved, you can't help but appreciate all of the difficult legal principles that apply. To render justice takes no small amount of skill.

I guess, like the Attorney General, I want to conclude here by expressing my thanks to the Provincial Court bench for what they do but asking them to acknowledge that when many, many British Columbians are struggling to survive and when you consider that a person on basic social assistance in this province is getting a little over $600 a month to live on entirely, the compensation for judges seems eminently reasonable.

As much as I appreciate the work of the commission and likewise thank them for the work they've done, I think the balance that is being struck by this…. One could argue that that's the nature of politics: to strike a balance. I would argue that the balance struck by this motion is in fact the correct one. It protects, if you will, the concept that judges should be compensated for what is a difficult job but at the same time takes account of the public's willingness to pay for their justice system.

None of us know whether we're ever going to run up against it or need it. But knowing that it's there and that there are people of great competence hearing the issue on the Provincial Court bench is important, I think the compensation as proposed is reasonable, and the opposition will support the government.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Motion carried unanimously.

[1540]

Hon. S. Thomson: I call Motion 10.

MOTION 10 — GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

JUDICIAL JUSTICES COMPENSATION

COMMISSION REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

Hon. S. Anton: I move Motion 10, standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[That pursuant to

section 6 (2) of the Judicial Compensation Act the Legislative Assembly:

a. reject the following recommendations of the Report of the 2013 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission as laid before this Assembly on February 18, 2014 as unfair and/or unreasonable for the reasons outlined in Government’s Proposed Response to the Report of the 2013 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission filed in this House; and

b. set the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the rejected recommendations;

as follows:

The recommended salary increase effective April 1, 2014 of 5% is rejected. The salary increase effective April 1, 2014 is set at 1.5%.

That the Legislative Assembly accept the remaining recommendations contained in the report.]

The general comments I made earlier with respect to the Provincial Court judges apply equally to the judicial justices of the peace. JJPs, as they're often called, have two broad responsibilities. They sit in Provincial Court to adjudicate traffic and bylaw ticket matters, and they staff the justice centre to hear applications for search warrants and interim release, also known as bail applications.

JJPs deal with a very large number of matters, day in and day out, both in Provincial Court and at the justice centre, and we rely on them to dispense justice both quickly and fairly.

There is a separate independent commission that issues a report and recommendations with respect to JJPs' compensation, but the process is the same as for judges. The judicial independence I spoke of earlier applies, as well, as it is imperative that they are, and are perceived to be, independent arbiters of the matters that come before them.

While we have considered the report of the 2013 Judicial Justices Compensation Commission on its own, the general circumstances facing government that I spoke of earlier are no different when it comes to proposing how this House should respond to the commission's recommendations. We must respect the independent commission process in order to ensure that judicial independence is preserved, but we must formulate a response that pays heed to the fiscal imperatives within which government must operate.

The commission's report makes seven recommendations respecting judicial justices remuneration, benefits and allowances. As set out in the motion and in the detailed reasons accompanying the motion, we propose that six of those recommendations be accepted and one be rejected.

Among the recommendations we propose to accept are, firstly, salary increases in the second and third years of 2 percent each year. Secondly, a change to the formula for calculating the daily per diem of those judicial justices who are appointed on a per-diem basis. This change will result in an increase of some 5 percent for those per-diem judicial justices. Thirdly, increases in the professional development allowance and educational leave provisions.

The one recommendation we propose to reject would

[ Page 2297 ]

provide judicial justices with a 5 percent salary increase in 2014-15, the first year covered by the commission's report. We propose substituting a 1.5 percent increase in that year.

The comments I made earlier with regard to the fiscal realities facing government apply equally here. The commission's recommendations respecting salaries, if accepted, would result in a cumulative increase of 9.2 percent for judicial justices over the three years covered by the commission's report. Government's proposed response would reduce that increase to 5.6 percent over the three years and would thereby reduce the fiscal impact by almost half.

While the salary component of judicial justices is not a large component of the overall justice budget, it is nonetheless necessary for government to ensure that we adhere to our fiscal plan, which includes continuing measures for expenditure restraint.

[1545]

The proposed increase, in our view, strikes the appropriate balance between making a fiscally responsible decision while recognizing the work of the judicial justices. We do differ with the commission's view that the salary gap between judicial justices and the Provincial Court judges must be narrowed. However, the proposed response would ensure that the gap will not increase over the period of time covered by the commission's recommendations.

I would like to conclude by thanking all of the participants in the 2013 Judicial Justice Commission process, including the several representatives of the judicial justices who made individual and collective submissions to the commission. In particular, I would like to thank the commissioners: Murray Clemens, QC, chair; David Butcher, QC; Randy Kaardal; Bev Park; and Dr. Brian Burtch.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

L. Krog: I will be extremely brief and commence by repeating what the Attorney General concluded her remarks with, and that is thanks to the commission for doing the work that it did. I think I can safely sum this up with the old line: sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The compensation proposed for Provincial Court judges and, likewise, for judicial justices, by the two motions — one of which is already passed by the second motion — I think is the appropriate response for all of the reasons that I outlined in my earlier remarks, speaking to Motion 9 on the order paper. That is appropriate for a whole series of reasons. It is the time to be reasonable.

Again, I'm not advised that there is any great shortage of applicants for these positions either. It is, I think, always to be recognized that it is an aspect of public service, and it is an honour to receive an appointment such as this. The compensation is not unreasonable in comparison to many other positions in society or in the public service. So I'm not going to draw this out anymore but simply say that the opposition in fact supports Motion 10.

Hon. S. Anton: I move Motion 10.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I call continued committee stage debate for Bill 13, the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — OFF-ROAD VEHICLE ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:48 p.m.

Sections 20 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

N. Macdonald: As we wrap up the committee stage on this bill, for those that are just picking up with Hansard here, of course it's a bill that we, as opposition, have indicated our support for. There are just a few questions we have as we continue with the legislation.

[1550]

Starting on 26, the figure of $2,000 is a fine. Presumably that is a figure that is consistent with other acts. I think the best way to word the question would be to ask the minister to provide the rationale for the $2,000 limit for the fine and to explain where that figure comes from.

Hon. S. Thomson: As pointed out, there are three levels of fines in the legislation — $2,000, a fine not more than $5,000 and a fine not more than $5,000 or six months' imprisonment or both. It's important to point out that the previous fines were, under…. The Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act had a maximum fine of only $500, and we felt that higher offence amounts were necessary due to the nature of the offence and to ensure the work towards compliance.

It is consistent with other legislation. The Motor Vehicle Act itself has a maximum fine of $2,000, but it's important to point out that in that legislation not only is it the maximum fine, but there's also the point system, which provides for additional financial penalties in those cases, depending on the number of points. That's why we looked at the staged process, consistent with an initial fine of $2,000 for the more minor infractions and things and then an increasing level of fines throughout the process for the more serious infractions.

[ Page 2298 ]

Section 26 approved.

section 27.

N. Macdonald: Again, just to question the….

Section 27 sets a time limit for the commencement of prosecution, and the period given is within two years. Again, the question is: is this something that is standard with other pieces of legislation that are in some ways similar to this legislation, or is there a different rationale for that period of time?

Hon. S. Thomson: As pointed out, the time limit is two years. This is consistent with comparable legislation. For example, the Forest and Range Practices Act has some as two and some as three. But this was set at the two years to be, first of all, after the date on which the facts become knowledgable, and it allows, in some cases, the offences from other acts to be bundled when an offender may be facing multiple fines.

Depending on the nature of the offence, it may be an offence under this act, but it may be also causing an offence under other legislation or other regulations as well, so it's bundled to be consistent with those other pieces of legislation.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

N. Macdonald: Basically, this

section sets outs the fact that the owner of the off-road vehicle is responsible for that vehicle and any contravention of the act. Whether the person is driving it at the time or not, the responsibility sits with the owner of the off-road vehicle. Specifically, vicarious liability is laid out here.

I guess the question for those businesses that rent ATVs or snowmobiles: how does it apply to those sorts of businesses?

[1555]

Hon. S. Thomson: What is important to recognize here is that this definition relates back to

section 1, which will be the prescribed definition of an owner. In the cases of rental or leasing companies, they would be prescribed out of the liability for this section, so the requirements here would not relate to rental or leasing companies. That would be referenced back in the definition of prescribing the owner under the definition.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

section 30.

N. Macdonald: My understanding with this and a series of sections is that it basically gives the minister the ability to create regulations and to modify those regulations over time. I guess the question is: are those regulations ready both for this

section and for subsequent sections, or is it going to be a period of time before the regulations are completely ready?

Hon. S. Thomson: First of all, it's important to point out that this is regulation-making power through order-in-council, so not ministerial regulation, but also to point out that various stages of regulation development are underway. What's important here is that I think we indicated, in earlier discussions prior to the break week, on this around the timing of when we hoped we would be able to bring implementation in for the legislation this fall.

I also want to point out that it will be important. We've had a very, very engaging process with our stakeholder groups through the process — the advisory groups. We will need to continue that engagement with that broad advisory group as we develop the regulations. That's our commitment — to do that.

The concepts of the regulations are in, as part of the engagement process, and the consultations we've had are there. But in terms of finalizing, we will need, once the legislation is passed, to work with those groups with a view to bringing the regulatory side of it in place by this fall.

N. Macdonald: For the benefit of the Chair, the next question I have will be on

section 55. If the Chair wanted to ask questions on the sections based on that information, that would be fine.

Sections 30 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

N. Macdonald:

Section 55 deals with the special account that has been set up. Of course, this is one of the things that the minister has referenced a number of times. Also, when this legislation was first talked about back in 2005, my understanding is that this was a fairly major part of it.

I guess the question then is: can the minister explain how this account is going to work? Also, if the minister could put on the record a sense of the timeline for that account.

[1600]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is, as the member opposite has pointed out, an important component of the legislation, and something that the groups have requested be included in bringing the legislative package forward so that we have that opportunity in the future to be able to establish the fund.

It comes in under

section 5 of the Special Accounts

[ Page 2299 ]

Appropriation and Control Act. That establishes a number of other funds. The forest stand management fund has three subaccounts in it now — environmental remediation, small-scale salvage subaccount and silviculture payments subaccount. So an additional subaccount would b